"Is wargaming a good spectator sport?" Topic

Let me answer my own question first.
If I am not playing, watching someone else play has absolutely no interest for me.
I am bored by other games at conventions, YouTube videos, and someone else's blog detailing how a game went.

YMMV.

I can enjoy the last – a well written battle report is fun for me (blame White Dwarf in my formative years.) Actually watching a game, though – good grief no thanks….

If I am not playing I am looking at the terrain and figures. Not watching the game. I do like some after action reports if I am learning a new set of rules.

Matthew

I will watch a game to learn about a new set of rules and to see how they work.

I will watch a game to learn about a new set of rules and to see how they work.

Same here. Watching a few turns of play can be useful when evaluating a new set of rules. Also, I've seen some very well produced YouTube videos of Star Wars X-Wing games that are fun to watch.

about as enjoyable as a jr high debate club meeting.

I enjoy watching a game if the rules interest me and I have not played them yet. It allows me to relax and learn at an easy pace.

I'd rather watch grass grow then watch someone else playing. Gawking at scenery is a different thing of course.

"I will watch a game to learn about a new set of rules and to see how they work."
and
"If I am not playing I am looking at the terrain and figures" Yes that is me too.

Depends on the game

I enjoy watching a game for a while, especially if learning the rules or tactics used in a game.

Otherwise dull, dull, dull!!!

No I do not like watching a game unless I want to learn the rules.
I do enjoy looking at wargame tables for the terrain and miniatures (and sometimes for inspiration).

I like battlereports and youtube movies, but they tend to be much shorter than the real games :-)

I seem to be in the minority, as I do like to watch others play. Must be the voyure in me.

I will not watch a YouTube video batrep if it is in real time. I don't want to watch people roll dice for three hours. If I'm at a convention and I see a game I haven't played I might watch for a little while if I'm interested in how the mechanics work, but for the most part watching a game from start to finish has no entertainment value for me. It's all in the playing.

Watching other people play a game is as excruciating as watching paint dry- beige paint.

BUT!

On the other hand I will frequently watch a game at a convention from the standpoint of a game designer.
Generally this involves sitting down near a game and watching it. What I watch is not the play of the game but the tempo. This involves five objects of interest. Below are the five areas I observe usually and the instances are from the recent HMGS Fall-In! convention.

1. the time for a move.

This is how long it takes to do a move in minutes. In the games I saw at the con was that the average move is about an hour. Longest was hour and a half, shortest was 40 minutes. What was interesting in two of the four games I watched was that apparently only the umpire knew when a move was over. NOTE, the above times were total moves including the inter-move fiddling and fussing and getting ready to move. This was significant and could be up to 10 minutes of time. One move did not begin immediately upon the end of the last move.

2, What people are doing in the move.
This means just what it says. For the most part in all four of the games I watched they were pretty much just sitting there immobile with a look on their kissers like their dog just died. Several of them had gone over and were texting or playing a game on their cell phones. Somehow I don't think either of that was good. I didn't intrude but from the patter that was going on, I got that there were not a lot of options that they COULD do. Amazingly a lot of them just sat there. Maybe they were old and tired.

Significantly, while many, many of the games were masterfully done and visually striking and beautiful. This actually seemed to be an encumberance to the players, and slowed things down. Not that they were having difficulty movement, though certainly a highly laudable desire not to break anything of a beautiful set up will throttle it, but players did not seem to be able to handle the terrain and know what to do with it. Of course the lighting in the Dystlefink is not the best and maybe they couldn't SEE their troops.

Another thing was that when questions were asked, it was obvious that the people did not understand the basics of the rules.

3. What happens, in the move. Not with regard to troops, but with regard to body language, energy, and discussions among the players.

As I said I did not see a lot of moving around, nor did I see a lot of expressions or animated talk. The movement of troops on the field, I might not was not very dramatic and two of the games were I guess, small unit games of modern figures. Significantly all the game I saw were simple frontal assaults, with now and then a preponderance of weapons on both sides. What was interesting to me was that in two of the games both sides were more or less equal. Neither of them had the seven and 8 to one that seems to be the normal in WWII and Modern combat and this kind of was interesting to me. I attribute this to a lot of modern combat being the counter-attack and the game goes on too long for that sort of thing. Nevertheless they were an attentive crowd.

