What do I mean by "Roleplaying Clubs"? I mean wargaming clubs that
- operate an actual chain of command in which the individual command positions have a function (reporting, communication, rallying the boys) rather than being mere decorative sinecures;
- place a high emphasis of choosing a side in the games and identifying with it, both in the games and beyond;
- make "roleplay"--at minimum the use of ranks, command positions and titles in club communication, both on and off the boards, but frequently also the actual assuming of a typical historical posture and habitus by members an important part of everyday club life.
In short, I mean the ACWGC and its sister clubs, the NWC and CCC. And I believe they are on the way out.
It's something I have been observing for a while now. It's nothing dramatic, just a continuous development, by small steps, in a certain direction. The symptoms are manifold, and they can be noticed throughout the clubs:
<b>1. A declining willingness to assume responsibility for the operation of the club and its armies on command on staff positions, or by way of voluntary contributions.</b> Sure, a majority of the members has always seen the clubs as a place merely for playing games. But the majority seems to have grown overwhelming in recent years. When I came here in 2001, it was actually considered an honor to be offered a division command, and certainly not something one would light-heartedly decline. I seem to recall that frequently fellow officers would be disappointed to be passed over when a vacancy occurred! Nowadays, it has become near impossible to find even a single candidate for a vacant command position; as army commander, I have frequently been just short of disbanding an army corps because I could not find an officer to lead it. Last year, the AoJ remained without a commander for many months, and the ANV, an army full of three- and four-stars, ended up with a Brigadier General at its head. My hat's off to the officer in question, but what a change from three to four years ago, when there would have been a race for such an opportunity. Likewise, when I took over the War College in early 2002, we had several voluntary contributions per month even before the War College Prize was created to attract more interest. And if you look now ... people no longer take the time to do things beyond gaming.
<b>2. The demise of roleplaying.</b> I can still remember the time, even though I was a late-comer to it, when a challenge on the board would involve a story that usually started with "the grizzled old general walks into the tavern ..." and arrive at the actual challenge only after a colorful tale of battlefield exploits and barroom fights. Nowadays a challenge reads "need Reb for ...".
Likewise, the outward signs of military rank and position have increasingly been banned from everyday club life and confined to formal environments like army websites. Today you need explicit rules to make sure that people use their rank and name in board posts rather than a fantasy user name. I can foresee a time in the near future where they will start addressing each other with the board user name just like on any discussion board out there in the net. Even today, asking a junior member to give a senior officer his rank in addressing him can be considered somewhat out of line; when I joined, five years ago, it was not even necessary because doing so went without saying.
<b>3. Declining willingness to identify with a side.</b> I understand--this was way before my time--that the club was formed from two earlier associations of people who preferred to play a certain side in the game--either Reb or Union. Choosing one side over the other upon enlistment was until recently also a choice for a side in the games.
I always used to think that this had many advantages. Being faced with the same problems and capitalizing upon the same things in the games created solidarity. A Union man was invariably someone who knew all about C&C problems, rarely played aggressively when he had a choice, and loved artillery. A typical Reb was an overly aggressive player and a cavalry expert. This identification with one side also meant it made sense to write side-specific approaches to tactical problems or certain battles, from which for instance the War College benefited.
Sadly, this is no longer en vogue. The first demand was for the club rules to be amended so that full points would be earned by switching sides in a game. When I joined this combination was still a maneuver, so you could as well play them against your own side and regard this a training for the actual "battle" against the enemy. Now this distinction has been abolished, and we can fight the opposition and gain full points while leading enemy troops. Fairly odd, if you ask me. I do it, alright, but I have also earlier often played Reb against Federals for maneuver points. From a wargaming perspective it is alright, but it has certainly loosened the ties between people of the same side. You need something to identify with if you want to be a group. What is it now? The next step is likely to be the demand that the maneuver/battle distinction be abolished entirely and games against fellow officers from the same side count full club points. That will come, no doubt. Then if they can even "fight" against each other, with no distinction whatsoever from a fight against the opposition, what does the members of one side bind together?
I don't know what the reasons are for all this, but I believe that it is a change of generation. When these clubs were young, in the late 1990s, internet communities were a novelty. Today, most of us are in very many clubs like these, and additionally attend discussion forums all over the internet. It's only natural that we spend less time on each community, that we identify less, that we come to regard it all the same, and that we feel more anonymous, less involved, more detached. Gaming will remain important; the community won't. I believe the roleplaying clubs are already well on the way towards becoming mere ladders, where the armies and all that comes with them are just a decorative element that provides some contemporary flair and doesn't inspire people much to participate, contribute, identify. Recently, in one of our sister clubs, a junior member criticized one of the most senior members for addressing him with his club rank. He pointed out that he had a christian name and expected to be addressed with that one, because "these ranks are not real". Sure they aren't. All this is just make pretend. But then so are wargames. For me, the implicit recognition that comes with ranks or titles or even a command position in a club is still something valuable. But then I've been here for so long I feel like I was a different man when I joined, and I have long ago become a part of this club, its tradition, its history. Would I join a club like this today, being the man that I am now, in 2005, I would probably not develop the same kind of identification and attachment again. I would likely regard this as just another place to play games. And seems that's what it's rapidly becoming.
Does it make sense to complain about all that? If it's just the natural way of things? I don't know. But it sure makes me feel sad.
Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
AoS