The World's Largest Wargaming Table
I'm a fan of Timothy Hutchings's work.
His The World's Largest Wargaming Table is very striking. I love how it starts as a blank landscape and becomes populated by gallery visitors playing with it.
His cardboard works, which range from formalist studies to large-scale models, are quite interesting, too.
Hutchings also runs PlaGMaDA (The Play Generated Map and Document Archive), which I blogged about earlier.
Labels: games, installation, interactive
posted by Ethan at
9:25 AM
36 Comments:
Sorry. Hate to burst your bubble. Back in the late 70's when I was in HS we had to use an entire gymn floor when we did our 1/1200 scale naval battles. We also used it for HUGE (everyone in the club) D&D wars. The entire floor. Hundreds of lead miniatures. Guess we didn't make notice like this because there was no WWW.
A gym floor would not be a constructed gaming table then, would it?
I'm seeing Tarren Mill. Anyone else?
Tarren mill, or Carentan?
They are playing FOW...
Hi folks,
I'm Tim Hutchings, the artist. Thanks for putting this up, Ethan, I appreciate it.
In the "old days" it was not unusual to play wargames on the gymnasium or cafeteria floors. By old days, of course, I mean 1830s Prussia on up to now. That was part of my project, to build a piece of contiguous terrain that engaged that ambitious scale, and did it well.
And a gymnasium/ball room/cafeteria floor, as Anonymous pointed out, is not a table. I certainly don't feel my bubble is burst. I'm also confident that the table was, indeed, the largest as no one challenged the small article printed in White Dwarf magazine some time ago.
Of course, there are lots of little challenges and jokes hidden in the table, too. Namely, making a piece of terrain so large that it could never be used in its entirety. It took two players three hours to march a small force of Elder the length of the table, at a cheating double pace.
Here is a naval game project I did with another artist in an old map room in Maine:
http://timothyhutchings.com/artworks_files/35.jpg
Again, partially its about that issue of scale which is so appealing to some gamers, but to take an entire room and grid it off so as to shift the measuring system from 'ruler based' to 'grid based'.
Since "The World's Largest Wargame Table", I've made another version called "Line of Sight' in Minneapolis. A third, and final, incarcation in being built in St. Louis at the Center for Contemporary Art there.
Ethan, thanks again!
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to comment!
The interest I have in Tim's work isn't whether or not it's truly the world's largest wargame table--what I like is how he's taken this part of gaming and translated into the context of an art gallery.
And I bet that's part of the reason that some folks are nervous about the table. It's a common reaction, and one I sympathize with.
So many artists today "culture surf" from subculture to subculture, looking for an easy gimmick or for some shameful thing to drag out into the light. It's not exactly responsible, and can be very offensive at the worst and ignorant at the least.
I'd like to think I'm not doing that, I'm a gamer. Mostly RPGs nowadays (Burning Wheel, CoC, DitV, etc). When I'm making artwork that folds gaming into the works, I'm not just making work ABOUT gaming but FOR gamers.
That's part of the trick of this table. It's a big slab of table with a landscape on top without gamers to activate it. It's about minimalism until its put to use, until its function is engaged.
Very interesting. I live in Minneapolis and am a wargamer. I would love to know where I may see the "Line of Sight" exhibit.
Can you play a game on it as you can this table?
beautiful, a really stunning piece of work...but not, I'm afraid, the largest purpose built permanent wargames table...the old wargames holiday centre table (still going strong) is about 435 sq feet- 29 x 15' of continuous terrain.
Well, Hutchings's table is 29' x 28', so it would be larger than the one you mentioned.
Well, hang on a minute on the size factor. The 29' x 28' for my table isn't a square, that's just the two longest sections of the first incarnation. The first version at Real Art Ways had over 330 square feet of play "footprint", the second version at I-20 gallery in NYC was larger with 540 square feet (I think, I can't find my notes).
The Holiday Centre table sounds great! I did a lot of looking and asking, trying to find out about the biggest tables around and I never heard of it. Now all I can find on the internet now are small tables associated with the name. Do you have a link to photos of the big table itself? I would really appreciate it.
The most recent table I made was on display at the Soap Factory in Minneapolis, it's now gone (sorry Patrick). It was a measly 24' x 8' rectangle, making it 192 square feet. It, however, wasn't about size but about playability - you couldn't access the middle of the table.
Which leads to my next question about the Holiday Centre Table: How do they play the table if it's 15' across? The reason my first table was built in runners was to address this question. The reason I built the Line of Site table was to have fun with this question. I demand answers! This is exciting!
"How do they play the table if it's 15' across?"
simple! very long craps table sticks a-la the old war movie cliche of moving units around a map table..
Well, thats a shame about the table at the soap factory. I guess I missed that exhibit by a few weeks. Please don't tell me that it was dismantled and thrown in the trash when so many starving wargamers and wargaming clubs could have used that.