The one thing I did notice was that it seems EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT to kill someone, and it takes a VERY long time to do it.

4. What is the umpire doing and what are the players doing.
this is not the same as #2. What I noticed in all the games was the umpire was dong an AWFUL lot of talking and a lot of the talk was largely a rehashing of the rules, where he would read out from memory a rule and tell all the possibilities, or some of them, and then roll the die or have the player roll the die and then give the result. I took careful note of the players who all had cheat-sheets in front of them, and most of them could not keep up. That is, I saw by the hesitating fingers and the Rapid eye movements across the page that they were trying to cope and follow the umpire, but few actually did. I did notice in one of the games a constant misreading of the rules and so forth. What I found interesting here was that the players seem to have not had a real conception of the game and how it worked and only fixated on some notable features, They weren't dumb, they were manfully trying to internalize the game but….

All of the gamers in all the games I watched seemed hesitant and almost diffident at times. Much of the conversation around the table was not about the game, but about the statistics of the troops or weapons of the game and reminded me of the old farts at Baseball games who drone on endlessly about how "Pot Pie Gillespie pitched a triple no hitter in the World Series of 1923" and so forth. To me, if their minds can wander that much from the game, something is seriously wrong, OR the equivalent in war games of Mr. Gillespie's baseball career IS war games to these guys.

5. Outcome. While I wandered away for a while now and then with a friend I didn't go far, and when I came back I did not see so much the "I went away from the table and came back four hours later and nothing had moved), but what I did notice was that allotted game time on the table came in all four games long before a decision was even apparent.

Overall, the games seemed to be dolorously one of a piece. This was the same way it was 10 and 20 years ago, though it's not the same peace. Each war game era seems to have a droll repetativeness about it that is kinda -- well-- off-putting.

NOW I RECORD THE ABOVE just as an example of what I look at in the game. What I want to know as a game designer is how games WORK and for that you really have to look at what is going on around the table top, not on the table top. Please note that what I am saying is NOT A CRITICISM OF THE GAMES, OR A FAULT FINDING OF THE GAMES I OBSERVED. It's just a report on what I'm looking to see. How does the game flow, and how much "finegalin'" the players and umpire have to do.

But to return, if I was not in evaluation mode to watch and not play is excruciating.

Depends on the rules, people, and/or GM. I've stopped to watch a fair few games at conventions, but only when the rules leave time for gawkers to stand around and chat up the players and/or GM, and only when the players and/or GM are fun to hang out with.

Can't say that I've ever stopped to watch a game just for the purpose of watching the game, though.

i LOVE WATCHING GAMES. Theres nothing better than a Bovril and pie and standing watching, I just wish we could have a big screen with action replays in slow-mo as well.

A good AAR can be fun to read if it's both about a game I'm interested in and well crafted – not many people have the latter skill.

Then again Mr Mad Axeman's reports are enjoyable even though I don't mostly play the games he describes. Lotsa pics and jokes help.

When I have met non-gamers at a con, I tell them to not bother looking at the moves of the playing pieces, instead look at the players and their body language and conversation – that's a better guide to what's going on.

Regards

David F Brown

No, I don't like watching wargaming – it moves too slow for my taste.

No, wargames are definitely not a spectator sport, as the vast majority of them move too slowly to retain one's interest.
But Otto's account of watching the players is fascinating.

0

What the Iron Duke said

Would you enjoy watching a 5 day Test match (cricket)?

Of course not. You're far too sensible. But the 5 minutes of highlights per day as shown on the evening news is pretty good.

Watch a wargame? Much the same as above but, as stated above, a good AAR with photos is alright.

Dunno. I've had fun watching some of the learning games for Great War and for the Open Fire starter set that BF ran. The Open Fire game was around 650 pts and was over in a few turns. The Great War was around 1500 pts but the mission started with the Germans only a move or so away from the Brit wire. I also liked the original TFL AAR (demo?) of how to play Chain of Command.

But then, I can watch C-Span.

No, but neither is Poker and look what happened to that.

