"Is the Big Convention model a failure?" Topic

I was going to tack this onto the "Historicon 2015 Hotel Alert" thread, but it occurred to me that that one has already gone too far off the rails. It is not about the lack of rooms near Fredricksburg, or the Next Levellers, or "the Host is a Dump", but I think its an idea that deserves some discussion.

There are many yardsticks used to measure the success of a convention: sales figures for the vendor, profitability for the directors, accessibility and functionality of the facilities for the gamemaster, availability and quality of games for the gamer, variety of goods for the shopper. For the dealer, more attendance is best because it translates directly to more sales. For the gamer, huge attendance numbers and hundreds of events are irrelevant because he's only going to get to play in a handful of them anyway and as long as he gets in a few good games, his con is a success. For the gamemaster who devoted so much personal time and resources to putting together an event, it is a very personal disaster if he can't run his game because the available gamers have been drawn away by vendors or a plethora of other game choices.

These goals are not always compatible with each other and, at the very least, it is difficult to balance the needs of all these groups to create a convention that is successful for all. Different models of convention resolve this balancing act in different ways . . . the UK style "show" is a vendor/shopper-fest with a sprinkling of games, the regional US cons are gamer-fests with a few vendors . . . but only the Big Conventions (Origins, GenCon, HMGSEast) have tried to maximize all of them at once.

It is axiomatic that the success of the Big Convention model is dependent upon the density of the gamer population. This is less of an issue for GenCon and Origins because their gamer base is orders of magnitude larger than that of the historical wargaming branch of the hobby. HMGS has ameliorated this to some degree by embracing The Greater World of Adventure Gaming (at the cost of some loss of focus on their chartered purpose) but the numbers seem to indicate that only in the Northeastern US is the historical gamer population dense enough to support the Big Convention model . . . and even then, only marginally.

Yet, I don't hear anybody questioning whether this is even the right path for the hobby (and by that I mean, for the purposes of this discussion, historical wargaming) or whether a different model might serve the hobby better. All the complaining about drive times, noise levels and hotel accommodations seems to be missing the core problem: historical gamers in the US are just too thin on the ground for the current model to be effective.

Would HMGS be doing more for the hobby by abandoning the Big Convention model and, instead of trying to draw thousands of gamers all at once to a single, expensive venue, bring together several hundred at a time in several smaller, regional conventions at venues smaller and more conducive to gaming (and, likely, more affordable) than a huge echo chamber? This wouldn't preclude the possibility of putting on one Big Convention a year, or even running a UK-type show at some point, featuring mostly vendors in a convention center setting. Perhaps the true "next level" for historical wargaming is making a change that will make it more accessible, not less.

When you say HMGS, you are really referring to just one part of HMGS, which a number of gamers refer to as HMGS-East. The regional HMGS chapters do run regional and local cons. The Great Lakes Chapter runs or promotes many regional cons every year, and I know other chapters do as well. No one has to go to one of the Big East cons to enjoy a convention.

I've never been to one of the big historical cons, and I'm not sure I want to. If I do go, it will be to games, and then do some sight seeing for a few extra days. I've been to Gen Con--not my thing. I've been to Origins--too big and not my thing. I may make it east one of these years, but give me a good regional con any time.

I don't hear anybody questioning whether this is even the right path for the hobby

The big cons grew out of smaller, regional, cons so the question never rose

I think your questions, and solutions, miss a key point. There is no overarching authority to decide these points nor any reason to when the cons are really just regional cons that have grown (and grown and grown and…)

All of the big HMGS cons are northeast cons. Heck HMGS itself is a regional club. They allow other groups to use the HMGS identifier.

As you say gamer density is key and past efforts to nationalize similar cons (Origins) have failed. Sucks for the rest of us but I appreciate what we have and their efforts.

And not to be forgotten is that HMGS is of little or no consequence to many historical gamers throughout the United States. Thus there are other more localized conventions that fit the described model in the OP that have nothing at all to do with HMGS. And I don't mean to denigrate HMGS – perhaps its most important useful purpose had to do with laws relating to casting metals.

Here in northern and central California we have a variety of conventions (admittedly some only barely have historical games) with no affiliation with HMGS, some that have been running for thirty or more years.

Also, when I tried to communicate with HMGS about starting a local chapter I never got any kind of reply. Apparently there is one individual who 'owns' the HMGS 'rights' out here but he's never made it into anything workable. Maybe its because we are an individualistic lot. But, then again, if you look at the TMP stats, California has the largest concentration of gamers on the planet in one defined geographic region. (not necessarily the densest concentration, it is one thousand miles north to south after all).

Just saying there is a lot more to historical gaming within the US than encompassed by HMGS. But I agree in part that the mega-convention is of marginal use. For most, having a group of dedicated gaming buddies is the key to enjoying the hobby. And the internet has changed the dynamic dramatically as far as acquiring product, as we all know.

I am not sure a smaller but more dispersed model will actually make the hobby more accessible.

I have been around war games a long time (I read the rules by the early authors such as Jack Scruby back as a young person) but I have only attended locals conventions although I have looked seriously at nearby regional conventions since it is a matter of time, distance and family commitments that have precluded my attendance at a "National" level Convention. Honestly I don't see Historicon as a "National" convention because… well, it isn't "National" but only the biggest Regional Historical Convention. I do not see it disappearing despite all the near religious preaching of the apocalyptic crowd of critics.

