"Do you have to make your own convention game?" Topic

Convention games come in all sorts of different flavours, and there are trends over the years.

What makes me a bit grumpy, though, is that I tend to see a shift towards bigger and more spectacular convention games. That is not a problem in itself, but then it turns out that the game was not constructed by the guy running the game. He bought painted figures, he bought the buildings and scenery ready-to-play, he uses a commercial ruleset. In other words, he did nothing except throwing a lot of money at it and transport everything in a van to the convention venue.

Now, although such a game might be a spectacular thing to look at, I do think it's poor form. I believe that a convention game should be about showing what you can do for the hobby in terms of painting and/or modeling and/or rules writing and/or having clever ideas …

It's a bit as modern sports: anyone with enough money can buy together the best football squad (Chelsea? Madrid?), but where's the soul and spirit of such a team?

Or am I too much of a nostalgic here?

I tend to agree with you. However, we like our shiny toys, and the shinier the better, so I guess I understand the trend.

The club I'm a member of, Staines Wargamers, designs its own scenarios and rules and sources figures and models from whatever manufacturers are out there. This is probably the best form of convention game.

However, there's something to be said for running a game using existing published rules. It might be to promote the rules or else use something that some gamers will already know and be confident in playing.

The key thing is that the game should have a hook that draws the players in and makes it fun. Just loads of figures on an impressively mounted terrain board isn't enough. If you use published rules, what makes this scenario or battle interesting? What's the appeal?

In other words, he did nothing except throwing a lot of money at it and transport everything in a van to the convention venue.

I'm not aware of any law prohibiting such actions.

Although I tend to agree with MajorB, I'm not aware that it is a trend. I suppose it happens sometimes. Demo games are supposed to inspire. I'm not too bothered if they just inspire people to spend lots of money, rather than time, to get something similar to play with. It is a route that many gamers must take because their day jobs simply don't allow the time to get there any other way.

I'm not in that camp of course.

I painted this lot.
I made and painted most of the terrain (trees are by last valley and the yurts are Grand Manner) including the playing surface.
I wrote the rules (Ager Sanguinis).
I reasearched the battle (Harran 1104 AD).
I devised and wrote the scenario.

TMP link

But, I'm using someone else's car to get there, because I can't drive and don't own one. Is that similar?

Phil

I am pretty well much in agreement with you.

I have put on many demonstration games for my club over several decades and the ones I have been most proud of are the ones where I've painted the figures, made all the models, made all the terrain, wrote the rules, loaded it all in a van and carted it off to a show somewhere. I have even made a game which was portable for airline travel and took it from Edinburgh to Prague, Delft and Antwerp.

Of course I have taken part in demonstration games where somebody else painted the figures, made the terrain, wrote the rules and so on and these have been enjoyable, just a bit less so.

And, I have taken part in games where somebody bought all the figures and models and bought a set of rules too. There is room for all sorts, I suppose.

At the end of the day I like it best when someone says 'I like that', whatever it is, and I can say in reply 'I did that'!

Jim

PS See you at Crisis

My three pals & I do a big game every year at the local show for the past 5 years.

This year it was the Zulu Wars:
link

Everything, with the exception of a few trees, scratch built & painted by us. We even designed & printed our own TSATF event cards.

It takes a year but for me its a highlight.

Once upon a time, convention games used to reflect games that were run at the local club. This was a mechanism used to try and recruit new players.

Now we have the yearly merry go round of semi-professional sponsored games that are used as a sales tool. The poor old clubs get very little if no attention at all and these spectacular games win the best game of the show every year. Next time you hear an award for best game, take note and you'll soon learn the pattern.

For the record I'm not jealous, I've won enough trophies but it was damn hard work and no fun. Now I just show what a standard club game looks like and what standards new members can expect.

Some jerk goes and spends LOTS of money to put on a game at a convention and all I have to do is show up and play! The NERVE of that guy!

I do hope those bemoaning throwing money at games cast their own figures, mix thei own paints, walk to the convention carrying everything, grow/hunt their own lunch, make their own clothes and slaughter their own cows for shoe leather.

