"Why all the animus towards tournament games ?" Topic

Why do we see a simple declarative sentence about tournaments always end with an exclamation point ?
"I am not a tournament player!"
"Thank God!" sometimes follows.
It's as if they are declaring they have never been a Communist or do not have the clap.

This puzzles me. I have been one and NEVER encountered those legendary "win at all costs" players. I played three times a year for 10 years. In fact I will go as far as to call anyone who says those are the norm a liar.
We are all playing with toy soldiers, and why the way I play bothers you puzzles me.
If my Mycenaeans are fighting Teutonic Knights, why are you annoyed?
If I am fighting against SS with Fallschirmjaegers, why are you put out?
I don't rag on you if you are doing Chancellorsville at a 1:5 figure scale with 40mm figures. ( In fact I hope you are enjoying yourself), so why the disdain? We are all doing the same thing.

Why – Threads like this one…

I played in a tournament once. Two people tried to convert me to communism AND I got the clap.

" I have been one and NEVER encountered those legendary "win at all costs" players."
I have, several times, and each time found it very unpleasant. So let me congratulate you on your luck !

"If my Mycenaeans are fighting Teutonic Knights, why are you annoyed?"
Only if we are in the same room at the same time. And I will go no further than sadly shake my head…

"If I am fighting against SS with Fallschirmjaegers, why are you put out?"

Never ! Since I have read Stephen Harding's The Last Battle (which is real history, not a novel !) I would not be surprised.

"May, 1945. Hitler is dead, the Third Reich is little more than smoking rubble, and no GI wants to be the last man killed in action against the Nazis. The Last Battle tells the nearly unbelievable story of the unlikeliest battle of the war, when a small group of American tankers, led by Captain Lee, joined forces with German soldiers to fight off fanatical SS troops seeking to capture Castle Itter and execute the stronghold's VIP prisoners. It is a tale of unlikely allies, startling bravery, jittery suspense, and desperate combat between implacable enemies."

The story really begs for being played on the table !

Why all the animus to people who don't want to play tournament games ?

Personally I don't like "historical" armies that have no resemblance to their historical originals. I've never cared for "killer" armies – what do they prove? What do they mean? In an historical sense they demonstrate that if history had been other than it was (a German army equipped solely with Tigers and Panthers, and retaining air superiority) then victory was possible. Sure, and if wishes were horses….

In fantasy / SF games they prove that the rules aren't balanced and there is a way to always win. That's fun once, at most.

Although I will play ancients out of period – but I never claimed to be consistent!

Bad experiences?

I've never participated in one but you hear that anything from gamesmanship to downright cheating occur so maybe there's been enough ex-participants who've been "bitten" to create the animus the OP speaks about.

Again as I've led a sheltered life I've never actually encountered it but supposedly winners of tournaments can be unbearably smug.

On reflection the said animus might stem from one of those wargamers' myths and have no basis in reality but it's definitely there.

Because they are having fun the wrong way.

I've played in tournaments and in regular scheduled games at conventions. Both have their share of win at all costs gamers.

I enjoyed looking around to see what I could find on the Battle of Schloss Itter a few years ago Porthos . A great scenario.

TMP link

I have a negative attitude towards tournament war gaming because I have run into players who are quite willing to cheat to win. I like to tinker with rules and that is greatly frowned upon by those that play in tournaments, in my experience. Finally, I have already paid to collect miniatures, incurred the costs associated in painting same, and have paid for gas to drive some distance to play. Plus I need to pay for at least one meal away from home. Why should I pay a fee to be able to play a game or two as well?
Having said that, I don't care if you want to play tournaments. I have a large number of friends that do as much. I don't mind if they do. I simply refuse to do so myself. So have fun playing in tournaments. I won't be there.

The animus is because tournament players are focused on the tournament rather than the game. If you play in a club or league then all games revolve around playing in tournaments. Your forces and point values have to be tournament approved. No casual pick up games or campaigns. Just the narrow tournament.

Pretty funny John!

only cases where you can win with Army List manipulation. That and the Win or go home structure can make it a pressure situation for some folks.