About the problem with the 15' wide table, I agree with Bri. Crap sticks where what I first thought about after watching the "Line of Sight" youtube video. Especially if you are playing a game where the models are mounted on movement trays.
Wargamers have long been a very resourceful lot. Very much akin to prison inmates trying to do with what they have access to in a very confined environment. The wargaming hobby is similar to that environment as it is not a very accessible hobby to most. While it is indeed humorous to have to deal with it, it takes more than an 8' breadth to confound them.
I only regret not seeing "Line of Sight" in the flesh and only for a few seconds finished on youtube.
Here is a link to the video for those curious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-jtcJI2Yvg
A couple of things I am really curious about......Who paid for it? and how much did it cost to build (as opposed to how much is it worth)?
It may sound heretic. But: What's so great about it? I think the biggest problem with art is a) most artists cry out loud once a potential piece has an actual use b) most non-artists consider art to be defined as "without a specific purpose other than creating a feeling of art".
This seems to be the worst possible combination: It seems to have a purpose, so it will annoy the "pure-art" artists. And it will annoy the non-artist gamers, because it does not improve anything: It is just four tables with three bridge. You can play on each of the four tables. But if you want to play on more than one table, you'll see that it all concentrates on the bridges which limits wargaming (remember, it says "wargaming table" in the title)) options a lot. Who wants to play "Hot Gates" all the time?
Basically, there is a reason why gaming tables have such boring and nearly standardized measurements. When it comes to two dimensional tables and human ergonomics, there is not much else to do.
This installation is excellent. The open scale, the exciting amount of SPACE! I think this works on several levels, it hints toward a sub-culture yet isn't afraid to give away the secret by letting gamers use it.
I'm smiling. I wish I could spend a weekend tooling about on it meeting new friends.
It probably is the largest table,in the strictess sense, as a continous playing surface.
The wargames holiday centre table (upon which I've played countless great games) is actually 3 tables: 2 tables of 6'x 28' and 1 table of 3' x28' with games played across the width, terrain and troops simply link across the gaps. As such its highly practical, and gives a rectangular playing area, which is what is required for 90% of wargames.
The trouble with this table, is its actually pretty hopeless as a big wargames table. Surely the purpose of a large wargames table is to fight large wargames? How can you do this on a table consisting of so many spurs and lacking any continuous depth? Can you fight Gettysburg or Austerlitz upon it? No. All you can fight on it is actually a series of smaller games, some of which may occasionally impact on their neighbours. No big picture.Perhaps this is the designers' intention, and I can see the value, both physical and artistic of having a surface where tens of gamers can simultaneously play. Unfortunately they play in isolation, restricted by the design rather than freed by it, they are not part of a group, but playing their own little games.
I'm sorry, but its an example of style over substance, I've played in, and designed any number of big wargames played on impermanent tables larger than this one- All of those tables (mainly, but not exclusively rectangular) gave a good game that this table would be incapable of.
Anonymous Tierlieb said...
I think the biggest problem with art is a) most artists cry out loud once a potential piece has an actual use b) most non-artists consider art to be defined as "without a specific purpose other than creating a feeling of art".
Hmm... I'm not sure I get the distinction between your two points. You seem to be saying both artists and non-artists think that art should only be art for art's sake?
Speaking as an artist, I don't think that's the prevailing attitude for contemporary artists... having a function, in addition to artistic intention, is great!
Perhaps what you're pointing towards is the line between art & craft--but that line isn't as simple as having a use or not.
So, creating something that has a function,but which is actually poorly designed for that function, and then declaring its art, absolves it from any design flaws?
anonymous said:
So, creating something that has a function,but which is actually poorly designed for that function, and then declaring its art, absolves it from any design flaws?
Yep that's exactly what I meant! ;-)
Seriously though, could you give a bit more context as to what you're talking about? Are there particular works of art that you have in mind? Are you speaking about the gaming table, or is there another axe you're grinding?
One of the asshole things artists can do when something is poorly made is say "Oh, I did that on purpose, it's part of the piece." Watch their eyes when they say this, they usually get shifty.
Now I'm going to jump on the table (the surface was strong enough to bear human weight without marring, which surprised me more than anyone) and shout out loud that the table you see here is, indeed, a very conscious design choice. A choice I'd never seen taken in all my poking and asking and playing, and one I wanted to see made.
With a textured, richly modeled table like this, you can't use a push stick to move the pieces around. You especially can't resolve line of site from six feet away. My rule on building it was that everything had to be in an average persons arms reach, so the sprawling "H and runner" shape seemed to be the most efficient in taking advantage of the full room size and would lead to interesting decisions I wanted to see the players make.