I see no problem with such a model honestly. Not appealing to me but seems to be successful by many measures.

I see "… bring together several hundred at a time in several smaller, regional conventions at venues smaller and more conducive to gaming…" existing already across the country.

Perhaps I missed your point?

Perhaps I missed your point?

That was my point, Bystander.

The regional conventions have already demonstrated success, and even though I have attended dozens of HMGSEast Big Conventions (and Origins), I have always had superior experiences at the smaller, regional conventions.

HMGSEast has struggled to find venues that will affordably accommodate their Big Convention model, and all have fallen short of pleasing every participant faction . . . some disastrously so. If they moved to a larger number of smaller conventions or shows, spread throughout the East, it is possible they would find better venue choices as well as reaching a larger overall audience, and possibly improve the convention-going experience at the same time.

And, 79thPA, Great Lakes Chapter cons are exactly the type of successful conventions to which I was referring. They have always been among my favorites.

Regional cons usually are broader than historical minis, at that seems to work fine to me. I can't get to the big ones anymore, but I'm glad they're there.

What I'd really like is for there to be a travelling Wargames show, much like the Model RR or Gem shows that circulate around a region. These primarily consist of vendors with maybe one or two local clubs showing off what they do, similar to the UK idea of a 'show'. I'd love to have Old Glory, Brigade, OMM, and the other big HMGS-E vendors circulate through here every 6 months for a quick shopping trip without necessarily having to spend a weekend devoted to games.

Rich

Here in the UK we have lots of cons, there used to be many more. I'm not sure if smaller cons help anyone much. Part of the draw to any con, for gaming, buying or selling is size. They have a critical mass that must be achieved to have success. The more punters who attend the more games and traders. The more games and traders who attend the more punters. Offer a small show and I'm not sure who would attend.

Why shows succeed or fail is another question but, successful shows tend to get bigger. Here in the UK, even though it's a small country, a two day show is still quite expensive to attend because of hotel bills, etc.

For those living in the north, the London shows are always expensive one way or another – the one time I went to Salute, a one day show (and I got in free with the L&LS), it cost, with hotel and meals and rail fares, close to £200.00 GBP, and that was before I bought anything.

But regional cons don't have the buying power to make it worth while for anyone other than a local vendor to do that.

Exactly, 79thPA. Hence, my suggestion to specialize, saving the the big venues for "shows" which concentrate on the retail aspect of the hobby while maintaining a token nod towards gaming (for which the big convention center type venues are less appropriate in terms of noise, lighting and foot fatigue). To make it worth the time and effort required to bring a major vendor stand to a con, there needs to be a large potential audience, so a large, centralized venue is necessary. Multiple days, however, become less necessary, lowering costs both for the directors and the vendors. This still leaves a niche for local vendors at the smaller, regional cons where the audience is smaller, but the costs and inconvenience are less, also.

I attend regional conventions and they are fun. But to me they do not come close to the fun of any of the three HMGS eastern conventions, Cold Wars, Historicon or Fall In.

I drive 8-9.5 hours one way to those larger conventions. TO me it is worth every minute of it. There is so much more to see and do. I see games there that I would never see at smaller regional conventions.

As a game master I have never had a problem with other games siphoning off my players at the larger conventions. There are more players.

Trying to take the conventions "to the next level" and trying to turn them into an Origins or a Gen Con was (fortunately) a failure. I think COld Wars, Historicon and Fall In are great as they are. I love them. They could be better, of course. But to me, they are the highlights of my wargaming year.

Tom

I don't think I would attend a convention where I didn't at least have the opportunity to put on or play in a participation game.

DM

They are definitely worth seeing, Tom, and I recommend to any wargamer who asks that they should make an effort to see Historicon at least once. Very impressive.

Even if they went to a different model, nothing would stop HMGSEast from running one major, flagship, "destination" convention every year . . . but putting all your eggs in one basket by running nothing but Big Conventions does not seem to be serving the hobby as well as it could be.

A lot of gamer/gamemaster attendees would agree with you, Don, and if every convention was going to become a retail "show", that would be bad for you. However, that's not what I was suggesting. A larger number of somewhat smaller cons, focused on gaming, with the occasional big retail show (still with gaming, but perhaps less), would probably create more overall opportunities to game, not fewer.

Instead of agonizing over whether the big conventions are a failure or a success why not put on your own small one?

There was no agonizing in there, John/Winston. Just throwing out an idea for discussion, and I don't buy the "you don't do it yourself, so you have no right to discuss it" argument. Putting blinders on and repeating "everything's going just fine" over and over is not my style . . . I'm always looking for ways to do things better. I don't expect anyone to actually take my suggestion seriously. The High Muckety-Mucks at HMGSEast consistently ignored every suggestion and offer that I made all the years I was a member; why would they pay attention now?

As for putting on my own, I am well aware that I lack the administrative skills necessary to make that work. Besides, there are plenty of regional conventions around the Midwest already, and I devote considerable time and money to supporting them because I like what they do. Adding another local con to the mix wouldn't do much to improve things around here, and it sure wouldn't do anything at all to improve things on the East Coast.