Those that I have know did not usually like to play in Multi-player games (loss of control?).

The animus is because tournament players are focused on the tournament rather than the game. If you play in a club or league then all games revolve around playing in tournaments. Your forces and point values have to be tournament approved. No casual pick up games or campaigns. Just the narrow tournament.

Sure. For the duration of the tournament. But that's like saying "man, historical gamers always just focus on the Battle of San Jacinto" because for one day they re fight San Jacinto.

don 't like at all this approach to the game..why?
simnly because people who love tournaments are fond , like i saw more than once, to field a Samurai Army Vs a Late Romans one…

"I have been one and NEVER encountered those legendary "win at all costs" players. I played three times a year for 10 years. In fact I will go as far as to call anyone who says those are the norm a liar."

Sort of my opinion of someone who claims to have NEVER encountered a win at all costs tournament player.

Back in the days of WRG tournaments I knew two players that you had to watch every roll, every movement. I knew one chap who did extensive mathematical algorithms to determine the best value for their points. That kind of stuff just sucks the joy out of it. I don't mind a "blue on blue" game but armies 1000 years apart is just silly. Plus the points don't hold up. An infantry that costs 6 points in one WRG book will always lose to 6 pointer from another book with equal dice throws. I don't honestly remember which armies but I proved it to our group.

darthfozzywig, actually for some of them it isn't just for the tournament. For some people their non-tournament gaming is viewed as practice for the tournament and they play with tournament rules and so forth.

I'm not saying it a majority, I have no idea on how many there are just that they exist.

As far as the question goes, the fun for so-called power gamers is the game and the gaming of the system. It is a system and they want to win at it. They might be attracted to the miniatures or be happy playing with unpainted lead or plastic but it is fun to win.

I'm not going to say I can't understand that, I can. I don't really enjoy it myself but I can see how it might be fun to see if you can get the better of a system that way.

It is a mental exercise.

And there is nothing at all wrong with it.

I prefer scenarios where winning for one side is just part of the narrative of the game, but other people see the game as a series of numbers in one place or another.

And everything in between.

As far as points go, 21eRegt, they may or may not hold up but just because a 6pt thing in one army doesn't match up to a 6pt thing in another doesn't mean that the points are wrong.

A 6pt thing in one army might be worth that because it interacts with the army in a certain way that makes it 6pts and the other 6pt thing isn't equally advantaged.

For example, in WH40K Space marine lascannons cost 15 pts in a tactical squad but something like 30 pts in a heavy weapon squad.

Same stats for the weapon but the utility is different.
The heavy weapons squad will more likely stay static to shoot its four heavy weapons rendering the other 6 guys in the squad almost ablative armor.

The tactical squad has a more movement based role on the battlefield and may never fire its lascannon. So the same weapon is two different points in the same army.

So two types of troops, a skirmisher in one army and a armored infantry man in another, may have the same point value even though the one might beat the pants off the other every time when face to face with each other.

Points are certainly not exact, but they are always relative.

I will stand up and say I have played in tournaments a lot, yes you can meet people who take it too seriously, but outright cheating I suspect is very rare. Players getting too excited and seeing what they want to see yes you get that, but it's human nature, and tournaments have guidelines and umpires if necessary. However calling of umpires is incredibly rare as things are usually sorted with a quick bit of banter or even odds it is evens it's not.

What I will say is I have visited places in the world I would not have, made a lot of good friends and been bought a lot of pints and coffees to drink while playing a lot of good fun games.

In fact I think the worse cases of bad sportsman behaviour and cheating have been in games in a non tournament environment. I suspect it is because people let these things slide as we are here as a social thing and no one wants to cause a fuss. We have had a few people who were never invited back to a game evening after their first game as they cheated, bullied etc

Maybe that is why tournaments look so bad as our groups are self selecting and those who don't play like us don't play with us.

Btw while I play tournaments our evening games are always multiplayer and historical with both sides being provided by the person who usually umpires the game and springs surprises on us, most are not even fights either and winning/losing is not even discussed in most cases, just was the outcome historical ( whatever that is and that is another discussion)

I have only played in tournaments with DBA, and one of those games was against Sue Barker, using the exact same Hittite Empire list as me.