The Holiday Centre solution is very clever, and not something I'd considered playable in my initial designs. Apparently it is eminently playable, and that's really neat. That adaptability is part of what I was poking at when I made my table. (Oh man, somebody please post pictures of this table, please!)
You have to remember I made this table for selfish reasons. Not merely the fame, money, and beautiful woman, oh no. I wanted to create difficult situations and see how gamers resolve them. How do gamers resolve that uncomfortable right angle void in the middle of their play space? How do gamers used to the standard topographical terrain slabs handle playing on a hillside which might be so steep that their crazy GW minis can't stand up on it?
Little tests and questions were hidden all throughout the tables design, because I'm a selfish jerk who wanted to see other people modify and create rules systems on the spot.
You've got to remember that art isn't in the craft, it's in assertions. Art is also about big white rooms guarded by a pretty person at a desk, something I happened to have access to more readily than a basement.
Oh, you might like this. For the second incarnation of the table I had a loose section that could be slid around and fit into some of the "H" gaps, so if someone absolutely needed a table section there, they had it.
Patrick: Yes, the table was dismantled and thrown in the trash. That incarnation of the table wasn't modular, so it wouldn't have been overly salvagable anywise. I will be blunt and say that I was disappointed with the Minneapolis wargame crowd for not turning out and using it, summer or no. There were strange reasons that people weren't coming and playing on it, and I promised the folks that fessed up that I wouldn't say why. That, and all the college students were gone.
And for the question of who paid and how much: I paid for the table myself, aside from a $600 artists consideration paid by Real Art Ways in Hartford. The I-20 gallery of NYC paid for the significant amount of extra table built for that installation. The construction space was generously provided by the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council.
I'm not going to say how much it cost, but will say that it looks much more expensive than it is. Not that it was cheap, by my book. The materials were significantly more than an equivalent amount of paper mache' train diorama, as the table had to bear heavy use and people leaning on it. It is primarily MDF and white styrofoam, built to be rugged enough for travel.
I will entertain cost guesses, though.
Tierlieb: Also, you are right. People happily locked themselves off onto tiny section of table, declaring play boundaries. I was outsmarted. Other people did use the table in its full glory, and it was funny to hear stories about people "playing through" other peoples wargames.
@ethan:
I admit my statement about the perception of art was not all too clear: What I meant to say is both artists and non-artists come from different extremes (pure art vs. pure function). In this case they meet in the middle (not enough art, not enough function).
But since you questioned my basic assumption (that artists usually disdain art that has a function). I think there we'll have to agree to disagree. I think I can quote from Peggy Guggenheim's "Confessions of an art addict" to bolster my position and both Tim and you might cite Joseph Beuys' idea of social sculpture. So let's call us even there.
@tim
How do gamers used to the standard topographical terrain slabs handle playing on a hillside which might be so steep that their crazy GW minis can't stand up on it?
So my iPhone is a work of art in that it challenges me to find a way to cope with its shitty text-autocompletion (which really sucks for German. And you cannot disable it. So you have to get creative.)? This is an interesting approach, though it is nothing new in Wargaming - Games Workshop often challenges gamers similarly by either adding a lot of imbalance to to an existing product or producing something that cannot be played without making up rules yourself (Inquisitor).
Note, that when saying "interesting", I really mean "If I ever meet you in person, I'll rip of your head and stick it on a very sharp stick with a little sign below there that says 'Did not adhere to usability guidelines'". ;-)
Please also note that I really appreciate the table as giving me something to think about - it showed me that other people struggle with accessible gaming space, too... so I gotta find a three dimensional solution to that.
*Breaks out his Battletech miniatures...*
Tierleib: I get where your coming from if your looking for references in Peggy Guggenheim and Joseph Beuys, I'm just not sure if that's the best frame of reference for a work like this.
More importantly, I will again posit your disliked points of table design as a purposeful decision, rather than an oversight. I'm not, to put it in bad computer terms, declaring a glitch a feature.
It's WAAAAAY more awesome than ours, but back in 3rd edition my friends and I had a game table that was much bigger for our various mega-battles. Ours was just mostly flat plywood with random terrain here and there and nothing to really look at unless it was simply to appreciate how useful Basilisks, Deep Striking and Flyers suddenly became.
The smallest table I ever played on was 1500 pts vs 1500 pts on a 18"x18" table in a movie theater. :P
"How do gamers used to the standard topographical terrain slabs handle playing on a hillside which might be so steep that their crazy GW minis can't stand up on it?" - Tim H
I read this and couldn't help but smirk. Back when I used to play W40K, I had built my own gaming table out of a 4x8 piece of MDF, with considerable groaning coming from my father. I used cardboard and a five gallon pail of joint compound to make one end of the table a hillside, with trenches and gun emplacements built in. The rest of the board was covered in a couple craters, and a small valley with a stream through it.
