47Ronin | 31 Dec 2014 12:48 p.m. PST |
The last of my year end "new topics" for TMP. Now I'm caught up, more or less. In walking around Historicon this past summer, I was struck by the amount of space devoted to tournament games and by the number of players in those games. In addition to the old school Ancients games, Flames of War and more recently Bolt Action appear to have acquired a dedicated following at conventions. It was clear that some players spent most, if not all, of their gaming time at the convention playing in tournament games. In addition to Historicon, by sitting in the flea market area at Fall In and Cold Wars, I get a good view of the tournament area for (at least) three or four hours a day. The area takes up plenty of space, but it is always active. I presume nobody attends a convention just for one aspect of it (such as just to shop or only to play games), but I am curious about how many attend mainly to play in tournament games. Allocation of space is always an issue at conventions and may become more of an issue in the future as other locations are considered. It's possible that too much space is going toward non-tournament games, especially when some of those games are half empty. FYI, I don't play in tournament games (or run them), but have friends who do and know some of the people who run them. You rarely hear any complaints coming from tournament players, so the organizers must be doing something right. I also recall the outcry a few years ago when there was some consideration given to moving the tournament games at HMGS conventions, but that was more directed toward convention officials, not tournament staff. Lastly, since all the tournament games that I have seen are historical (no Zombie tournaments--yet), they weigh in on the "historical vs. non-historical games" debate. Even though the games submitted by GMs may approach 30% non-historical at some HMGS conventions, I (and some others) don't worry about it as much given the number of historical tournament games. If we counted those games, I suspect that the percentage of non-historical games (however defined) at HMGS conventions would be cut in half, at least. I look forward to your comments. Once again, best wishes to all for the New Year. |
DisasterWargamer | 31 Dec 2014 12:54 p.m. PST |
Im not a tournament gamer – having said that I think there is a significant place for tournaments along with demonstration, play testing and other games. People would be the number 1 reason I attend a convention – the learning, shopping and gaming are a nice add on and well worth it as well. |
MajorB | 31 Dec 2014 12:57 p.m. PST |
|
TMPWargamerabbit | 31 Dec 2014 1:03 p.m. PST |
Not this rabbit. WR prefers individual one on one independents or better yet, a team vs, team game. As for the scenario, uneven situations or battles without the "crush all opposition" requirements. |
Ron W DuBray | 31 Dec 2014 1:08 p.m. PST |
no not me, not even a little bit. |
Stosstruppen | 31 Dec 2014 1:17 p.m. PST |
I have a couple times but you miss out on so much other stuff. I'll never do it again. |
whitphoto | 31 Dec 2014 1:22 p.m. PST |
I don't generally play games that have tournaments. This past year I've actually started playing three games that have a tournament scene. Although I wouldn't go to a convention to play tournaments, I could see myself playing in a tournament if it was a stand alone event. I go to Conventions to play games I don't normally get a chance to play and to socialize with friends I don't normally see. Why would I spend a bunch of money taking time off, traveling and renting a hotel room to play the same game I play every Thursday? I don't quite get it. Of course I'm not generally at the skill level where I'm going to be winning multiple tournaments and getting prizes. |
YogiBearMinis | 31 Dec 2014 1:46 p.m. PST |
Everyone I know that plays ancients/medieval plays the tournaments scene at the conventions. Most of them play nothing else. All of the DBA, DBM/M, DBR, Warrior, and FoG are tournaments games.n I agree, if you counted the tournament games, the ratio of historical/non-historical would tilt much further. |
79thPA | 31 Dec 2014 1:55 p.m. PST |
|
nazrat | 31 Dec 2014 1:59 p.m. PST |
I go to the HMGS (and other) cons to shop, socialize, and play lots of games. I've never gotten in to the tournaments because they would effectively cut out two of those things, plus the games I would get to play may or may not be against people I would enjoy playing. For me, way too much time and not enough return. Others' mileage will definitely vary! |
Pictors Studio | 31 Dec 2014 2:07 p.m. PST |
I'm not much of a tournament gamer either although I did run a Warmater Ancient Tournament at Fall In one year and played in a WAB doubles tournament as well. It isn't really my thing, I'd prefer to do games of battles. Not that I have anything against tournaments mind you, people should have fun when they go somewhere to have fun. |
Dynaman8789 | 31 Dec 2014 2:46 p.m. PST |