I'd disagree with the notion that a larger con does not help the player since he can only get in so many games. A larger con allows the player to fit those games he can play into his schedule more easily.

There are a number of smaller cons in the area (northeast) already. NJ Con, Barrage gaming day, A small one here in southern NJ, the gaming day in Lancaster around Hcon time, the Williamsburg cons, etc. So it is not really a case of either/or.

Bad for me? Gee thanks. I wasn't even aware.

DM

"I attend regional conventions and they are fun. But to me they do not come close to the fun of any of the three HMGS eastern conventions, Cold Wars, Historicon or Fall In.
Trying to take the conventions "to the next level" and trying to turn them into an Origins or a Gen Con was (fortunately) a failure. I think COld Wars, Historicon and Fall In are great as they are. I love them. They could be better, of course. But to me, they are the highlights of my wargaming year."

I wanted to say ALL of this, but GarryOwen beat me to it and almost word for word, too. Going strictly for smaller regional cons might or might not benefit The Hobby as a whole, but it would certainly harm MY hobby, and that of many, many people I know.

If you look closely, Jerry, you will see that nowhere did I advocate "strictly" smaller regional cons; I actually suggested a mix of sizes and types to make the hobby more accessible. Those of you who say you are content to leave things as they are, regardless of whether it would do this, as long as you get your gaming fix the way you want it have answered my original question, I think.

historical gamers in the US are just too thin on the ground for the current model to be effective

Here is something interesting: for the first time, well ever, the Elmo family will be going to Adeption and not HMGS Midwest's Little Wars. I was trying to think of why this would be and think it's because Adepticon (if they keep adding historicals) will be nice an commercial (like Gen Con) yet have the games I want to play (Saga, Bolt Action, Deadzone, etc.)

I think conventions should be larger and more commercialized, not less!

I would argue that Cold Wars, Historicon and Fall In, while all being excellent shows, are simply regional cons. What makes something national?

Is it attendees from a long distance? I attended Nav Con with less than 300 attendees and there were folks there from Florida and the UK. I'd hardly argue it is a national (or even international) convention simply because of that.

Is it the number of attendees? PAX has over 60,000, while GenCon is close to that. On that front, none of the HMGS East shows can hold a candle. That's not to say that their shows are failures- just not the same size.

It sounds like we need more HMGS-East level shows in more regions. The US is a big place and I don't think our gamer population is dwindling. I think the audience is more diverse, and shows that allow for that are growing. I think of nothing playing in a Roman era Ancients game, and then doing a fantasy battle. To some that is sacrilege. On the other hand, the larger shows are a pain to coordinate a game at. I can't imagine running a game at Gen Con with the same level of terrain and miniatures as some that I see at a show like Little Wars or Historicon with the parking and building set up situation that Gen Con or Pax have. It would take a coordinated number of helpers to not be a logistical nightmare. At the smaller shows, I can simply cart in my own stuff from the parking lot and take it back after my event. Not so simple when the parking is blocks and escalators away.

Mr Elmo, I agree on your last point about adding more vendors and commercialization rather than less, but am just curious why you made the call to pick one show over another? I attended Adepticon last year but was struck that it was focused mostly on tournament play over smaller pick up games. I understand they are pushing for more pick up events, but since I'm not a tournament player, I found it less interesting than Little Wars, which is mostly pick up games with a small number of tournaments.

Perhaps pushing for more Warmachine/Warhammer/Etc. Tournament Support for the smaller shows would improve things? I realize I'm in the minority in not liking tournament play.

Both conventions (Little Wars and Adepticon) are over a month apart so I intend to attend both (and the Midwest Gaming Classic in between, though that is admittedly a very different show). There's no reason to pick one over the other unless you simply no longer find Little Wars worth it (which is fine- I just find that kind of show more enjoyable since I enjoy pick up games and house rules).

HMGSEast has struggled to find venues that will affordably accommodate their Big Convention model, and all have fallen short of pleasing every participant faction . .

At the risk of using necromancy to bring this deceased mare back to life in some form or fashion, I would like to add my two cents, (or dos centavos, or two shillings or what have you…)

IMHO, I believe that the first major issue you have with the previous part of the statement is that most major cities on the East Coast have some sort of union/labor contract with their convention centers, and or ridiculously high tax rates and costs which make using these centers extremely prohibitive. Take the HMGS attempt to use the BCC. I will admit, I loved the idea. I was all for it….and supported it…until I sat down and started looking at the numbers and some of the "rules" (aka "Union agreements"), that the BCC had in place…Then I realized it was a bad deal, acknowledged my mistake and moved on.
I'm not a "Host Hater", but I along with others, have realized that the building has seen it's better days. Mold issues leaking ceilings, and more…the building violates the ADA, and probably many other types of codes, etc…
The issue with the Host was that the majority of the folks that wanted Historicon there, (a very vocal group), actually DIDN'T stay at The Host. They were day trippers, or were able to come down both days from home, etc…so they could care freaking less about the folks having to stay there and their health or the conditions of the building.
Now…HMGS moves Historicon to F-burg. Now what you have is the vocal majority "For the host" argued everything against the FCC. (ie: "It's too far a drive" (translated means: "We can't be day trippers anymore and might actually have to stay in a hotel room"), "There's not enough places to eat", (Really?..did you see all the choices within a five minute drive or a ten minute walk?), "The walk to the Wegmans or to and from the adjoining hotel hurts my knees…" (But their knees are obviously healthy enough to go up and down 2-3 flights of stairs at The Host"), "The FCC won't allow us to bring alcoholic beverages in while we game!" (Really?…If your major complaint is that you need booze to drink while playing, then may I suggest that you have a bigger problem at hand..), or even the one where "I won't travel there because they moved it into the heart of the G*D*MN Confederacy!", (Yes a person actually said that…)