In the two or three years I played these tournaments, I've only run across two bad apples. The most memorable was in my first or second tournament. We had been asked by the tourney organizer to bring along extra armies if we had them; I brought Alex Macedonians.

The player who borrowed my army for the day was the quintessential smelly wargamer, with unkempt hair and beard, stained t-shirt, etc. I played against him, and he would do things like take extra-generous moves, try to manuver across the front of opposing elements to get into a flanking position, etc. I had to watch him constantly, and when I corrected him, he would just say 'interesting'.

Well, by the end of the four rounds, he turned out to have won! I can only expect that he cheated against the other players, who either didn't know the rules as well, or were too polite to make an issue of it. He went home with a painted army as a prize (not the one he was using).

While it annoyed me to lose the tournament to such a character (using MY army!), I would gladly play in another DBA tournament, because I would have the chance to play against new armies and make new friends across the table.

I think it's related to religious wars. You have a group of unenligntened heretics enjoying the hobby in a way that is an anathema to your way of thinking.

They need to be exterminated.

I play them because I tend to play in a better game as the rules give a framework for something that will finish in a well defined time.

I have seen a lot of terrible games at conventions and by playing tourneys I never have to worry about bad scenarios or ill conceived rules.

Having said that I do a mix of games at a con, a like a little of both.

I'm not a player of tournament games, but it's not really for any of the reasons given here. That said, I never have an issue with how anyone else games. However you want to game is fine by me. If you have fun, go for it. So I don't play in tournament games, but I would never look down on anyone who does. I have friends who play tournaments, and I will even go and watch and cheer them on. It's just not my cup of tea.

It's not because of Romans vs Cromwell or things like that, either. Hell, I would play a Samurais vs. Macedonians game. That sounds fascinating. But tournament play by itself doesn't interesting me.

Here's why. 1- By their very nature, Tournament games are made up of points balanced play and focused on a single battle. A tournament is typically my force, which I believe to be as powerful as I can build it within the points balance structure vs you with your force that you believ to be as powerful as you can build it within the point structure. They are, in my opinion at least, boring. A line of my forces against a line of your forces, with little room to maneuver and everything coming down to who breaks who's line first without the maneuvers to get their just doesn't appeal to me. When I play computer real time games like Total War, half the fun to me is the maneuver to get to the place where I can fight from a spot of my choosing. In most table top tournament play, it's all about the final contact, and that bores me.

I find crafted scenarios with planned events much more interesting and exciting. With the cookie cutter nature of most tournament rules, you just can't get that kind of entertainment experience, imho. It has nothing to do with the rules of the game, really. I have and do play Flames of War, and have had a blast in hand crafted scenarios based on real world battles (or what if scenarios) that the bog-standard tournament games just didn't hold a candle to.

2- I like to play with my friends. By their nature, most tournaments are me and my army vs. you and your army. I like a game with 6-8 people around a table sharing tactics and swapping stories. A tournament is by its nature a series of one on one games where the goal is to get through the ladder. It's a bit lonely to me.

I'd rather have an afternoon of entertainment where I play a hand crafted scenario and get to talk with my friends and at the end of the day look back at the great time we had, which leads me to…

3. I don't game to crush my enemies, see them driven before me and hear the lamentation of their women. I game to have a little fun and enjoy pushing pretty little figures around a table. I think competitiveness is a big part of tournament play, and I just don't game to be competitive. I'm more of what I call an 'experiential' player, where just the act of gaming gives me the enjoyment I want, win, lose or draw. Sure it's nice to win, but that is only part of the reward for me. I don't mind for a minute if winning is everything to YOU. It's just that with tabletop games, it's not why I do it, and I respect your desire to play your way as long as you respect my desire to play mine. It all works out that way.

Robert Kennedy, what a great find ! Thank you !!

I think one simple reason for tournament play is that it is a guaranteed way to get to play games at a convention with your favorite ruleset. You play in an all-day DBM or Warrior or WAB or FoW tournament and you are guaranteed three or more games against new blood.