Otto,

Interesting post and it got me to thinking about the why's and what's of convention games. This may be a little disjointed as it is more a stream of thought than a crafted response.

If the participant was drawn to the game to have an enjoyable time, then it would seem, based on your experience, that he/she would have wasted 4 hours of their convention time.

If they were drawn to lean a particular set of rules then maybe, a big maybe, it was worth their time. That is if they were able to learn or expand their knowledge of the rules.

I would think that if you were putting on a game of "Gumby's all Era Napoleonic rules", you would be respectful enough of your game participants to indicate a working knowledge of the rules was needed to play. If you didn't want to do this and wanted to introduce new players to the rules then, it would seen to me that you should spend a certain amount of time going over the rules and using examples on the board of how they would play(maybe the first 30 minutes of your 4 hour slot). That way while you may still have to spend time answering "some" questions the players would have at least a basic grasp of the game mechanics.

The other option is to use very player friendly rules for your convention games.

The GM needs to put himself/herself in the players shoes and consider what experience the players want from the game. If it is me I want to have fun, that is why I game.

Thoughts?
Dave

Only time it is fun is when the rules lawyers are fighting each other

Otto's account is exactly why I no longer bother going to Historicon. Can find lots of better things to do then 1 move an hour with no conclusion games. Probably why I drifted back into board games and hex based miniature games.

The one thing I did notice was that it seems EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT to kill someone, and it takes a VERY long time to do it.

Taken out of context, that line could generate some very interesting responses.

Back to the OP.

Generally, no, though some games with considerable movement and fast action can indeed be fun to watch. And I can appreciate a well-done AAR (though by no means do most achieve this). The stirling example of a delightful AAR are the wonderfully executed Campaigns of William Augustus Pettigree (I think I got that spelling correct.

I mostly lke wargaming for the stories that the battles weave, and I love a well crafted AAR. But somehow, I don't find watching a game very interesting. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the game moves in sudden steps (turns) which take too long for the amount of change seen, and for this reason the game seems to take too long for what you get out of it.

No

Well I don't game, but I do enjoy watching a game at a Con. I like to see a well terrained board with nicely painted figures
being pushed around. I have no idea what's going on, but it looks great. I'll watch a turn or two and move on the the next attractive set up.

Could I sit and watch a nine hour game?

Nine minutes is about my limit.

I love seeing painted minis, terrain, and boards.

I can watch a couple turns to get a sense of the rules or a player's style. In tournaments or when we were playing Necromunda, I could sit and watch just to see how it ends.

Dear Dave

To respond point by point.

Otto,

Interesting post and it got me to thinking about the why's and what's of convention games. This may be a little disjointed as it is more a stream of thought than a crafted response.

I wasn't specifically viewing them from the point of convention games, but more from an anthropologist or Zoologist watching the animals in their natural habitat. I do not mean this as an insult or in a condescending manner, at all, but as a game designer it's not enough to just work on the internals of the game, one has to see how it operates in the human context.

If the participant was drawn to the game to have an enjoyable time, then it would seem, based on your experience, that he/she would have wasted 4 hours of their convention time.

I can't draw that conclusion at all. No one really in all the games complained about it, and all said at the end they had a good time and enjoyed it. One has to take them at their word. I can't say they don't know what they're talking about. I only noted the attitudes. Now, TO ME as a game designer I wouldn't want some of those attitudes in a game (gamers texting, or sitting there looking like their dog died) but that's me. So you have to remember that my observations are with a specific point in mind. By the same token hundreds of people spend far more than 8 hours in a game and perhaps as much as 32 hours total across the span of a convention, so they must like it, they must get SOMETHING out of it.

I view the epitome of engagement in a game as that evidenced by 8 year olds when playing simple playground games. The involvement is total, the enjoyment is total, and 100% of the attention is riveted in a game. They will play that game till they drop from hunger.

Now, I do not expect that amount of intensity in an adult. Our minds are too complex, but sometimes it gets close and as a game designer that's what I want to produce in the games I make, or as much as possible. If I could get maybe 670% of that involvement and excitement in adults I'd have a world-beater on my hands. That's all I expect. The problem is to make it as good as you can. For me that's the criteria, not realism, historical accuracy, or verisimilitude.