'Cause otherwise you are just not doing it yourself are you?

Get a grip! Some one's gone to an effort to put on a game and still people find something to complain about.

I have a family, job and life. I don't have time to grow my own bonsai trees to put on my terrain mat.

I guess I'm "bucking the trend" then because whenever I run a convention game I make\paint everything myself. I'm running a War of 1812 game at Fall-In this year that I've been working on (on and off) for almost 2 years. Scratch built most of the buildings and painted all of the figures (even though I'm not the greatest painter). I do it because I enjoy the painting and building and once they are done I want to put them to use.

(if you want to check my progress: theartofwargaming.com )

Let me get this straight.
The OP is complaining that the quality of games that he has had nothing to do with preparing, is increasing.
Got it.

Maybe it is because I am a Yank, and until a short time ago I had never heard of the concept of "Demonstration Game".
Every convention game I have ever played in was totally prepared by the putter-oners. It must be one of those "other side of the Pond" things.

Phil, I fully agree with your first posting, but – then again – you probably have spent too much time with me as a youngster…

When I was involved with running Salute (ie not now) we introduced some new categories into the games awards because we had so very many games attending, we thought it would be good to refect the diversity of styles.

We had a category (that I believe has now been dropped) called "Most Completely Constructed game"*.

This meant that a game that was of good quality, perhaps even very good, but which maybe lacked in some areas, was recognised because the people running it had made all their own scenery from scratch (not even bought resin items and painted them, maybe), painted all of their own models – (with conversions a-plenty?) and had written their own rules.

I wanted to recognise that, in an area that it was important to say "this is what we play on a regular club night" (albeit with our very best club scenery and figures and nicely presented and demo'd) there was still room for both craft and rule writing innovation to be rewarded.

The downside was that when I stopped my Salute involvement, we were judging one hundred plus games in, perhaps, seven categories which, with the announcemnts and the giving of those prizes, took all day to do a decent job.

I suspect that is why the categories were 'streamlined'.

Winston: I believe that a "Demo Game" (ideally) is about teaching history to the uninitiated, showing off beautiful kit and scenery and making an inspirational spectacle. In a worst case scenario it's about a few guys turning up at a convention thinking it's a regular club night, playing a game and arguing in front of the public over the rules. Most fall somewhere in between. In my day (at Salute) the latter group never, ever got invited back again…

Personally I prefer party games but I think all have their place, especially if the mix of the two is right. My ideal is a party game that looks so good, with enough support literature and people to explain it to those not actually playing, that it works as both.

John T

* We also had one called "Best Presented" or something similar: so, even if the game itself was only average, maybe, in terms of figures or scenery but the support materials – banners, leaflets and the verve of the presenters – was so very good, it still had a chance of recognition.

Maybe it is because I am a Yank, and until a short time ago I had never heard of the concept of "Demonstration Game".
Every convention game I have ever played in was totally prepared by the putter-oners. It must be one of those "other side of the Pond" things.

That's a fair remark to make.

I am talking about the European con scene, where 1-day conventions, and "demo games" or "pick-up participation games" are the norm.

Since I have never attended a North-American convention, I do not have an opinion about the "2-hour participation games run in 8 time slots over a period of 3 days" type of games.

It must be one of those "other side of the Pond" things.

Nope, just the holier than thou low level tolerance one often finds in niche hobbies sadly.

In general, the games run at US conventions are just like the games you run down the club. Designed for 4-8 players, fight to completion in 4 or so hours, moderate table size. Not to say we don't have "show-stoppers" covering a 20' table with thousands of figures, but these are not the norm.

For US cons trying out periods and rule sets is a big part of a con. I once played 6 different Napoleonic games using 6 different sets of rules in one weekend. Quite illuminating.

As for the OP about "do it yourself" I'm not sure what your point is? A person may put host a game for a lot of reasons, and showing off their rules or modeling may be one of them. But it may not be.

Having never played in such a game in Europe, it does sound like they aren't really games at all. More like moving dioramas where you get to play a part. From comments on other threads it seems spectacle is the entire point. Actually getting a game in is not what shows on your side of the pond are for.

