"In Defence Of.....Tournament Games" Topic

I thought, as a little amusement, to start a series of threads entitled "In Defence Of…." and have a different aspect of gaming that is often derided. I believe we're living in the golden age of miniatures wargaming, everything is awesome and variety is the spice of life. However, gamers are an opinionated lot (and I'm very opinionated about not having too many negative opinions and react negatively to negativity) and that one man's meat is another's poison….or that poison is actually a virus and if it isn't stopped it'll be the ruin of us all.

The rules are this: I lay some of the more commonly expressed charges against an aspect of wargaming and you guys have to leap to its defence. Here's the but….your defence must be genuine with no passive-agressive snide digs at the subject or damning with faint praise. Nor are you to post your agreement with the charges either. Haters…well, this one isn't for you. We want to hear the positives about wargaming.

The first Accused to take the stand is the Tournament Wargame. Much criticised for producing over-competitive players who care more for rules than fun, it is a hotbed for foul play, gamesmanship, rules lawyering and even cheating. The social aspect of gaming is all but shoved aside for the cut and thrust of victory at all costs. Worse still, it is an insult to history with armies not being fielded based on reality, but on points efficiency. Norman knights vs Assyrians, endless rows of King Tigers swamping Easy 8 Shermans and British Napoleonics v Russians just because this is a tournament. The charge is, tournament games are bad for the hobby.

OK, now over to you for the case for the defence….

Wargaming is not a competitive sport.

Erm, is that a positive defence of tournament games there?

Tournament wargames are also not 'competitive sport' … they are just games (and generally not taken too seriously by the players)…

I think it is important to distinguish between historical and other genres, however: I have heard of quite a number of genuinely unpleasant incident cited on this forum (but on further info they seem to relate to Warhammer and similar: I couldn't comment/don't know/wouldn't defend any aspect of fantasy play or etiquette. It isn't part of my leisure interest or experience) …

Phil

Back on track …

1: tournaments bring hundreds of like minded enthusiasts together for enjoyable weekends. What's not to like?

!

Phil

Tournament wargames are also not 'competitive sport'

So why is there an emphasis on winning?

I just wish people would stop telling others how to persue their own hobby.

That is far more damaging to a hobby community than playing tournaments.

Its toy soldiers after all.

Saying that tournaments are a "hotbed for foul play, gamesmanship, rules lawyering and even cheating" is only true in the same way the "smelly gamer" stereotype is-- it may have been true a few times, but the incidence of well-run, fun, and fair tournaments filled with really decent chaps is probably far more the reality. The bad apples (and stinky gamers) just get far more press. Getting together to play a series of games with like minded fellows is more often a LOT of fun and allows you to see a bunch of nicely painted armies at the same time.

I haven't been in a tournament for a long time (only because of the large block of time involved) but I always cruise through the ones at HMGS conventions numerous times during the cons. I see a huge room full of players having a good time, and not once have I seen any bad blood regardless of the rules system being used for the games.

I fail to see a down side to tournaments.

It's not the winning it's the taking apart that counts

Major B…I don't think you've read the rules to this thread or else you have read the OP and think you'll go ahead and post your criticism anyway. This is an exercise in saying something positive about something that is often criticised.

For example, I would say that tournament games are just one aspect of a varied hobby and variety is good.

> I just wish people would stop telling others how to persue their own hobby.

I wish they would stop doing so in passive aggressive form…

Competition is human nature. Give two humans a few pennies each and they will start pitching them against a wall. Give two people a pie and they will race to eat them. Why would war games be any different?

Convention organizers know the value of this and will welcome tournaments to bolster their income. Makes perfect sense to me.

The same goes for painting competitions. If there is a way to compete, humans will do it.

Now, I'm competitive too. tournaments are not my thing; I completely understand the attraction though. I prefer the one-off game (by definition, a game is a competition) rather than a series of games arranged as a tournament (is a campaign a sort of tournament?).

But that's me. I just like playing one game at a time and have little interest in playing King of the Hill…at least when it come to war gaming.

