On 22 Feb 2021, RockyMountainNavy posted an
article here on the Dragoons regarding Harold Buchanan & His Historical Simulation Engagement Profile, mentioning Ananda Gupta, an article by Patrick Carroll in The General Volume 25, Nr. 5 from 1989, and Jon Peterson’s latest book,
Elusive Shift. Blah, blah, blah, trigger some discussion and welcomed comments, blah, blah.
Note: I haven't seen Buchanan's article. Anybody got a link?
Anyway, I have some comments.
HistoryIn his discussion of Buchanan's "History" attribute, RockyMountainNews (hereafter RMN, because it's more fun to type) writes, "I’m trying to think of a wargame that players play only because it represents 'their views of the history.'" One immediately comes to mind: a person who refuses to play
Fire in the Lake (and in fact seems to seriously dislike it) because it, in my interpretation of his words, moves the focus away from a purely military analysis of the war into social dynamics and politics, and views the Vietnam War in the light of counterinsurgency thought rather than military attrition. He claims that the result is "scripted". (You probably know who I'm talking about at this point. Yes, he's irritating. However, he knows a lot and freely shares that (often irritatingly) with others. I'm in no way casting aspersions on anyone. Or asparagus, for that matter.) That does seem to me to be a fine example of a (generous) interpretation of Buchanan's attribute.
MechanicsRMN: "Harold doesn’t explicitly say it here, but I feel like he is communicating that “good” mechanics have “elegance” whereas more simulationist wargames are, by default, “bad.”" Again, there are certain people floating around who feel that "wargames" reached their peak in the old SPI era, with complete knowledge, complete freedom to act, and an odd-based CRT. Any move away from that, either with a new mechanic for a new mechanic's sake or in an attempt to simulate some other aspect of a conflict (or any conflict) is a dilution, a retreat from that peak. That may not be precisely what Buchanan says, but it seems a reasonable interpretation of what he's getting at. Sort of.
The profile diagramRMN: "One question I have for Harold concerns the “area” of the graph for a given wargamer. Is it possible in your taxonomy to “max out” every category? Or, does the “sum” of the five attributes have to equal 100%, meaning the more you are in one attribute the less you must be in another?"
Yeah, I don't get those graphs either. The attributes are almost certainly independent and the area inside the diagram has
no meaning whatsoever.
GatekeeperWhenever I see a list of archetypes, I have the urge to hum the theme song to Borges' "
Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge", which is somewhat unfortunate since I have no idea what that theme song would be. Slotting all wargamers (and near-wargamers?) into 5 categories might be fun and all, but I'm not sure it is a useful exercise, much less meaningful (or is that the other way around?), especially when some of them are "good" and the rest "bad".
On the other hand, I have myself run across examples of what can undeniably be called a "gatekeeper". The examples I've seen have significant overlap with those who profess the "wargame = SPI-style" belief, but I would not want to call that a requirement; it was concluded that I am not a wargamer primarily because I not only didn't usually play games with others, I don't necessarily play them at all.
The bottom-lineI don't believe that trying to separate people into "archetypes" is a worthwhile endeavor. And "To me, a Gatekeeper is defined by their attitude and actions and not by the games they play – or don’t," is exactly right. But, I think Buchanan's attributes have some utility, even if he did not express them well (or is not thinking about them correctly, unlike myself of course).
On the other hand, RMN's comment, "Harold’s model may also have use as a descriptor of historical wargames instead of players," is a very good point. Compare his attributes with the Little War TV's folks'
rule review criteria. On the other, other hand, using the attributes in that way breaks my interpretation of what Buchanan was trying to get at with those attributes. (Which makes me sad.)
I'm not sure where this belongs in the forum, but I 'spose I can hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Or whack me with a stick.