To be honest WA, you are NEVER going to appease or please everyone. FCC has worked hard with HMGS to make HCon better. Complaints about noise, chairs, etc…were listened and acted on. The biggest problem with the FCC is that some of the con-goers there are damn pigs when it comes to using the bathroom. Gods only knows that their own house must look like.

I said it a while back. If you gave folks a free suite room, free breakfast, free entry, a goodie bag of 100 dollars worth of stuff, VIP registration for whatever game they wanted to play, AND had Salma Hayek there to hand feed them peeled grapes while whispering sweet dirty nothings in their ears; a few of them would STILL find something to be ed off and whine about, (maybe they wanted white grapes instead of red, etc…)

,some disastrously so. If they moved to a larger number of smaller conventions or shows, spread throughout the East, it is possible they would find better venue choices as well as reaching a larger overall audience, and possibly improve the convention-going experience at the same time.

Okay…question time for discussion….HMGS (East), already puts on THREE Conventions a year….That's a lot of work. Now…that being said…

A: How many of these large conventions do you want them to eliminate? One? Two? All Three?

B: How many smaller, "regional conventions spread throughout the East", would you want them to have?

C: Is it going to be more profitable for them to do this vs the three big cons?

D: Are you able to guarantee that they will get higher attendee numbers?…

E: Say they try this for three years running and suffer horrible losses….then what? Go back to the Big Con program, or do they keep practicing the definition of insanity and saying "Maybe this year we will get it right?"

Con work is not easy. It requires scheduling. Now…do you know someone in HMGS that can travel all over the East Coast of the US and run/work at 4-6 "smaller regional cons?"… I live in the Midwest and I am 10 miles from Gencon, Four hours from Origins, 20 minutes from Whose Yer Con, 5 1/2 hours from Little Wars, 5 hours from CincyCon, 10 hours from Nashcon among others…and guess what?….My schedule is filled and I am lucky to make 3 of those a year….and that is as an attendee/player…not working the con…..

YMMV…just some thoughts, so please no one with thin skin think that I am "offending them"…..

Jesus, you guys don't realize or appreciate what you've got. Come visit Australia if you want to see what happens to the hobby when all you have are small shows. Cancon, our biggest event, is certainly large by our standards, but it's not like we have more than one to choose from. And Cancon is only as large as it is because it includes boardgames, which is at least 40% of the crowd.

Again (and again, and again) McWong, I never said that we should have all small shows. I asked if a mix of sizes in diverse locations might serve the historical wargaming community better than having all big shows.

And Murphy has questions:

A: How many of these large conventions do you want them to eliminate? One? Two? All Three?

I'm pretty sure I mentioned more than once that at least one big convention should be preserved. I haven't exactly worked out a detailed plan, since I was just opening up the general concept for discussion. Perhaps someone might think it was reasonable to trade in one of the big cons for a couple smaller ones. I don't know. What do you think?

B: How many smaller, "regional conventions spread throughout the East", would you want them to have?

Again, I don't have a detailed plan. I'm sure someone with access to the numbers could figure out how many smaller venues they could afford for half-size cons.

C: Is it going to be more profitable for them to do this vs the three big cons?

Would it have to be more profitable to be a good idea? I'm sure the con management experts at HMGSEast could figure out what they needed to do to keep them in the black . . . that's all that is necessary, really.

D: Are you able to guarantee that they will get higher attendee numbers?…

Are you asking me for a personal guarantee? Are you saying that we should be so risk-averse that we should never try anything new without a guarantee of some sort? Are you saying that it's not reasonable to guess that putting conventions nearer to gamers wouldn't attract more of them?

E: Say they try this for three years running and suffer horrible losses….then what?

How should I know? They're not going to try it, anyway, so it's useless to speculate what Plan B should be.

Con work is not easy. It requires scheduling. Now…do you know someone in HMGS that can travel all over the East Coast of the US and run/work at 4-6 "smaller regional cons?"

Would it have to be one person? Most of the convention directors probably don't live near the con locations and already have to travel to them. It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the board could find someone relatively near projected locations that could handle the ground work.

You seem to think I have a plan already worked out, which I do not (see the aforementioned lack of administrative skills). I was just asking for a discussion of the potential implications. I will put you down in the "might be a crash-and-burn" column.

I love going to the bigger cons when I can get there!

I'm not at all likely to go to Historicon while it's in Virginia (or any city that far from the Northeast or not at a convention center within actual shuttlebus-proximity to an airport).

Once in awhile I do go to a national con like GenCon, but those are always in real cities with airport-convenient convention centers. And otherwise, I'll drive to cons large or small within a convenient driving radius.

There's certainly nothing wrong with the model.

Thank you, miniMo, for being one of the few to actually address the question. Clearly the current situation suits you, and you are (like myself) a regular convention attendee.