If they were drawn to lean a particular set of rules then maybe, a big maybe, it was worth their time. That is if they were able to learn or expand their knowledge of the rules.

Agreed, though this is a problematic point. But this is something you can't know and can't measure or even appreciably observe. Again the question is "learn." We don't give tests, and it's also problematic in that most umpires lead them through it by the nose to game end. This is why I designed my games the way I do. I tell people at conventions when I give them at the start of the game, that I'll go through the rules in about 15 minutes and then I'll nursemaid them through a turn and a half or so and by turn three they will be playing like experts. And they do. But the games are very simple games with easily ingrained concepts and lots of visual aids. But even then learning is not constant. I have one guy who has played a specific game dozens of times and he still asks me "How many dice does a machine gun roll again?" So learning the rules is not always a constant thing. Vinnie knows all about retreats and barrages, and movement, but he can't remember how many dice a machine gun rolls. This has lead me to hypothesize that players do not "learn" a set of rules they become habituated to the way a game runs, and that actually, the physical actions they make may be more determinant than rules knowledge. The other consideration is that all of us have so many rules and systems and ideas and concepts knocking around our head like fragments that sometimes coalesce like barnacles onto a rule set where they have no right belonging.

I would think that if you were putting on a game of "Gumby's all Era Napoleonic rules", you would be respectful enough of your game participants to indicate a working knowledge of the rules was needed to play. If you didn't want to do this and wanted to introduce new players to the rules then, it would seen to me that you should spend a certain amount of time going over the rules and using examples on the board of how they would play(maybe the first 30 minutes of your 4 hour slot). That way while you may still have to spend time answering "some" questions the players would have at least a basic grasp of the game mechanics.

Yes to be sure… but… it doesn't always work that way.

You can put in that a working knowledge of "Umpires, Egos and Liars" is essential but that is not at all going to prevent the newbie who comes up and has a ticket and hasn't heard of the game before and wanted to try it, and you have only five of the ten players you planned the game for, or some guy helps you unload your junk from your car, drag it in, helped you set up the table and now wants to play. Plus even if you say you have to have a person who has a working knowledge of "Fartz of Whoers" doesn't mean they do. I once played in a game of Black Powder with three other guys on my side, none of whom knew the rules when they walked up versus two guys on the other side who were "experts" in the rules, and in the course of play it was revealed that their "expertise" was sadly lacking and they were constantly bickering between each other (remember they were on the same side) over the rules, and they proved to be no experts at all. The GM continually had to correct them. So even if a player BELIEVES he is an expert is no guarantee you're going to get them. Finally I offer the final example on this as myself. Several times I have made mistakes as umpire on the rules and had this pointed out to me by players, AND I WROTE THE DAMNE* THINGS. So I'm a lot more tolerant of these things. Again, it's not that they make mistakes, or don't know, it's how well can the game carry over these lacunae.

The other option is to use very player friendly rules for your convention games.

I do. But the real thing here is NOT the rules, it's the GM. The gamers aren't going to read the rules before the convention game. So gamer friendly rules won't help. Gamer friendly GM's are what you need, and whenever I put on a game I explain the rules in a rather breezy style with lots of comedy and self-depricating comments as part of it. The humore gets them to remember things that I mention because they connect it with the joke, which I can recall to them with a word. I also am fortunate in that most games I've had a friend playing as a "ringer" who will roast me, or crack wise which breaks up the mood. But the sad fact is that MOST rules are dull. Dull, dull,dull, dull deadly dull as dishwater, and listening to someone drone on about them is like watching paint dry—beige paint to boot. If I was smart enough I would make the rules in the form of nursery rhymes. Everyone remembers those because of the alliteration and cadence and imagination of seeing a picture. If I say to you "Baa Baa Black Sheep.." you all will complete the rhyme without fail. If I mention Goldilocks, you all will tell me the complete story.

That's damn*d good writing and it's HARD.

The GM needs to put himself/herself in the players shoes and consider what experience the players want from the game. If it is me I want to have fun, that is why I game.

True, but easier said than done.

