Another Point of Singularity

I recently noticed this thread, posted to TMP by a friend of mine:

I've recently become interested in designing and developing what I call "Peace Games" These use many of the elements, equipment, and forensics of war games, but do not involve combat or even conflict. Part of the reason is that frankly I've become turned off by the constant carnage, bloodshed, and fixation on destruction, murder and mahem, and have turned to some lighter venues. These games are interesting for me in that they do not necessarily postulate a "king of the hill" type winner, but rather ones where none, one, some, or all can win, and the game can be one of cooperation and consensus as well as conflict.

TMP being the kind of place it is, immediately some people reacted in a high dudgeon, especially "NVDoyle" who replied:

What a fascinating (and insulting) cariacture of wargaming.

And FirstVa79 agrees, saying:

Agreed. I've never run into anyone who approached wargaming as "fetishistic violence", or had a "fixation on destruction". There may be a 1% that is like that, but they aren't among the people I game with. Maybe his wargaming group is a bunch of Skinheads?

For the most part, however, it was a reasonably amicable discussion about the merits of games that don't include ritual violence as their main theme... some suggestions were:

• "Matrix" style cooperative games


• Cheapass Games (as inspiration)


• The Great Chicago Fire


• Moonshine Running via automobiles


• Competitive Eqyptian pyramid building with proper use of different work crews and resources


• yacht racing with crew repositioned on each boat based on wind direction and course changes


• Airshow (think WWI manuevers with flight tests to score points with judges)


• Cattle driving


• Two teams racing to lay track to connect the intercontinental railroad — whoever gets to the center of the board wins.


• Space game — divert the asteroid before it wipes out the Earth.


• Firing line — marksmanship competition?


• Junta (boardgame example


• Civilization (boardgame example


• "There was a Red Dwarf episode where they visited a version of Earth being run backwards. Wars were considered wonderful things because so many people sprung back to life, and they ended with declarations of peace. Try wargaming a battle like that: "You rolled boxcars. The 3rd Guards battalion gains 5 men, and you march backwards 3 paces!"

A pretty good list. I like the "War is backward" snippet from Red Dwarf and the Moonshine racing game. Both will be looked into.

Of course, this being TMP, certain mean spirited chaps had to show up and belittle and condemn... namely "FriendsofJohnHolly" and "John Holly", who seemed to have a grudge against the poster offline, so it kind of got ruined after they started flinging poo.

However, some good points were brought up. Here's one from "Bob and his Dog"

I have been working on Historical Miniatures Games that are not combat oriented. It is easy to develop "verbal" boardgame-like games in this genre but not so easy to create games that use the artificats of wargames — figures, terrain, buildings, etc.

Good point. I've been trying to adopt a form of NOMIC to miniatures games for a while now. The game has the trappings of a wargame, in that you arrive on the field with troops, and they have abilities, and they're all trying to capture objectives, but the rules of the game (card driven) change the basic foundation of the game so that literally ANYTHING, including how you win and if you kill someone or not, changes as part of winning itself.

Is that a peace game? Well not in the strictest sense but I hope so.

My own "Le Grand Cirque: Adventures in the Steam age" and "Balloonacy" both seem to qualify, in that both are race games. The objective is peaceful enough-- to win a race. However, both games allow conflict (and often phyisical conflict) to enter into the equation. It's quite possible to attack another player in both designs.

Is this peaceful? Well, no, but in that it's not the strictest sense but also the conflict isn't the focus of the game itself. And the violence is pretty bloodless.

Now, the Amish Rake Fight series, Ho-Ho-Holocaust and Sergeant Slaughter in Bun-Bun Land are violent games, aren't they?

Sure, if you take them all at face value.

But those games were about a lot more than slaughter, mass murder and the destruction of the innocents. ARF was about confronting the forces of progress, the North Pole game about consumerism, and Bun-Bun land was a game about first contact (and not jumping to conclusions). In a sense, violence (or NOT using violence) was a key element of the game, but the implications of that decision (to use violence) is ALSO part of the game, itself. So violence is actually lampooning itself, you might say. Maybe not "peace games" but something far short of war, I think.

In any event, before the *ssholes showed up and screwed everything up with personal attacks, it was a pretty good thread and fairly thought-provoking. And I think the idea of a reverse battle game (a la that Red Dwarf snippet, above) kicks serious ass.

You may be seeing that one someday. Start with lots and lots and lots and lots of casualty figures...