I run lots of games at shows. I buy a lot of stuff. I use painting services. I use commercial rule sets some times.

This doesn't sound like a nostalgia thing, it sounds like a poor manners thing.

Maybe they want to augment their lack of skills in painting and building,rather than present one that looks tacked together by a 4th grader? Some people are about the artistry,some people are about the game.Thats the beautiful thing about this hobby.

Actually, the work filling and attaching seems to suggest DIY would be as much effort. Some amorphous pillow shape with black crosshatch lines, and Bob's your uncle.

Wish I'd seen this post first; I took piccies from the Tripod Down! AAR down to the store to share with the manage. He was properly charmed.

Doug

At most European conventions – in my experience – games are put on by clubs. Often, games are a manner of displaying what's possible in the broad field of wargaming. Some game show clever new concepts, some show an unusual period, others show unique modeling, others show great skill in painting etc. In a sense, clubs want to show "their best".

If a visitor wants to participate in a game, that's usually ok, even if a game is not advertised specifically as a "participation" game. A more likely scenario is that one has a little chat with visitors about what is present on the table, how we did it, why we did it, etc. In other words, the game is more used as a starting point to have a chat about wargaming rather than an actual game meant to be played non-stop from 10am till 5pm. The actual gaming itself – if any gets done – is often a nice side-effect ;-)

In that context, it is a bit weird to have a guy there who "bought together" the entire setup. There's not much you can learn from that, except that he spend a lot of money. Perhaps he has a keen eye for combining several items, such that the whole is larger than the sum, but most often not.

This latter type of setup is the one I am talking about in my original post. Such setups take up space, but they are very often not very representative of what wargaming is all about.

Of course not every wargamer does everything himself. I have great respect for a club of youngsters putting on a Warhammer game with Warhammer miniatures, showing off their beginning efforts in painting and modelling. However, I have less tolerance for a guy showing a Warhammer game for which he did nothing himself except spending the money.

BTW, some might think I am a grumpy complainer about other people's games. Not the case! I have run convention games for more than 20 years – often 2 or 3 per year – and won my fair share of awards for doing so. I make an effort of chatting with as many other clubs present at a con, and have contributed to various magazine. I care deeply about the wargaming community – so not an grumpy old men at all – or so I think :-) :-)

While I do my own terrain and paint my own figures, I have no issue when people want to buy them painted. Not everyone can paint and build terrain, so kudos to them for still going to the expense and trouble of actually running the games and transporting them to the convention. I enjoy the process and paint figures and building terrain, but do not enjoy the process of driving from South Florida to places in the Northeast US to run the games. I am sure that people that buy painted figures and finished terrain still have the same issues and expense in moving all that stuff to a con and running a playable and fun game. From experience, that is much of the work. If someone is willing to run a game at a con, they deserve praise for helping to keep our hobby alive and well, whether they painted and made the stuff or not.

So that is the difference.European games are a club effort,while over here they are more the case of one or maybe several individuals doing a convention game,and therefore a higher tolerance for purchased items.Have I got it?

While I tend towards the DIY end of the spectrum, I completely appreciate why some people want to buy ready painted figures, terrain etc.

While I may scratch build the odd vehicle, I certainly don't sculpt my own figures!

Or is the OP more about game style, than the bits used to present it? Demo games have been around as long as I've been going to wargames shows.

Great post on how to run a convention game here!

link

When I go to a convention I just want to have a good time… If the guy came up with a fantastic set up, great minis and nice terrain and the game is fun then I don't think anything less of him if he had the minis painted or bought pre-made terrain and even less if he uses standard rules.

Another guy might have done all the work himself but the game is not well thought and it drags and then the fact he did all the work doesn't mean the game is more enjoyable..

Yes, people that do all the terrain by themselves tend to have more fantastic tables because they are unique and those will attract a lot of attention and that is a reward on itself.

I've done both types of games at conventions and my objective is always for my players to have a good time, this is more critical to me than anything else..

So I guess I fully agree with ACWBill !! But I don't take Phil as a grumpy guy :) just his view on things.. I guess for me the more games the better in a convention and you will always have the more unique ones and the more standard ones …

cheers
Francisco

For my Muskets and Tomahawks participation game I ….