Game designers try to do this I think but get lost in the way. All too often game designers tend to view their rules like children. Their child is beautiful no matter that he looks like Jo-Jo-the dog faced boy. It's tought to realize you have a stinker on your hands, and I've made a few. The best way to guard against this is to have a friend rund the game and you play. But that doesn't get it all. Sometimes the best friend a game master can have is a good friend who's also a good nay-sayer who can tell you that jo-Jo is, in fact, the dog faced boy and that he hasn't been housebroken yet.

Thankfully, in the Society of Daisy I have two of them, Bruce Bretthauer and Michael Lonie who have been tirelessly and patient editors who have said "Now Otto, you can't do this…." Which translates to "this part stinks."

The other thing is "what do the players want" and that brings us to the start of the article and why I set there watching them.

Otto

I don't go out of my way to watch other people's games unless I am interested in learning something about how the game is played. Even then, I don't stick around longer than a turn or two. Just enough to see how the game is played and that's it. At a convention is usually when I do this. I did also watch a turn of FoG at a local hobby shop once.

If it's a game I really like, such as Fireball Forward which is exceptionally tactical in nature then I love watching it. I do all the time as Game Master, so doing it as a pure spectator is far better.

I also like watching new games to try and suss out how the system works. It helps if the folks running the game don't mind a few questions along the way.

My dad and I ran some soccer(football) miniature games. They tend to move quickly. At Fall-In we averaged less than 6 minutes a turn and that is with both sides moving their figures, rolling to shoot, pass, tackle, etc. That is a convention game with 6 new players out of 9.

We ran a game that had about 30+ spectators for a game with 8 players. Granted that game was World Cup weekend and we were doing our World Cup finals. We got our large crowd for the Penalty kick shoot-out. Some games are fun to watch, but I would agree that watching most games is not the most enjoyable thing to do at a convention. Unless it is a friend playing and you are there enjoying his poor die rolling.

No.

No.

I'd rather watch a painting of grass growing dry.

Take a look at these games. Although they're heavily produced (or maybe because of it?), I think they keep your attention.

YouTube link

YouTube link

I am more likely to watch if someone I know is playing, the terrain and figures are well done or it is the same set of rules I use. I will watch to see how someone else interprets the same rules.

Sometimes you find out you have been doing it wrong. Also by watching someone else using the same rules, I can sometimes pick up some useful tactics which I can employ. I also can get some terrain ideas.

ochoin

There is nothing better than watching a 5-day Test Match… sitting in the sun, cold beer in hand, and enjoying the spectable unfold before you. The polite ripple of appplause from the Members' stand… the drunken roars of abuse from the Barmy Army.

Certainly more fun (in my opinion) than watching a 5-day wargame unfold.

GreenLeader – well said old boy. I'll take my Pimms over the beer though.

For a lot of games I would no, as too slow & unclear to keep people interested.

But some games can be played fast, clear enough & on smallish map to keep people interested. An example would be Steve Jackson's FRAG which can be fast & furious game.

.

I would say mostly no. Not because wargames are too slow, but rather because most of the "action" in a wargame isn't observable; it is going on inside the players' heads.

I do like demos because, unlike actual games, the point of a demo is to expose that action along with creating observables of all the rules. If you've ever designed a demo, you know how challenging it is to cover (almost) all the rules in a single game flow event.

There are some games that are fun to watch. These have short, focused decision cycles and lots of interest in the visuals (at least the way I have seen them played often). Wings of War/Glory and Circus Maximus would rank in this category.

Watching a game from beginning to end no. When at shows though I often circulate and go back to the games/armies that interest me.
I do like reading AAR (an old Slingshot habit) as they give enjoyment and ideas and advice on armies and tactics I may use

"There is nothing more boring to watch than a creative effort."
-- Nancy Severinsen

I've been watching Youtube games. Great way to learn a new set of rules. Or avoid buying ones that dont suit you.I wish there were more out there besides FOW tho.
At a convention? I'm there to play.

I could see wargaming being made into an interesting reality TV show. It would take some clever editing, with some historical footage about units, scenarios, vehicles for explanatory intervals. Add in some graphics and a skilled commentator/host and you have a show.

At least it would be better than "Breaking Amish"