"Are Tournaments Ruining Wargames?" Topic

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I hear a lot of discussion about army creep where every time a new book comes out it has to be packed with extra rules to make the armies seem powerful and competitive. Every time a new release hits the shelves it contains these rules to boost interest in buying the book and playing with the armies. Which in turn has you buying more models. So, does the desire and need to be more competitive at tournaments drive this demand for more and more powerful armies? This seems more prevalent in game systems where they are not creating more intellectual property but merely reissuing old IP with new rules and models.

I don't know if I necessarily believe this but I am curious as to the arguments for and against this theory.

On the flip side, there are games that come out with one system and that's it. Is this good? Is it a good thing to print your game once and then do nothing else with the rules or armies? Or does a single-print rules system that never evolves thus stagnate and never improve upon itself?

Finally, what is the attraction to a game system that constantly grows and reinvents itself? My daughter asked me the other day when I was going to be done painting all of the models I wanted and I thought about it. My answer to her was "probably never."

Yes.
At one point it stops becoming about "selling an enjoyable game", and becomes "Marketing an experience"…

There are some folks out there that cannot understand how NOT to play a game system unless it's "tournament style".

I gave up on games with army books and point values a long time ago. My gaming is allot more enjoyable now.

Brian

There is nothing wrong with tournaments. In fact, I think we have tournaments to thank for the huge variety of figures and ranges. Would anybody be making Khitan Liao figures if you could only fight historical opponents? No, but you can just s easily fight Repubican Romans or Aztecs in tournaments.

The same people who complain about tournaments are the ones who bemoan "the graying of the hobby".

A game is by definition a competition. Tournaments are merely more so.

Finally, no one is forcing anyone to play in tournaments.

So there.

By the way, if touenaments are to blame for ever "improving" rules systems, explain Empire V. There is not a whole lot you can do with an Empire tournament, yet it has managed to get itself 5 eeditions.

Heresy!

John what have you done with the real OFM!

Old guys ALWAYS hate tournaments!
(Didn't you get the memo?)

Yes and No

Some only play competitive tournament games. For these folks tournament play gets them in the door and keeps them.

For me and others, tournament play is just a way to ruin an otherwise fine gaming opportunity.

mjc

How come this is posted on the WWII board and not eg. on the general wargaming discussion board?

Griefbringer

Tournaments are older than most of the wargamers posting on this forum.

Some of us remember the 1970s when board game tournmants were more than common. One group out of the Great Lakes area even had a rating system with fancy names for those who had won a certain number of games.

I was late getting into the tournament miniature gaming scene. I had been gaming for a number of years before I played in my first national tournament of WRG ancients in 1980 at the Philadelphia (Cherry Hill) ) origins. I played an Early Ache. Persian army.

Some eras are better for competive tournament play than others. I did design an equal torunament point and management system for Guard du Corps which came out in the poorly published red box 2nd edition in 1984. it had army lists for non-guard dominated forces and predominantly Guard-Elite troop forces as well.

I have never felt that tournament play worked for WW2.

So no I do not feel that they are messing up gaming interests.

Not really, I am not a tournament gamer so do not take part. Instead I play big weekend games with plenty of wine and curry or smaller evening club games with plenty of beer and curry. Pointed armies ensure a balanced game at whatever level but there is nothing stopping one playing a scenareo in which one army is much weaker than the other – fighting withdrawl etc.

I do find some tournament gamers (some!!!) a bit of a pain as they scrutinise every nano mm of your movement but manage to do the wargames shuffle with their own little chaps!

Tally Ho!

4 yeara ago I would have been in the "what the heck is any good about tournaments?" brigade.

Now, I would say that I know a whole lot of gamers I wouldn't ever have met and the experience has only been positive. The joking and ribbing is great fun.

I collect endless models because there are always new obscure units that I don't have yet…

I am a wargamer for the history, and really couldn't give a toss if rules are "balanced" or not.

Tournaments do *seem* to foster certain attitudes and styles among *some* players. However "Bigger, Badder, Better" is not limitted to tournament players.

The issue I have is one of being sold a "hobby experience" vs a game system. I don't mind games with modular expansion rules. As long as I can pick and choose which modules I want. As soon as vital rules that affect play globably are included only in certain modules, or the new releases perform significantly better than the old releases even when they shouldn't that the game stops being fun for me.

On the flip side, there are games that come out with one system and that's it. Is this good?

I think so. Maybe it's because I'm old and cranky and cheap, but these days I far prefer an all-in-one rulebook approach over the "buy a subcription for a never-ending series" method. I like closure.

Is it a good thing to print your game once and then do nothing else with the rules or armies?

If you've done everything that needs to be done, sure. How many of the old-style WWII games gave you all the info you needed for all the major armies for the entire war, all in one booklet?

Or does a single-print rules system that never evolves thus stagnate and never improve upon itself?

I can't think of a single rules system that actually "stagnated". I can think of some that needed a mercy killing, and others I was glad to see fade from sight, and some I was sad to see wither away, but none that actually stagnated.

Never spoiled my wargaming 'cos I've never played in any.

Don't see why others do it but they obviously enjoy it so, what the heck, let them get on with it – just so long as it doesn't become compulsory.

Since I too never play in tournaments they have not ruined my wargaming, and won't in the future.