The point of my suggestion was not to make things better for those who already go out of their way to attend conventions, but to make conventions more accessible to those who don't already attend. I take it you think that a somewhat smaller convention located somewhere northeast of New York City (just for example) wouldn't draw enough new gamers from New England, who otherwise wouldn't travel to Pennsylvania or Virginia, to be viable. Or perhaps you don't feel that's a desirable goal.

This is not a criticism of your position on the issue, which is perfectly reasonable. I'm just looking for thoughts on the subject.

I have made several trips to Historicon and once to Cold Wars, but have more fun at the five local conventions that I can reach in an hour's drive from Southeastern Michigan (Two in Perrysburg, Oh; Two in Westland, MI; and one in Lansing)

At those "local" cons over the course of the year, I get in eight to ten games, visit with old friends, and have a small vendors/flea market selection to browse.

Even better -- many of us are able to bring our kids (once they reach gaming maturity) to introduce them to the hobby which has given us so many decades of fun.

The one thing I used to miss about the big cons was the large vendor area. Historicon was the one place where you could see all the new stuff.

BUT … now all of that is on the internet. Indeed, there is more on the 'net than any convention center could accommodate.

SO … I don't know that I'll ever make the effort to get back to Historicon, regardless of where they host it.

a perhaps unrelated thought: I've read that Facebook has killed the High School Reunion industry. Perhaps the internet store has killed the raison d'ętre for the megacon.

Okay, let address the question indirectly.

I don't attend major cons. Why should I?

Why do I attend nearby local and regional conventions?

1) I go to play games, period.

A) Rules I love but have limited success to run/attract players locally at shops in this city.

B) Rules I want to try out before I consider seriously buying. Too many games use the same verbiage but play differently and/or reflect historical reality radically differently and or accurately.

C) Rules I generally dislike key aspects of – Melee in TS&TF – what the hell were you thinking – but good friends love and I enjoy their camaraderie enough to play with a minimum of eye-rolling/teeth gritting.

2) Family issues limit my ability to travel long distances currently, that may or may not change after child #4 moves out on her own

3) Cost is a factor. Murphy summed up the 800 pound gorilla that no one talks about openly. Why pay for a sum that costs more than a family week-end out of town? Especially if I can't guarantee playing in games as noted above.

4) Vendors? Maybe a large con is good for them but if I have to pay for a hotel room and meals guess what I am NOT paying for! The Internet (until the UN/socialist paradises spending more than they tax style countries start taxing it) gives me a broad selection of specialized miniatures that has only one downside – International Postage if there is not a USA vendor like Pico Armor. I buy things at the Local shops where I game but only if it is what I would have bought online anyway.

I have never had a bad Cold Wars or Fall In experience. They are the closest cons from Buffalo. I look at some of the smaller cons within a 5 hour drive and usually rule them out when there are only one or two games I like in their PEL. So for myself and our group here in the frostbitten Niagara Frontier…..the big cons from HMGS-East are just what many of us want, need and like. I think its different strokes for different folks!

There's no reason to pick one over the other unless you simply no longer find Little Wars worth it

The biggest problem for me is how close they are in time. From a vacation perspective, I have to pick one.

Then, the demos and other games: WWX, Robotech, etc. is where my focus lies at the moment.

Is the Big Convention model a failure?

No it is not. It brings gamers and vendors together and will expand and contract to meet the needs of the attendees.

The perceived flaws are due to:

Attendance. The decision to limit what can be played there – whether historical games, board games, RPGs, etc. directly affects how many will attend.

The distance to be traveled, like any destination, also limits attendees.

For vendors the internet and Kickstarters. Easier ways to spend your money.

If the convention can support itself financially, then it's not a failure. That applies to any convention. That's the only deciding factor.

For what it's worth (not much really) I can speak to what Cold Wars was originally meant to be. It was to be a small convention to enable guys to attend a con and have some fun gaming without having to go to the Host. It was meant to be in the D.C. / Baltimore area only. It was put on in March to give it a little distance, date wise, from HCON. The flea market was supposed to be just gamers trading and selling their figures to other gamers. Guys would get a table (or two at the max) to sell their personal stuff to other gamers. It was the intent to not sell anyone more than 1 or 2 tables. It was not meant to be in competition with vendors. Vendors have always complained about the flea market. The bottom line was if the vendors made money, they came back the next year, if they didn't make money then they didn't return. Fairly simple economics. Especially when the con was for the gamers and no one else. Cold Wars has grown to be another monster con. Putting on a small convention was a bit of a challenge then. I do not know how the huge conventions are able to be put on at all. There are just too many priorities to enable anyone to truly be the "Director" of such an event. There are always compromises being made in order to stage this type of get together. So, no one is really happy with the outcome. Also, the HMGS BoD has always been a pain and has always displayed a certain arrogance toward everyone else in the hobby. Just trying to persuade the HMGS BoD to allow us to put on Cold Wars was a study in diplomacy. As a result of all these machinations, the Con almost didn't happen at all. I don't think the big convention model is a failure. It has just been run by people who are being overwheled by the work that is entailed in putting such events on. I don't think volunteers can handle these large Cons. Much like the U.S. depending on volunteer militias to defend the country against regular soldiers. It don't work. Having said all that, I have no idea where these conventions should go in the future. Perhaps others can figure that out. I can't. Like our original directions from the BoD for putting on Cold Wars – don't lose money and that was all. I think that and the cons being for the gamers needs to start to be reaffimed by the Con Directors and the BoD as the basis for putting on the CONs. Maybe then we can start to get a decent con at a decent price in a decent location with folks who really want to be there to game. Like I said – my opinion and it's not worth a whole lot. But I wanted to say it anyway.

