Stepping Down as Historical Editor

[gladesrunnerParticipant 2608xp 1]

Wow!  I think you are working even harder after stepping down that you did when you had an official title!

[angelicdespot 4689xp 1]

@oriskany – just for the record, I’m not sure we disagreed as often as you may have thought.

I’m intersted in history and in military history, I think I approach it from a different angle to you, and I’m not afraid of or uninterested in healthy debate.   But it’s very rare that I’ve approached one of your series with a sense of feeling that I know enough to really be able to challenge what you’ve been saying.

Lots of my questions and ‘testing’ or ‘probing’ of your position has been me genuinely exploring your views, testing my own thoughts on the subject rather than from a place of thinking you’re wrong (even just in emphasis).   In face to face debates it’s sometimes fun to play devil’s advocate just for the hell of it.   Online, I’m more likely to do it to explore a subject and test my own thoughts as much as challenge someone else.   At least in this kind of venue where a respectful debate has been all but guaranteed.

Anyway, I’ve always enjoyed our conversations – and as long as Sitrep continues to be accessible via BoW I’ll make the effort to drop by and try it out from time to time even if I’m not likely to be a regular.

[oriskany 60771xp 0]

Thanks, @gladesrunner – workload will honestly depend on how well the SitRep does, especially here on BoW.  With more and more focus sliding toward 40K (sigh), we definitely have an uphill battle ahead of us.  Then again, maybe we can tap into the segment of the community that’s looking for a little more.  Who knows?

No worries, @angelicdespot – I’m always up for a respectful debate, assuming I know up front that’s what I’m in for.  There were days where honestly I’d been beaten up a little in the forums, or had a rough launch, etc., and then when someone comes to “probe” or “test” my positions and the intentions weren’t the most clear at first, I just respectfully declined.  Like we say so often with internet discussions, sometimes intent or inflection or non-verbal communication just isn’t very clear.

But no worries.  Hopefully you’ll enjoy some of our shorter, non-podcast videos we’ll be putting out in the future.

[horus500 11505xp 1]

@oriskany I’m sad to see you move along but happy that you’ll be moving into other gaming related ventures. I personally have loved some of the historical ‘What-ifs?’ you’ve presented and the depth of the historical gaming projects you’ve presented whilst at BoW, ooppps! I mean OTT.

[warworksdkParticipant 1221xp 2]

@oriskany

I was afraid you might say something like that.

While it’s far from every historical period that interests me, I still enjoy reading about them (though I might not comment as much due to a lack of knowledge in the area). Historical are a pretty big part of tabletop gaming, and not covering them thoroughly is, in my humble opinion, a big mistake.

I guess it’s a bit of a catch-22. No-one’s covering it because no-one’s interested because no-one’s covering it because…

[limburger 21679xp 1]

I think the ’40k’ is a challenge for a lot of things within the ‘tabletop’ community.
The historical side isn’t alone in this ‘struggle’ for attention and an audience.

Heck, over the years I’ve seen various games gain a dominant position that ‘threatened’ the ‘not as popular/accessible’ ones simply because they were ‘easier’ to get into. It reminds me of how ‘magic the gathering’ had an impact and how video games have taken a piece of the community as well. Neither succeeded in the death of a genre. In the end they added to the diversity of the hobby as formats were challenged and content was shared.

There will always be those who only ever want to see whatever is within their comfort zone/area of interest.
Nothing wrong with that, because time is a precious resource for all of us.

To me the fact that OTT has shown every aspect of this hobby (and will continue to do so) is what is the most interesting of a community hub like this.
Even if I don’t play ‘modern’ (yet) the scenarios and history can still provide inspiration for different genres.
As such I hope SitRep grows and gains its own audience because in the end more is more.

[oriskany 60771xp 0]

Thanks very much, @horus500 .  I certainly didn’t want to make anyone sad, I’m just getting the feeling that the Sitrep will be a better fit for me going forward.  Certainly more of a “bigger fish in a smaller pond” situation, but that suits me fine.  I just want to be clear that I’m still with the community, and of course I earnestly, sincerely hope that OTT/BoW and Sitrep keep working together long, long into the future.

Indeed, @warworksdk – I have to agree with what you say.  Now I honestly feel the site / team is trying to put historical material up on the site, with Blood Red Skies, Cruel Seas, new Arab-Israeli Wars unboxings, TwoFatLardies videos, World War Zero, the new Battlefront Late War stuff, etc.

It’s just being handled very casually.  It’s never center stage, and it’s never really right.  Which I suppose is fine for casual wargamers, but the history fans are noticing (they’re the main audience for this material, after all).

Again, all this is fine from an audience or business perspective.  But when you’re the Historical Editor and you can’t really improve the quality or accuracy of historical content that’s being produced, it just gets depressing.

Anyway, not to get all “doom and gloom” about it, but by stepping down I removed the source of any potential friction going forward.

[warworksdkParticipant 1221xp 1]

@oriskany

The difference, I feel, is that you’re one of the few who really dig into the historical side of the game, dedicating a fair time to explaining the reason for why the battle was fought the way it was.

Much of the other stuff feels… Well… A bit “game-ish”, if that makes sense. It focuses on the game itself, rather than the historical when, where, and why.

Not that this is bad, by any means. BoW should be big enough to offer both viewpoints. And I’m definitively going to miss your in-depth treatment of the historical side.

[oriskany 60771xp 0]

@warworksdk – I would agree with that as well, only adding that everyone says how important narrative is to war gaming, which is true, but the narrative for historical war gaming IS the historical background, context, and accuracy.

So I just feel you really can’t divorce the one from the other, even though of course many casual gamers have no problem doing just that.

Fair enough.  To each their own.  🙂

[torros 23808xp 1]

With the number of scenarios on the web or in books that people have written or are published in periodicals like Society of Twentieth Century wargames it does seem a waste just to do points based engagement battles all the time

[blackspiralParticipant 1659xp 1]

Thanks for your work! Now maybe we can get more Battletech content from you since you won’t be so busy with that boring historical stuff! 🙂

[oriskany 60771xp 0]

@torros – I agree 100%.  The best games I feel, don’t even support point-based play, at least when it comes to list building.  Mission parameters are just too diverse, a certain type of unit that might be worth “100 points” in one type of scenario would be worth squat in another.

 

@blackspiral – I would totally need a collaborator before I tackled any more Battletech material.  I’d need more photos of different mechs and units, and I’d definitely need a lot more “historical” / lore knowledge!  You guys know that universe too well, I’d need help in order to do it proper justice. 😀

[torros 23808xp 1]

I also think with a little care those WW2  scenarios can be converted to sci-fi and modern without too much difficulty

[puyzen 2467xp 1]

Pretty big shoes to fill. Thanks for the great content. Good luck and have fun!

 

*Salute* o7

[buggeroff 15230xp 1]

Thanks Jim for all of the hard work, awesome articles and support for the community.

Best wishes for your new projects. Can’t wait to see what comes next 🙂

[Author]

Posts