Also, new books and models do not always mean bigger, badder, better. They sometimes just mean different. I stopped buying FOW's campaign books awhile aog, but if you're interested in variant forces, more obscure stuff, why not try them. From what I understand there's nothing "killer" about the forces in their new books. To the contrary, the only reason to get the books is out of historical interest.

I've played in a few tournies but I prefer friendly games. The only downside I've seen is not with the tournaments but with tournament style gamers whose entire focus is on winning…. but after you pick them out at the FLGS it becomes a moot point.

I posted here cuz I only care what WW2 players think? LOL.

I am not a tourney player myself, but most of the guys I had been trying to game with are/were/getting ready to be tourney players. This meant that they seemed much more concerned with winning at all costs, then simply having a good time. This drove me out of the local store. As this was the only local store within two hundred or so miles, it has forced me to focus more on solo gaming.
So for me, yes tourneys have ruined my group games.

No, wargaming is what you make of it.

Tournaments have been screwing up wargames ever since Phil Barker et al got together to write a better set of rules than the one they had in the last tournament back in '67….or was it 68?

You can see the evidence in the really sad state wargaming is in now compared to then…….

Well, I only play with friends at my and their homes and not in a club or shop. When I do run a tournament (for the Running Grenade trophy! link ), I don't think it's the same as how things like WH, DBA or FOW tournaments, at least from what I hear about how these go (I essentially repeat the same scenario with different teams playing, for example: link ).

But here's what I do hear on TMP and elsewhere about tournaments – unpainted figures, unhistorical match-ups or match-ups that don't make sense, odd (from a historical point of view) OOBs, plus sometimes very odd behaviour and/or gaminess by some players. It doesn't sound like something I'd really like to ge involved with.
--
Tim

Anything that gets more people to play is a good thing

The things that make a set of rules good for tournaments are also the things making it likely to become widely played:
- Availability: You can buy the rules, lists and figures fairly easily making it widely known amongst gamers.
- Compatability: Players can get balanced games between dissimilar forces in pick-up games.
- Playability: You can get a decisive result in a reasonable amount of time without excessive rules disputes.

Tournaments tend to "stress" rules making the errors and loopholes in rules more apparent so rules used in tournaments tend to get revised a lot.

As game companies stay in business by selling stuff having lots of revisions of rules that are widely played is good for the survival of that business.

So, IMO tournaments are good for gaming as rules and figures stay in production, the rules problems get fixed and easy to get a game.

No. Anything that gets and keeps people playing is all for the good. I agree on the growth of poerful points armies and have largely abandoned that approach, but I had a lot of fun with my WAB Belasarians. Until the army got too big!

Tournaments don't kill wargames, Tournament players do!

There are a minority of players (both at tournies and outside) who are rules mongering cheese heads.

These are the people that ruin things.

Tournaments are the catwalk of wargames!

Full of big egos. All trying tp be more adventurous and bend the rules just a little bit more.

All the bitchiness headline grabbing and money makeing but how many wargamers would want to be seen dead in one!

I play in one tournemnet a year. some people I dont care to play against,others are fun to play against. I never,ever win a game. However, I just chalk it up to having some games against people that I dont normally play against,and sometimes its fun,sometimes its a learning experience. I dont go out of my way for a tourney,I just take it for what it is. I dont think tourneys are ruining anything,just another facet of gaming.

My main complaints about tournaments are the hyper competitive attitudes they foster in some otherwise pleasant folk and the ascendancy of Igo/Ugo rule sets. I gave them up a long time as I'm more interested in a good social experience than "winning."

The problem are not tournaments, are some players… trounament have almost get me out of the hobby. There are two tyupe of players. Those who play to have fun, those who play to show you how great they are… the latter are what ruin every human entertainment; but it has nothing to do with tournament. I have played also in trounament for fun and those were great experiences.

The quantity of idiotic players was overwhelmingm (especially beacuse you remember those much ore than the nice ones). Luckily the quality of good people I met was sufficient to save my commitment.

Also after a 2 day torunaments I came home with headache, low voice and in bad mood. After a two day game con I came home with headache, low voice, but in good mood.

"As game companies stay in business by selling stuff having lots of revisions of rules that are widely played is good for the survival of that business"

No…

the majority of game "companies" are cottage industries living on the quality of their products or completness of ranges. The only one big enough in WW2 business to live on your paradigm is BF and sadly his products are becoming a mess. It lives trying to force you to buy determinate models at deterinate times and then re-buy. Tho be quite honest WW2 15mm market is already well covered by PP, XIXcentury miniatures, QRF and Skytrex\CD. They survive putting forward solid lines of miniatures not trying to exploit people. Also there much more valid ruleset around.

So no, tournaments aren't not ruining wargames nor they are the key to wargames… they are a part of the hobby. The hobby will be improved or ruined by people…

No, I don't think tournaments are ruining wargames in any way. I have played in them and had a lot of fun, but not for years and years. Those that I do know that play in them are all great guys and they game regular scenario type games all the time. It's just another facet of the hobby, and as with ANY game of any type there can be bad days and worse players.

They survive putting forward solid lines of miniatures not trying to exploit people

We were selling 'em before. We'll still be selling 'em after when people find the next new rule set :-)