So, to answer the OP:

1. Tournaments draw people into conventions

2. They also attract some people into supporting miniatures hobby.

3. Lots of people enjoy that sort of competition

3. Participation (or non-participation) is completely optional; it is not required to enjoy the hobby.

PS,

The whole idea of having to "defend" how one participates in any aspect war gaming is odd. Why would someone who complains about some aspect of how some people enjoy miniatures war gaming obligate any to defend it?

Just in the spirit of conversation, MajorB, there is far less emphasis on winning in wargame tournaments than, say, scrabble with the family at Christmas.

Neither are competitive sports … actually family scrabble usually results in more bruises than the average wargame tournament although every family will be different in that respect

Phil

The whole idea of having to "defend" how one participates in any aspect war gaming is odd.

Precisely.

Didn't we do this yesterday?

TMP link

Manufacturers who produce rules and miniatures for those rules promote tournaments for their own games. This increases interest in their game which increases sales. Increased sales means more toys are made. Other people see the system work and decide to create their own rules and miniatures for a variety of periods. Those of us who don't play in tournaments still benefit from the new toys. How many of us own BattleFront figs, Warhammer stuff and others but use different rules that are more to our liking? Besides, there are chess tournaments, checkers tournaments and even spelling tournaments! Why not have tournaments in our hobby?

One cool thing about tournaments is that some folks try to find the "killer" army. In ancients and medieval areas, this has led to some gamers choosing unique and different armies to what is generally considered the classics. As a result others have jummped on that bandwagon and started trying to find the elusive "killer" army. The cool aspect is that some manufacturers start making those obscure "killer" armies because of the demand.

Bottom line is that we have a greater selection of figures available because of the tournament gamers trying to figure out various previously unknown combinations.

Do tournaments really need defending? Personally I don't think so.

Oh, I'm not a tournament player – just as well for all concerned. :)

I have meet a good number of people through tournaments that I am happy to call my friends.

In the 70s and 80s I played in three, sometimes more WRG Ancients tournaments a year. I also had one or two WRG Gush tournaments.
In 99% of the case, this was an opportunity to reunite with old friends and meet new ones. My win loss record? errr… To call me a 33% winner is to be charitable. So, obviously I was not in it for the wins. In fact some of my proudest moments were winning best painted army. One of the judges whose work I admired once dragged somebody to my table saying, "You got to see John's Gauls!"

Sometimes I met a bad egg, but very rarely. I have also run into bad eggs while playing in non tournament games. I have even had one or two in my basement. Once. To me that is a non issue.

Final point. Do you have any obscure Ancients armies that you play with because you love the period, but can't stand tournaments?
Do you honestly believe that a miniatures manufacturer would make ranges of Maurikian (AND Belisarian and Nikephorian!) Byzantines, Aztec, Mongol, Khitan Liao, Ghaznavids, Seljuks, Sassanid Persian ad infinitum, if they could not be used in tournament play versus Greeks, Romans (Patrician, Marian, Early Republic, Patrician…), Vikings and Normans? I think not.
WRG Ancients tournaments were the major driving force behind the amazing variety of Ancient and Medieval armies now on the market.
And we now have tournament style rules by others directly supporting all kinds of armies.

The tournaments I've been to have been pretty fun. I'd say 4 out of 5 opponents were great and the remaining 1 in 5 were mostly liveable if rather uninspired.

Only a few crazies.

I don't really have an interest in it today but I'm glad I went to as many (mostly 40K) as I did, when I was younger.

Well, gaming in general is not a "sport" as it does not require any physical prowess to win. Darts and golf both are sports as there is a physical component to both…how ever small or great it may be.

So my defense of wargaming as a contest…
A chance to play several or many games in a row to hone one's skills at the game or to produce a review of the game.

Well, gaming in general is not a "sport" as it does not require any physical prowess to win.

So, do you think chess is a sport?

Dear Ubercommando.

You're mad! Stark Raving Mad!

My proof of this is the posts you have gotten so far.

But OK.

A Defense of Tournament Games.

The tournament game provides a focus for gamers in a specific period of War Game History to bring out their armies and engage in mutual social fun. When I say wargame history I mean history as bracketed by war gamers among the various "periods" which are deemed to have significant differences between them. Ancients, Renaissance, Modern etc. Within these periods which can be very broad, the matching of disparate armies Mongols against Old Kingdom Egyptians, or whatever are not historical abominatins, but simply a use of troops as "tokens" to match against each other, and as the recourse is always to the rules, more or less interchangeable.