When you play "scenarios" you open yourself up to the best and worst of gaming. For every Bill Gray Age of Eagles extravaganza with a carefully arranged battlefield and OOB, you get some dude with house rule modifications or bizarro orders of battle, or both. After driving for hours, tournaments offer more of a guaranteed thing.

I've played in tournaments and NOT played in tournaments. I frequently debate whether the plusses outweigh the minuses.

Pros are that they can drive a gaming scene. You generate a level of enthusiasm as people build up and practice for the next go round.
It also tends to lead to more painted armies, although as the tournament only players creep in this tends to become a challenge. People become interested only in the competition rather than the hobby aspect.

The down side is that the tournament scene starts to take over the game. I've been having a lot of fun getting forces together for the Robotech RPG Tactics game. I even found some people that also bought into it locally. Being based on an RPG there's lots of interesting fan stuff out there to play around with already. The tournament minded local group though, has little to no interest in that. They will only play Rules as Written because doing otherwise might screw up their tournament mindset.

I saw the same thing happen with Warhammer and 40K. Once the tournament scene became prevalent the one off whacky scenarios were gone. You had a hard time getting a game in that wasn't one of the tournament scenarios played to a highly competitive level so that the tournament guys could stay in practice.

That's the big problem with tournament play. Once you take it up, forever will it dominate your destiny. :)

Historical miniature wargaming has four dimensions:
- Aesthetics: Nice painted miniatures on nice terrain.
- Historical: Beeing true to the past.
- Roleplaying: Slipping into the skin of a historical person.
- Gaming: Using rules to win.

IMO tournament gamers excel in the last one and usually ignore the other three.

Decebalus,

Please take a look at the Bolt Action, Flames of War and Muskets and Tomahawks tournaments being run at the HMGS East conventions. I think that they hit all of your points.

I know that I was involved in a El Cid themed tournament years ago and it was wonderful.

Why all the animus to people who don't want to play tournament games ?

Oh, please.

IMO tournament gamers excel in the last one and usually ignore the other three

IMO, the best painted armies are those from the tournament players. "Slipping into the skin……"? You can tell that by looking at the player?

Look at the big thread of tournaments at the conventions. It is clear that many of those criticizing tournaments have never played in them.

I've played in tournaments for years, but have mostly played in non-tournament games. You meet as many poor sports in both types of gaming. It is NOT just confined to tournament players. I have met some tournament players that I would not want to play with again. But, I have not met cheaters and win at all cost players either.

I have only played in tournaments with DBA, and one of those games was against Sue Barker, using the exact same Hittite Empire list as me.

That must have made a nice change for her from hosting "A Question of Sport".

I played my first ever tournament game (FoG:R) a year ago, and have only met one person I would cross the road to avoid (which, in a way, is a huge relief based on the "everyone knows at least one weirdo and if you don't then you're the one" principle). Everyone I played against knew I was a novice and helped me out, and I got loads of advice on how to "tweak" my army for future competitions. I had a mixed bag of results with highs and lows (unlike my dice, which were pretty much lows – but then they're like that in "friendlies" as well), which encouraged me to keep entering.

The only time an umpire has been called to one of my games was when something odd happened that neither of us could find anything about in the rules. The guy who adjudicated was the best FoG:R player in the country, whose own game had "finished early", and who sat with us and talked us through the sequence of how to handle such a problem. Far from being smug, this guy is very modest, and often enters with very unusual (but surprisingly historically valid) armies just to see what can be done with them (and usually the answer is win). Many other players do the same, albeit with varying degrees of success; there are those who play to win (and why not, it's a competition), but the majority are there to see what they can achieve with their favourite army and meagre talents as generals, and nobody struts "uber armies" or has to win at all costs. And there are women players, which generally indicates a mature atmosphere.

Each to his own, but I have found – very late in life – that tournaments are fun. To be fair, the FoG:R tournament circuit is fairly small – only about 120 players in the whole of the UK – but they are a great bunch.