All in all it seems to me to be a moot point. The 3 big East Conventions will continue on their path as long as they are able to sustian themselves. There is really no point in their doing otherwise. It would seem to me that as long as the Vendors find it in their interest to attend and support those conventions they will continue to do so. The same said for bot Game Masters & players. While you cannot please everyone, if you ignor your attendees long enough they will leave.
While I have never met any on the HMGS BOD or those that run the big three conventions, I would like to offer a comment on "arrogance". I have always been against on line debates on policy/suggestions and making convention decisions. It becomes a circle of seemingly never ending pointless debates that please no one and never really solve anything.
To me the real question is how to expand a conventions base. To bring in others that may have a "historical interest" and have them discover the hobby.

"To bring in others that may have a "historical interest" and have them discover the hobby."

And there in lies the problem. It was just such thinking that oversaw the move to a bigger facility and addition of unlimited non-military/non-historical games/fleas/dealers. The need for those games alone (near 30% at some HMGS cons) has driven the space requirements out of sight, with little to show in increased attendance.

In fact, I could argue the allowance of so many sci-fi/alt/zombie games, while pleasing to some – has had the opposite affect on attendance – driving others more historical/military minded away as the cons and org lost their historical and military focus. At the very least, it hasn't helped attendance one bit.

Couple that with a decline in vendors selling original/hard to get product, add in a poor economy, multiple location and date changes and you have the perfect storm.

How about this, instead of worrying about expanding attendance, why not refocus on what HMGS was supposedly about, find a smaller but nicer location, and be happy with that. Bigger is not always better, and usually comes at a price.

"The issue with the Host was that the majority of the folks that wanted Historicon there, (a very vocal group), actually DIDN'T stay at The Host. They were day trippers, or were able to come down both days from home, etc…so they could care freaking less about the folks having to stay there and their health or the conditions of the building."
Even if this was true you really don't have any numbers to back it up. But it the loss of day trippers that's causing grief with the numbers at Federicksburg. The Problem is that all the complaints made about the host apply to Federicksburg. Oh Federicksburg doesn't have mold, because it dosen't have an on site motel. I have enjoyed the three cons that have been at the FCC. I even enjoyed the drive (except the part below DC.)

@historicgamer this is what I alluding to on the other list.

The other thing I think some folks are missing is that cons are for playing games as much if not more than anything.

I can't think of any reason on Earth to get rid of one of the conventions. Lots of people enjoy them, and machinations aimed at reordering the convention schedule despite the fact that many, many gamers go to these and enjoy them, sounds a lot like the logic behind the move to BCC that started the whole slide in the first place.

How about this for an idea. If a couple thousand gamers out there enjoy a convention and go there every year, why not just leave it the hell alone? I know there are a lot of people out there utterly convinced they know better than everyone else, but how about this? If something is running smoothly, don't mess with it. Chances are you're not as smart as you think you are.

The only East convention that is a battered, bleeding wreck of itself is Hcon, for reasons that are well known. Either move it back and try to repair the damage that was done, or leave it where it is to continue in its reduced state, but it is still viable and a lot of gamers still go there, so I can't think of a reason to cancel it.

On the big con vs. small con question, they are two completely different things. There are a couple small cons I try to attend, but I don't think much of missing some. On the other hand, I do my best to get to all three big cons if possible. It's just something different. What's big? Good question. Over 1,000 I'd say, but that's just a number. Still small compared to big fantasy cons, but big enough to sustain things

The only East convention that is a battered, bleeding wreck of itself is Hcon, for reasons that are well known. Either move it back and try to repair the damage that was done, or leave it where it is to continue in its reduced state, but it is still viable and a lot of gamers still go there, so I can't think of a reason to cancel it.

Umm…judging by what I have read, (here and elsewhere), I don't see anything that shows Hcon to be a "Battered, bleeding wreck of itself". Do you have information otherwise to prove your statement?

The big cons also offer things that smaller regional cons cannot, Hobby University and a thriving flea market/boot sale.

From what I've seen, first at Lancaster then King of Prussia and now Fredericksburg, Hcon is doing very very well. The location is better, the venue is better, the hotel options are better, the area is more interesting, the dealer hall is fantastic, the flea market is still sold out and jam packed, and the games keep getting better and better looking.

And as far as big cons versus small local cons… small local cons are great but they simply do not have the energy, excitement, scale, size or impact to top the experience you get by going to a big event. Both are great and both have an important role. I wouldn't take away the small con experience but ditto the big cons too. There are some things you just can't see or do or experience unless you are at a big event.

I don't see anything that needs to be fixed. The big conventions are making money and attracting folks (vendors and gamers). So do the smaller regional cons.

I've traveled to HCON and as far as Portland, ME to attend cons (from Houston, TX). I've never had a bad experience at a con (although HCON at the host came close). I always spend a fair amount on shiny things no matter what type of con I attend. I go to cons to play and buy. Period. Although I did spend more at HCON but then there's more vendors there anyway.