I have to intention of playing in a tournament ever. Always nice to stop by the area and see what people are playing however. |
PzGeneral | 31 Dec 2014 2:56 p.m. PST |
Nope, not me. Couple of years ago at ORIGINS I signed up for a tournament. I showed up with my nicely painted army. Only two others showed….half painted. They were friends. The guy running it said, "Well, only 3 of you. We'll do a free for all." The two friends looked at each other, then looked at me and said "SURE!" Guess who was the first out. And for that I paid money for the event. I protested and got a shrug. Nope, never again. |
Jlundberg | 31 Dec 2014 3:07 p.m. PST |
No interest in tournaments |
miniMo | 31 Dec 2014 3:18 p.m. PST |
I go to conventions primarily for tournaments: DBA, Blood Bowl, X-Wing. May or may not try a Bolt Action one sometime. I've always found them very friendly affairs. And the players are playing at their best, even if they're new to the game. The only disappointing games I've ever played at cons have been open teaching games — I always seem to wind up teamed with players who just want to shove their figures straight forward and roll dice without any thought about tactics. And I find that frustrating. So now I only join in open games if I really want to take the opportunity to learn those rules. |
Dameon | 31 Dec 2014 4:11 p.m. PST |
I see it as: If you want to enjoy the theme park, you can't spend all day in line for one roller coaster. I enjoy tournaments, so they are a draw for me but not necessarily at conventions. The biggest draw for a convention to me is being able to play a lot of different games, trying out new (to me) rule sets or playing favorite games I otherwise rarely get to play. I even enjoy hosting games, so the big block of time a tournament requires at a convention often doesn't gel well with that. |
Disco Joe | 31 Dec 2014 4:47 p.m. PST |
|
Winston Smith | 31 Dec 2014 5:28 p.m. PST |
Geez. No one wants to admit playing tournaments, yet who are all those people playing them?
I used to do it a lot but not any more. I enjoyed it. |
evilgong | 31 Dec 2014 6:55 p.m. PST |
I enjoy tournaments. David F Brown |
Dave Gamer | 31 Dec 2014 8:42 p.m. PST |
I used to go to conventions primary to buy stuff from the dealers and observe the games. Now that I'm married and in a house where I can't have a big gaming table, I've moved into DBA\HoTT and am now going to conventions primarily to play in DBA\HoTT tournaments. I found the DBA\HoTT tournament players here on the East coast (USA) to be a friendly, easy-going bunch. |
Boiler | 31 Dec 2014 8:47 p.m. PST |
I also played a lot of tournaments. My guess is that many are looking at it from a US view, shows are different in different countries. |
Bowman | 31 Dec 2014 9:07 p.m. PST |
I used to play in the WAB tournaments and they were a big part of the times I spent in the 3 HMGS cons. Most importantly, I made a lot of good friends this way. I've even ran some in years gone by. Now I'll run small mini-tournaments when the mood strikes me. Generally now, friends will just get together and assemble games from our own collections. The tournaments have gone by the wayside. I recently started playing in the Saga tournaments. They are run by excellent people and tend to attract low key fun players. (Saga isn't really a simulation of Medieval warfare, maybe that has something to do with that). My only complaint is committing to a long stretch of time necessary to the tournament.. I must add that I have been lucky not to have run up against a really poor tournament player. I have run up against difficult war gamers that made the game seem to go on for ever. I'm not sure that there is an accurate generalization for "tournament player". |
doug redshirt | 31 Dec 2014 11:58 p.m. PST |
Did a tournament once. Never again. Plus with all the other games why spend all weekend playing only one game over and over and over. |
jameshammyhamilton | 01 Jan 2015 4:40 a.m. PST |
I play in and run many many tournaments. Over the years I must have attended 2-300 tournaments, possibly more. Out of those tournaments where I have played over 1000 games there are perhaps 4 or 5 that were not particularly enjoyable but the remaining 995 games were all good and I am very glad to have played them. I have friends on four continents through tournament games and am still in contact with many of them. In the last few years me preferences for tournament games have been tending towards historical matchups to the point that it now takes a lot to get me to attend a Flames of War event where there is no provision to limit "blue on blue" games. For Ancients I much prefer tournaments where there is a very limited selection of armies allowed which should limit things to more historical encounters. The biggest historical tournament events in the UK have between 200 and 300 players and I would say that for those players the primary reason to attend these events is the tournament. They might have a quick check of the traders in the gaps between games but the tournament is what draws those people in. The rest of the attendance obviously go to look at traders and demo games plus perhaps meet up with tournament gamer friends who might be there. I doubt many people even look at the tournament games never mind go to the event to look at tournaments. |