Unfortunately after it was mostly finished, my friend and I found out the first time we tried to play that our infantry wouldn't stand up on a lot of the hillsides. Well, I just ended up gluing quarters underneath the bases of all my infantry. Expensive, yes. But they never had any problems after that.
Oh, two more things. If the guys that marched the length of the board were using 40K armies, it's "Eldar", not "Elder". And if that took a long time for them to make their march, you should see how long it would take an army from the Epic universe to make the same distance. 6mm high miniatures!
I really just laid all my geek cards on the table with this post.
This is simply awesome... for those of us that only dreamed about being this hard core with a table this size I would still be in a basement somewhere.
It truly is a fantastic piece of work, my only suggestion would be to make the "player nooks" blend in with the rest of the table. So instead of rectangles you have curves to match the landscape, etc etc.
Nice work, hope to see future creations!
This is very interesting and inspiring stuff! I've been toying around ideas of combining miniature-culture and modern sculpting, but yours is the first work I've seen in an actual exhibit. Keep up the good work (how about making a 3D cube-like board next time?)
Cheers,
http://ca.games-workshop.com/news/cn/events/GamesDay2003-CA/coverage/Mega_event/images/all_its_glory_b.jpg
Zach: I know, I know! I misspelled Eldar, it's embarrassing. I tried to go back and edit it immediately but
I wasn't allowed.
Back when I was a kid, we didn't play WH40K with minis at all, they were too expensive. Instead, we played with pennies, nickels, and bits of random trash with arrows painted on them to indicate facing. Genestealers and Terminators featured prominently in our engagements, as we did have a copy of Spacehulk to scavenge from.
Anonymous: Finally! A link with a picture! That is an impressive arrangement, and I'd like to know the final square footage of it. Like I said somewhere else, I know someone somewhere will/has built a bigger table, and when that table comes to light I'll be forced to fall back in a layered defense. If that table is bigger square footage wise, which it very well might be, I'll have to start qualifying my claim as "modelled terrain" or "actual table".
Thanks for that link.
Tim, if I may ask: how did you make the rolling hills? What material did you use? Or is that an "artistical secret"?
Thanks,
Koen
I think this is a great piece, I like the way it looks as art and I'd love to have terrain of this quality to game on. In response to the more searching "intellectual" comments regarding its relative successes in form/function, at which point does the enjoyment of art cross over into critique and then again into bashing something because it doesn't fit with your ideas? A further reponse to the people who were annoyed by the bridges between the larger sections: How about creating a table which is the net of a geometric shape? Thus creating a truly contiguous gaming area...with a little imagination, of course.
Anon: No secrets here. The table surface is carved white styrofoam, coated in a layer of joint compound then a layer of sand and glue. The carving is all done by hand with a stiff wire brush, not a hot wire. Brush carving gives a nicer, stubbly surface that resembles grass or dirt - especially with the application of some sand.
The detail work, like the cliff faces, is cut with a hot wire, then hit with a thin layer of joint compound to fill in the gaps around the expanded polystyrene bubbles. For your table, I'd recommend pink foam for the detail work instead. It carves finer, but slower.
This is a LOT of work, and incredibly messy, and DANGEROUS. I was knee deep in styrofoam flecks. This stuff is horrible for you if you inhale it, so wear a respirator and put a fan in your window.
After the surface is dry, put down a solid coat of base paint to hold the sand in place, then build up layers like you would any other terrain surface. Finish up with some dry brushing, and voila. You have something that people on the internet will hate you for.
Diceface: I don't follow your post, I'm embarrassed to say. What do you mean by a "net of a geometric shape"?
Tim wrote:
This is a LOT of work, and incredibly messy, and DANGEROUS. I was knee deep in styrofoam flecks. This stuff is horrible for you if you inhale it, so wear a respirator and put a fan in your window.
And make sure you're using an organic vapor filter with the respirator!
No worries, I read it back and I just waffle anyway!
Wikipedia can explain it better than me - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_(polyhedron).
Of particular note is the mention of the Dymaxion map on that page, it illustrates my thinking best.
I'll admit that whilst having edges whereby units could "jump" to other areas of the table could be a little confusing, it's an interesting concept. Having a battle on a little insular world like that could be good for space battles or somesuch.
My brain is now reeling with loads of permutations of this, such as being on the "inside" surface of a dodecahedron!
::dice::
Diceface: I dig you now. The "jumping through space" part was something I had discarded as impractical, but apparently the "Holiday Centre" wargame table mentioned earlier does it. They have parallel game tables which are "connected" in game space.
I see what you mean about the polyhedrons, though. That's an interesting idea, especially as the inside of a shape would allow you to have a shooting LOS straight up and onto the other side of the polyhedron. An early issue of Dragon, I think it was Dragon, had an adventure in a complex polyhedron dungeon where you could wind up walking on the ceiling of a room.
Ethan: Yes. You are right.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home