But I will say the FCC beats the host by any measure that I can think of (at least as it applies to me). I'd never go back to the host, but then again who cares….there's plenty of really great regional cons.

From what I've seen, first at Lancaster then King of Prussia and now Fredericksburg, Hcon is doing very very well. The location is better, the venue is better, the hotel options are better, the area is more interesting, the dealer hall is fantastic, the flea market is still sold out and jam packed, and the games keep getting better and better looking.

Except that attendence has dropped. Since the move out of the Host was to take Historicon to the "next level", I'll question the "very, very well" description.

Where does one find attendance figures for Historicon, Cold Wars, and Fall In?

Dear Ed the two hour wargames guy.

One doesn't.

This falls under the purview of a state secret, which since the reign of he who must not be blamed has only been reported AFTER two years of convention have passed and always winds up in the 3,000+ range.

Further NO consistent method of counting people has ever been established and changes from time to time.

Who are you going to believe HMGS or your lying eyes?

Dear War Artisan

You miss one vital point. The HMGS conventions are NOT the creatures of dealers or manufacturers, nor of the gamers. They are the product of a society, not an organization. That is, they are held at the behest of a membership that pays dues and votes on the officers of the group. The whole point of HMGS is NOT to make a profit, like a dealers convention could, or be a philanthropic organization, it was designed as a GAMING event with dealers because there was no venue or convention or historical gaming at the time it was founded, and it was founded PRECISELY to give Historical Miniatures gamers their own voice in the hobby because the major US cons at that time had largely collapsed into Role-Playing, Fantasy, and Board Games. The cause celeb' at that time was when systems 7, essentially a board game which used tiny counters to small for any miniatures was voted "the Best Miniatures Rules." Also, the fact that these major conventions all pretty much said that they'd rather miniature gamers die, shrivel up and blow away.

So the HMGS was formed for that and it was not an elitist organization (then) and largely still is not, but a society of members who all have a vote and a vested interest. So it is not free to follow the dictates of business or groups or even-- the hobby itself.

I'm greatly abbreviating "the struggle." For excellent sources on what happened and who was there in "Wally's Basement" you can ask Pat Condray or Ed Mohrmann who were, but I got the above straight from the lips of the late great Wally Simon.

So it's not as easy as you may think.

The conventions have always been plagued with politics arising from the HMGS. Most of the acrimony and animus is from these politics which can be highly personal and highly charged, because most of the arguments are about trivial little bits of graft such as free hotel rooms and cash vouchers for meals, and who does or does not get them, who sets on the "cool table in the cafeteria" this year and other things.

The other cause of the HMGS malaise is that the above is exacerbated because 99% of the people in war games are prima-donnas, drama queens, or superannuated children. The remaining 1% are sociopaths.

I personally am a prima-donna trying to working over to being super-annuated 12 year old.

Oh yeah! The same problems exist in Model Railroading, Board Gamers, Road Rally clubs, church social clubs, and the boy scouts. Youth Sports clubs is in there too only war games doesn't provide lethal weapons to settle disputes with.

Politics is politics and always will be, and you will always have that unless you wish a military dictatorship. It's called democracy,

It's been the savior of the hobby and conventions. About 20 years ago all of the major purveyors of Board Games more or less banged up shop and dried up and blew away (howz dat for irony-- Lo how the mighty have fallen). That put a huge hit on the Board Gamers and Bored (note spelling) Gamers aren't like miniature gamers. Board Gamers will never play their Battle of the Bulge pieces on their Waterloo board. Mini-gamers do that all the time. Board Bamers won't make up new units or devise new situations, they wait for the companies to pump them out. Board Gamers are pretty much shake-n-bakes . Open the box, shake out the pieces, play the game. Miniature Gamers make up new stuff all the time. In fact all you can pretty much get in the hobby today is minis and rules and from that point you're on your own. This has been both a strength of miniature gamers and what holds them back. It's not easy to be a GM and you have to put out an extreme amount of effort to do a game.

THAT is what makes us all prima-donnas. Say to Board Gamers "Hey I have a great new game, I played Starship Troopers on a Battle of the Bulge Board and they'll accuse you of cheating but mini-gamers will pile on to use Patton and Pieper to squash the bugs! I can here it now (HEY! Can we drive a Ferdinand into the bug tunnels?!!!! It only has to fire forward!

This is why no rule set last more than 15 minutes after first contact with the gamers and what makes it so much fun.

Unlike Board Games the drying up of ALL manufacturers would not affect Miniatures games one stinking bit. There's so much lead running around we'd have enough for years, and even then we'd be converting like mad, going to the dollar stores, or one of us would become the new Jack Scruby and it would all start over again.

THAT's democratic too!

There's nothing wrong with the Historicon model and nothing wrong with the general way they do things.

The only thing wrong with the HMGS is they could help themselves a LOT by being nicer to people and their members and actually thanking people who do things for them.

That's the way to get ahead in a democracy.

One final point on this.

I have never been to an English War Games Convention, but I've had enough people from the other side of the pond tell me about them (and who have gone to US cons) and many from this side of the pond (who have gone to them, and it has proven to me there are two very different faces to the hobby.