Garryowen | 01 Jan 2015 7:14 a.m. PST |
I go to about 6 conventions a year, including the three large HMGS in the east. I never play in a tournament. I may walk through the room once, and that is it. Tom |
Mute Bystander | 01 Jan 2015 7:55 a.m. PST |
Absolutely zero interest in Tournament games. And that may be a bit high. Edit: This sums it up for me: " I go to Conventions to play games I don't normally get a chance to play and to socialize with friends I don't normally see." Plus a few games that close friends are putting on. |
historygamer | 01 Jan 2015 11:32 a.m. PST |
I believe when HMGS announces the number of games tournaments are usually part of that roll up number. The fact that non-historical games have grown from 10% to approaching 30% at times is a fact, easily verified by looking in the program booklets. Anecdotal, but my own impression is that tournament attendance has been down at FI and CW, where the increase of non-historical games is more noticeable, so I don't think your supposition is correct. Of course, HMGS has no data or significant management of its gaming areas other than publishing a schedule and setting up tables – so they really have no idea what is happening in the gaming areas either. The trend now of handing out game and painting awards for non-historical stuff only adds to the overall growth and impression of that trend at HMGS cons. |
YogiBearMinis | 01 Jan 2015 2:58 p.m. PST |
Keep in mind that for many tournaments players, it is part "winning the tournament," but also a big part is simply getting to play several games of your favorite ruleset against new players or old friends (I think that the Wash DC area has more ex-resident gamers than other areas combined). Many of the DBA or Warrior gamers, for example, are old friends who play tournaments to get games against the people they only get to see once or twice a year. I find the tournaments area quite collegial overall as a result. |
jdpintex | 01 Jan 2015 3:25 p.m. PST |
Nope, not me. I attend conventions to play games, especially with new rules. |
alan in canberra | 01 Jan 2015 5:09 p.m. PST |
I attend conventions for participation games, to buy and to gossip. My competitive gaming is at the smaller shop run events which tend to a more leisurely pace, not a game till you drop approach. Alan |
platypus01au | 01 Jan 2015 6:50 p.m. PST |
I usually will play a competition (tournament) if I attend a convention. I'm certainly not there to win silverware. It's the gaming and seeing friends from other parts of the country. I enjoy it. Cheers, JohnG |
raylev3 | 01 Jan 2015 7:28 p.m. PST |
Done tournaments in the past…never again. They attract the type of "win at all cost" rules lawyers with whom I prefer not to play. But I do go to conventions to play games. |
Bowman | 02 Jan 2015 4:41 p.m. PST |
They attract the type of "win at all cost" rules lawyers with whom I prefer not to play. Bit of a broad brush there. I find these types tend to seek out regular scheduled games too. |
Visceral Impact Studios | 03 Jan 2015 8:35 a.m. PST |
Keep in mind that for many tournaments players, it is part "winning the tournament," but also a big part is simply getting to play several games of your favorite ruleset against new players or old friends (I think that the Wash DC area has more ex-resident gamers than other areas combined). Many of the DBA or Warrior gamers, for example, are old friends who play tournaments to get games against the people they only get to see once or twice a year. I find the tournaments area quite collegial overall as a result. This ^^^ If you enter such an event with a competitive mind-set then it could be considered a tournament in the traditional sports-sense. On the other hand, a lot of people think of such games as friendly pick-up games which serve as an extension of the "meta-game" of reading, research and army design. I'm not into the hyper-competitive tournament approach either but as we developed "Warfare in the Age of Madness" we really enjoyed the combination of meta-game army design and testing those designs in battles against friends and family. That form of points-based gaming allows two players (strangers and friends/family) to contribute to the gaming experience and extend their gaming experience beyond the brief time we spend table-side to their time at home reading about and configuring their favorite armies. A very good friend of mine, Tom Thomas, is involved with the evolution and development of HOTT/DBA. I'm not at all a fan of the system (actually, it's the opposite of every game design mechanic that I prefer!) but my sons and I really enjoy playing his in his events/casual HOTT/DBA gaming sessions. Yes, there is a point system involved and deployment rules and the other trappings of a "tournament". But as one of my sons said of points-based wargaming, at it's best it's a lot like Legos. You get to build something together with your friends. |