1. bought the Muskets & Tomahawks ruleset
2. bought the figures from Peter Pig
3. bought a cloth to put on the table
4. bought a load of trees
5. paid my mate to paint the figures
6. got 4Ground to give me a load of buildings
7. got 4Ground to make me some new buildings
8. played several games with 37 gamers at Plymouth, Exeter & Salute
9. won 2 awards for Best Participation game
10. enjoyed myself and didn't worry that I'd contributed sweet FA

link

link

link

Alan

11. And (I bet) loads of people were inspired to take it up themselves – job done.

Sherman – it sounds like you actually did quite a lot. The organisation of a game should not be underestimated.

Doug

I dug the lead, I smelted it, I mixed it with the other metals to create a good alloy, I cast the figures that I had sculpted and make molds of., I ground the pigments to make paint, I painted the figures, I took a shortcut and bought premade cardboard which I cut into bases. I flocked the bases with assorted herbs and dried tea, and Horse hair that I cut up and dyed. I wove green cloth to cover the table and I made Styrofoam to make terrain. I cut pieces of tree limbs to which I fixed some of the dyed horsehair to make trees for the table.. I took another shortcut and bought pieces of wood to make buildings.I thought up and I typed up the rules, edited them, printed them out on paper that I had made.

But then I was just too tired to put on the game.

But then I was just too tired to put on the game.

You could have (pro)created your co-players as well ;-)

I respectfully disagree with the OP. If it is a fun, and great-looking game, who cares whether the GM wrote the rules or built everything from scratch?

Also, not everyone is a talented painter, scratchbuilder, and rules writer. For myself, I can paint reasonably well, but I haven't done much scratchbuilding, and cannot claim to be a rules writer. I guess the folks who enjoyed the Minas Tirith game I helped do years ago were wasting their time.

Also, the worst convention games I've played in were the ones with bad home brew rules.

Dont see the problem myself!

1 – The guy has thought through what he needs.
2 – He has bought a commercially available set of rules, thus supporting the author.
3 – He may have bought unpainted figures – supporting the manufacurer
4 – He may have had them painted by a friend (therefore helping his friends finances), or by a professional painting service (keeping them employed)
5 – Figures may have been bought painted – helping support the seller (who may indeed be a 'new to you' retailer).
6 – He has bought terrain from professional manufacturers – supports them.

He has assembled all this and transported it to the show, devoted his time, energy, enthusiasm, and finances, and all you have to do is turn up and play and (hopefully) enjoy yourself.

The presenters of games such as the above are to be applauded for their efforts at keeping so many others gainfully employed within the hobby. Long may they continue to put on games.

Steve J

I guess there is a clear divide between the American style of convention games, where playing the game is the focus, and the European style of convention games, where the purpose of setting up a convention game is much more show-and-tell.

There might also be different philosophies about wargaming itself that explains why people think different about this issue. Is wargaming about playing a game, or is wargaming about building and designing your own game? This harks back to whether the majority of wargamers are wargames-consumers, or rather wargames-developers – and how this is reflected at games shown at conventions.

This harks back to whether the majority of wargamers are wargames-consumers, or rather wargames-developers

I think this kind of thinking is part of the problem. You are essentially saying there are 2 kinds of wargamers. Only 2? Why not 3? It's a multi-faceted hobby. I know game designers who buy figs and terrain. I know painters who rarely game. I know scratch builders who sell off their stuff becasue what they really like most is scratch building. For some the research is the best part. For some its the camaraderie. I even know a few who will play but don't own a stick of kit – figs or terrain.

Further, who is to say a wargamer is just one of these? I might be scratch builder for 6 months. I might be a designer. I'm just starting 15mm Vikings – I had all 1700 sent off to a painter. But I'm painting my own 6mm Napoleonics for my big battalions game. I buy lots of pre-made terrain, and paint plenty too.

Even just as a wargamer, I am all of these and more. Why reduce me to either consumer or developer?

Well said, Mark

As long as we are categorizing, this OP obviously falls firmly in the gamer category "Grognard".