"Umpires Make the Game More Entertaining?" Topic

According to the new rulebook, Hail Caesar…

Although it is not a strict requirement, where possible we play with the benefit of a third party, or umpire, whose job is to interpret the rules where necessary, impose his own should he feel the need, and otherwise help out to ensure the game proceeds at a pace. We find games far more entertaining when fought in this way and heartily recommend it.

Do you agree?

One of my fondest wargame memories was when we were playing Star Empires, with one friend managing our blind attempts to build our territories. Without telling anyone, he started running the optional Pirates rules (for something to do), messing with all our heads and starting a couple wars from misunderstanding.

Just loved it.

Only if the people playing can not agree in a civilised manner about the rules.
Also it may help with hidden movement and such but otherwise I have never seen the need if both players are civil and at least one of them knows the rules.

Usually, no.
Especially when the ref looses interest in the game.

And then there are the games that have two sides already, yet it still needs a ref. Bad game design, IMO…

On the other hand, there are some really good refs out there (that's you, Skrapwelder) which makes the game exciting.

I think any game benefits from the presence of a gamesmaster, who may be a third party or a player umpire or something. Not in every case of course, but more often than not.

In games with hidden movement it really helps. In other games it's helpful (rules interpretation mostly) but I don't see it making a game more entertaining. The more familiar players are with the rules and as long as the player's personalities don't clash it would be needed less.

A simple die role or very simple discussion of the roles is usually best.

An umpire has a role usually for large battles, for some of the other reasons mentioned already: hidden movement; play balance; helping walk through a sequence; and on occassion when to end it.

I've aleays had more fun in umpire run games, especially when they create the scenario so the players have no idea what they might be getting in to.

Probably depends upon the game, and the ref.

Depends on the game. Ideally we'd always have a third along for Rogue Trader scenarios… I enjoy the surprises they allow, "The noise of gunfire has awoken a nearby nest of Ambulls!"

Ambulls, blast from the past!

If you mean simply a referee who can resolve rules disputes -- well, you are either playing the wrong rules or the wrong opponent.

If you mean a gamemaster who'll handle concealed forces, stray dogs, passing drunks, unreliable subordinates and Acts of God in general – absolutely yes!

I second what Mexican Jack Squint said – if you have to have a referee there to interpret the rules and resolve disputes – you have the wrong rules or the wrong opponent. I enjoy the little bits of fluff that a good referee can and should interject into the games.

If there is a group not used to gaming with each other, like at a convention, than a ref/gamemaster is a huge plus. Also if there are aspect of the game best kept hidden until needed a non-player is much better than rolling dice.

A seasoned umpire can make a good game great by adding fluff, unexpected things, etc.

We usually try to have one for the big club games – I actually have been one a couple of times and like it

Since we like to include an abstract sense of the fog of war, a dedicated referee in my experience makes for a speedier and more enjoyable time.

Absolutely … we always use an umpire or player/umpire. Not for interpreting rules, but for alll the other things that have been mentioned before.

In the odd case when a rules dispute arises, we resolve it as gentlemen or by the throw of a die (we actually have a special die for this: yes/no/perhaps. Perhaps means the umpire decides).

It does depend on the game, but in many a good Umpire can add twists and turns to a game that would be more difficult to achieve otherwise. The biggest advantage is surprise. No table can truly surprise both players…one of them will undoubtedly have read it (or made it).

We generally live without an umpire.

We don't use an umpire often, but it works best when something is unknown.

Or when we're testing brand new rules that only the ump has read.

Usually.

Al | ravenfeastsmeadhall.blogspot.com

If well reffed, mostly in the context of providing an unbiased mechanism for hidden units and events. Can also be handy if your group has rules lawyers and the rules have a nice, clear "what the ref says is law" rule.

We always have an Umpire. Very useful for hidden dice rolling for spotting, firing etc.
"You hear bullets passing, but you did not see where they came from" or "as far as you can tell from here, there are no AT guns in the tree-line" kind of thing.

Hail Caesar plays quite nicely without an umpire, or even solitaire. However, I can see how it would really shine in a multi-player scenario, under the guidance of an umpire serving in the role of 'game master.'

It all depends on the particular rule set and gaming situation in question, doesn't it?

Cheers,
Scott

Played Command Decision several times "against" an umpired force. Works very well for me. Like real life there is a need for recce, every wood, village or piece of cover contains a potential enemy. It does tend to make people cautious but I like it.

We use umpires/referees/GMs all the time. Multi-player games usually work better with one.

As noted, hidden movement and other such mechanics require a referee.

I referee when I set the scenario. That's because I set the Orders of Battle and Victory Conditions, so, as the Mob would say, "I know too much." Having me play, especially since I am also usually the most familiar with the rules being used, seems to cause imbalance. Also, I usually add some sort of surprise or other little "extra" that is best run by the referee.

I have, on occasion, played the boring bits like the PBI holding the "box" in a North Africa scenario or the like.

The more participants the better, within reason.

I find one player v one player where both know and apply 'the rules' a bit sterile. I much prefer 'Doubles'. I enjoy multi-player games, particulalrly where an umpire/GM provides added colour and narrative (and guidance to less experienced players so knowledge of the rules themselves becomes less of a factor in who wins).

Big operational games are probably my favourite (if only ever occasional) treat. Some Megagames can end up too big, and that player to umpire rapport can be lost to liaison umpires who, because of workload, end up being absentee 'runners'. Especially if the action heats up but not in your sector*.

Phil Steele
pbeyecandy.wordpress.com

* hasn't happened to me, but I know it does and I can see all too easily how it can happen. Especially if, as happens in Megagames, different sectors are in different rooms.

I have put overall commanders in separate rooms with maps for WWII games, like they would do in reality. That definitely requires the referee.

It also gets fun when the game ends and the COs get to come and see the actual board. ("That's not what I understood was going on….")