jameshammyhamilton | 05 Jan 2015 5:13 a.m. PST |
When I go to tournaments priorities are from most important to least: * To play games with people I don't normally get to play * For those games to be enjoyable for both parties * To meet up with the many friends I have made through tournament * To play a bunch of games in a short period of time * At a two or three day event to have a decent night out or two which will very likely include a lot of beer and probably curry * To play games to the best of my ability * To win a trophy If I had answered this question 5-10 years ago I suspect I would have had a higher priority on the winning a trophy and a lower priority on the game being enjoyable for both parties. I am actually now trying to work out how to run a "tournament" where the games are not equal points games or "standard" format ones. It might actually come to pass and if it does I think it could be a great way to play. |
VonBurge | 05 Jan 2015 8:11 a.m. PST |
Interesting discussion. In the past I thought I may have been too tournament focused and felt I was missing out on many of the other great games that conventions offer. In respect to Flames of War at past Historicon conventions that resulted in some nine games played over multiple days and little time for anything else other than a quick run through the vendor area and a bit of shopping. Admittedly too much tournamentt gaming! So this past Historicon (2014) I deliberately decided not to play in the big "Nationals" Flames of War tournament and instead to sign up for other hosted games in both Flames of War and other games systems/areas. I've got to say in retrospect I somewhat regret that decision. The reason why is that many of the game master run events seemed to be a bit too "scripted" to me. It felt like most of the scenario outcomes where preordained. When my team did better than expected, our opposition was just plused up with additional reinforcements to compensate for our good decisions and/or luck. Conversely in games where things did not go well for my side, we also had the conditions changed to make it more of a close game. I was a bit disappointed these game masters did not let scenarios just play out. I don't want to be critical of game masters as I appreciate what they do, but the events I signed up for just did not work out as well for me in the end. I found myself missing the challenge of meeting on common ground and the chance to win or lose based off my own decisions and luck. In some games, the artificiality of scenario conditions changing on the whim of the game master got a bit old for me. Maybe these game masters were more focused on everybody having a good time, which I understand and appreciate. But I did find it personally frustrating when my good moves/decisions were negated by something being induced by the game master to rebalance the situation or my bad luck or bad decisions were "fixed" for me. This happened in two of the three other event games I played at Historicon in 2014, and one of these was a large multi-player Flames of War event. It even happened in a past Historicon where I was playing in game using a then popular Napoleonic rules set being hosted by the rules author. So I've gone from zero tournaments at conventions, to all tournaments at conventions, to trying a mix. I will have to manage my expectations for future game master run events and look at them for more of a chance to just try out new game systems and not focus on actually being concerned with achieving scenario outcomes and I probably will go back to playing more tournaments for many of the positive reasons posted by others previously on this thread. As jameshammyhamilton noted just above, I think I actually get more of a social reward in the tournament setting. I have made many friends through tournament play that I continue communicate with on various forums etc and look forward to seeing in future tournaments. My fellow gamers in the game master run events I don't seem to be able to recall after the fact. Though most all of those fellow gamers were great people, those close ties/bonds just don't seem to be generated there for me. So to each their own. I'm just glad that most conventions seem to offer a lot of whatever it is you are after at them. Cheers, VB |
Bowman | 05 Jan 2015 4:38 p.m. PST |
|
Old Contemptibles | 06 Jan 2015 4:53 p.m. PST |
No to tournaments. I am hard press to find a game in the Historicon PEL that interests me. Seems that most of the games are demo games, tournaments and ever more non-historical games. Ideally you should cover the basics SYW, Naps, ACW, WWII, Victorian Colonial and smattering of other periods. All in a variety of gaming systems. But no, not there. If trends continue, we are looking at a near representation of Origins. Non-historical games are insidious, they will sooner or later dominate what is suppose to be a historical gaming convention. So sad. I waited too long to attend one. |