Try and put on a pure spectator game here and you'll be laughed out of the convention. One group tried about 20 years ago, including putting up brass stanchions with ropes to keep (La Canaille) away. No one even watched for a few moments, and once they were told no one but "the elect" could play, they simply walked away.

Even back then we could get all we wanted from any vendor through the mail (and still do). Until they banged up shop the Traidition Vendors could count on at least two orders for over $500 USD a year from me. So shopping isn't a big thing.

The English style of going, buying, looking around and then bugging out to a convention not more than an hour away, won't fly here.

The big thing at Historicon Conventions, and most of the non HMGS cons is the socialization with friends. Far more time is spent in the bar and local restaurants by gamers than around any table or the dealer area, and we have people who come from overseas to do it! Heck, even my piddly little old "The Weekend" hauls them in from California, Wisconson, and --- yes-- England.

In America we like to play with our toys, have other people play with our toys, laugh, joke, tell tall tales, eat, play games and live entirely for ourselves.

The big convention model is just fine. The small convention model is just fine, so long as you go, play, have fun, have some yukks with your friends, laugh, joke, tell tall tales, eat, play some more, and have fun.

well said OSchmidt.

"Umm…judging by what I have read, (here and elsewhere), I don't see anything that shows Hcon to be a "Battered, bleeding wreck of itself". Do you have information otherwise to prove your statement?"

Well, by the organization's own numbers/admissions, they have lost about 1/3 from their peak attendance at the Host, and they are having a hard time filling the dealers area. They also said dealers attending are buying less room (higher costs), which means less income to support the con. The con, at the new location, has lost attendance three out of four years, including the past year.

Or put another way, the con at FCC costs over three times as much as it did at the Host for 1/3 less attendees and less dealers. Not sure what business you are in, but that doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

Historygamer:

Wait…i thought that a previous poster said that there were "no numbers available"?

Let me check and see….

Ah yes…Otto brings it up:

"One doesn't.

This falls under the purview of a state secret, which since the reign of he who must not be blamed has only been reported AFTER two years of convention have passed and always winds up in the 3,000+ range.

Further NO consistent method of counting people has ever been established and changes from time to time."

Okay so, then I shall ask. Do you have numbers to show this "admission"?

And you mentioned 1/3 from their "Peak Attendance" at The Host…based on that I would ask the following:

1: When was "Their peak attendance"? 5 years ago? 10 years ago? I say this because if we use the buzzphrase "Peak attendance" then any year afterward that it doesn't match or surpass that number is an admitted failure.

2: What is the "average attendance at the Host for HCon?" and how does it match up to Fburg so far, (all two of them that it has had there?"

3: How long did it take The Host to get upward climbing and good numbers from it's previous moves? I doubt that it's very first or second time hosting Hcon that it smashed attendance numbers.

4: Could the 1/3 less attendees be the "day trippers" I am talking about? That another person says "We will never get the numbers to prove my point?"

5: Finally….as we have said, and it is being show again and again and again….People keep fighting to bring this convention BACK to a hotel that
A: Didn't want us back and when they said they would, wanted us to share it with a cat show….

B: Has serious mold and allergy issues that affects people health. (If you remember our previous posts on this, we actually have a TMP member that has such a mold allergy so bad that showing up at the host could kill them. I'm becoming more sensitive to mold and "sick buildings" as I grow older. Do you really want to risk peoples health so you can have it back at The Host"?)

C: The building is in serious violation of the ADA and probably various safety, building, fire, and health codes. A recent post by a TMP'er shows buckets in the hallway catching water where the rain is leaking through the roof and he talks about the soaked and collapsed ceiling tiles.

D: The Host has suffered over the years various power, and air conditioning issues. It's been brought up time and time again that the environmental controls can't handle the body heat, or smells of a bunch of old fat sweaty guys….

E: The parking has been questioned, the road always seems under some sort of "Construction", and people have almost been hit by cars when having to cross the street. FCC doesn't have this issue.

F: The rooms themselves are a mess. Look at the reviews for it on Yelp, TripAdvisor, Orbits, Expedia, etc…read some of the reviews.

G: Do you stay at The Host or are you a day tripper?

FCC is relatively new to hosting this type of con and they responded quite well to everyone's concerns the first year, (except for the guy that was mad because they wouldn't allow him to bring in booze to the convention, or the one that said that "the bathrooms were filthy", (which they did need more cleaning, but honestly, it's not the FCC's fault if people can't hit a toilet when they pee or crap…)

So based on the questions I asked HG, the main question I would ask is, WHY would you want it so badly to be back at a hotel that didn't want us, and is a detriment to peoples health and well being?….

Murphy

It is NOT TRUE that the host did not want us. This is entirely a fiction of the BOD then under Major Embarrassment. The Host was in fact holding that weekend open during all of our Baltimoric Purgatory in case HMGS changed it's mind. It also came back and offered THE FOLLOWING year for the HMGS if they wanted it, but they said no.

I know this for a fact because when the HMGS was going to Baltimore we were forming "The Weekend" and I, in canvassing almost all hotels with a ghost of a prayer of suitability asked the Host if we could rent Marietta or Paradise Rooms for a game conventions and they told me absolutely not as they were, holding it open in case the HMGS wanted it. This was from the group sales representative.