114th Pennsylvania | 15 Feb 2015 7:49 a.m. PST |
I am not a tourney player and run many scenario driven games at the Conventions and elsewhere. I have played in some small tourneys that left the Win at all Cost and must of the latest Super Army to win people out. The WAB/ECW tourney and SAGA tourney seem to attract the more laid back gamer. (Not that its bad to be competitive, I am just not used to them and have no desire to play against them) I have many friends that are Tourney players and I like to stop by and see how they are doing. (I guess a man has got to know his limitations) In the end its the People, thrill of the game and hopefully sportsmanship that keep people coming back. Tournaments are just as important as GMs, Walleys Basement sellers, Vendors selling goods and good Volunteers to help the whole Conventions experience remain strong. |
Cardinal Ximenez | 15 Feb 2015 8:12 a.m. PST |
Enjoy both. I agree that playing in tournaments where you meet lots of old friends with friendly rivalries makes for a good event. I would also say that if you want to truly learn how to play a particular rule set, play in a few tournaments. Best way I've found so far. DM |
Bowman | 16 Feb 2015 8:36 a.m. PST |
I've signed up for the Saga tournament at Cold Wars. But I wouldn't say that I'm attending just for the tournament games. It's not that black and white. |
OSchmidt | 11 Mar 2015 5:41 a.m. PST |
You'd have to drag me kicking and screaming and beat me to a pulp to get me to play a tournament. But that's just me. I don't like the formalism of it, and I'm not a competitive player at all. I'd rather lose and throw the game to give my opponent a good time than win. But on the other hand I understand the tournament perfectly and accept that some people like playing a certain way, and the marathon experience of a game you love to play I can realize and understand completely. Actually there's something admirable about the discipline and dedication the gamers and people involved put into it. I also respect the work they do. Years ago in the Cambrian age of Wargames at the Philadelphia Wargame Convention which used to be held at a masonic hall on Womrath St. Bob Wall designed a "challenge" game which was played on a square grid 24" by 24" I think and with small stands of troops. It was a diceless game and the trick was maneuver so as to bring superior forces to bear. The superior side won and there were a few rules for losses etc. It was OK. He got about 50 people to join the tournament. Next year it was down to 8 or so. I don't object to tournaments or the people who do them. I just can't game, game, game anymore. |
Joes Shop | 11 Mar 2015 8:32 a.m. PST |
No, not for miniatures, no interest. I do play in ASL Tournaments. |
138SquadronRAF | 11 Mar 2015 2:25 p.m. PST |
Well said Otto! I want to play a variety of games at a convention. The idea of three or more games of the same thing back toback strikes me as a waste. |
47Ronin | 14 Mar 2015 11:45 a.m. PST |
So how were the tournaments at Cold Wars? I saw that HMGS moved the Flames of War games into the Showroom. How did that work out? Moving the FOW games did give the flea market area and the remaining tournament games some much needed breathing space. You could see (and feel) the difference. |
ACWBill | 15 Mar 2015 4:37 a.m. PST |
|
warwagon6 | 14 Apr 2015 8:41 p.m. PST |
I play tournaments and I like it. |
Yesthatphil | 16 Apr 2015 1:40 p.m. PST |
I like all aspects of traditional historical wargaming. For me, recreating actual battles in as tactically convincing a way as possible on terrain that gives a good feel for the landscape is the gold standard. But pushing the soldiers around for the fun of it makes for an enjoyable few hours too. So I still play in the occasional tournament and nearly always have done. UK gatherings tend not to make you choose just to attend for the games, though, and I enjoy access to all traditional aspects of wargaming. Phil |
Vidgrip | 19 Apr 2015 6:08 a.m. PST |
I'm not a tournament gamer but I do enjoy walking through their area at big conventions to see their armies. I prefer to play scenario games. I must cry foul at the notion that tournament games are heavily historical. The figures are, if that is what matters to you. Romans vs Aztecs or 1942 Germans vs 1942 Germans is no more historical than Dragons vs Robots. It's all good to me, though. I have never walked past a table at a HMGS convention and thought "I wish that game wasn't here." |
Bobgnar | 03 May 2015 12:30 p.m. PST |
I seldom have ever played in tournaments but I have run dozens of DBA tournaments over the last 20 years. Mostly games based on historical battles or with matched enemy pairs. I have no problem with un-historical enemies games, any more than I take exception to chess games with Homer Simpson characters on one side and Napoleon ones on the other. I also have done many historical scenario games and some no so much so. |