But that is not a defense of Tournaments, merely the dispatching of an argument by the critics of tournaments. That is, historical unreality.

The aim of tournaments is to gather together gamers who like the particular set of rules tournaments are fought under and allow them to indulge in their passion for the period and the rules, and to enjoy playing against like minded persons. The purpose of a "tournament" is not and can never be the proving that "X" is the "grand master" or champion of the rule system and certainly not that if X was at Gaugamela as Darius, he would have won. The dice and the natural unrealities of the game soon dispatch that conceit. No, rather that X was best adept at handling the challenges of the game.

Tournaments always draw players, and just as no one would dream of faulting a group of people in a "Monopoly" or "Risk" club for playing Monopoly or Risk, so too faulting tournament players for avidly playing their tournaments is a pointless and rather mean spirited thing. It's what they like to do. There is also a legitimate reason for playing them. Chiefly it is very much the idea that at this staged tournament "X" managed to win by the excellence of his efforts and the luck of the dice, and that counts for something, because each and every person who participated in that tournament by that participation lends legitimacy and common acclaim to "X's"triumph. A tournament is a game made up of very many other games which all participate in by a set of rules and assumptions and hence, while we cannot say that X winning the game means he is a nascent military genius, it does mean that he has triumphed, and that means something.

But there is a positive good for all in tournaments. In the endless playing and replaying there is a real common general good being practiced, that is finding the gaffe's mistakes, and loopholes in the rules which can then be closed or attenuated or worked upon which provides a good to all players of the game.

But beyond the general good, the tournament is justified if ONLY from the standpoint that the participants who are doing it are having fun, and enjoying themselves immensely. They are gaming with like minded people to whom the things that are important to them are important to all and all are involved are involved with a "shared fantasy" that makes and increases the pleasure of the solitary fantasy by the numbers engaged in it.

And that is all the defense and justification it needs.

No, chess is not a sport either.

No, chess is not a sport either.

"Chess is a recognized sport of the International Olympic Committee and international chess competition is sanctioned by the World Chess Federation (FIDE),"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess

olympic.org/chess

I walked into my local gaming store and there was a Warhammer Tournament going on. I played back in the 80s and was impressed that the folks at the tournament had actually painted their armies. Some were done quite well. For a few moments I wondered what had driven me away from such events. Then I heard the arguing. Not fun geeky debates like which is better Trek or Wars but just unpleasant angry b######g. I deal with angry folks at work and they pay me. The reason I don't care for tournaments is the tournament players.

This is a game or an exercise in saying something positive about some things that draw a lot of criticism.

Some people either haven't understood the original post or else aren't entering into the spirit of it.

So, do you think chess is a sport?

Nope!

"Chess is a recognized sport of the International Olympic Committee and international chess competition is sanctioned by the World Chess Federation (FIDE),"

Maybe so but by definition (at least mine!) it is not a sport. BTW, contrary to what ESPN says, Poker is also not a sport.

So, do you think chess is a sport?

Nope!

Apparently the IOC doesn't agree with you …

So, correct me, if I am wrong, but as I understand it, those who are saying that chess is not a sport would also say that wargaming is not a sport?

And therefore if wargaming is not a sport then are you also saying that tournament games (which imply a sporting context) are inappropriate?

"Some people either haven't understood the original post or else aren't entering into the spirit of it."

I think you slightly underestimate the ability of TMP posters to completely ignore or misunderstand the OP, let alone bother to read the responses before posting reactions to the thread title (which may also be misread or misnderstood).

Anyway, tourneys.

Played in a few, they were fun. Watched other people playing them, they also seemed to be having fun.

Given that this is a hobby not a job, that seems good enough for me.

Definition of sport…

sport
spôrt/
noun
noun: sport; plural noun: sports

1.
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
"team sports such as baseball and soccer"
synonyms: (competitive) game(s), physical recreation, physical activity, physical exercise, athletics;
pastime

From link

Note the complete lack of physical exertion in Chess or Poker. Judging from the physiques of many wargamers, I suspect there is any physical exertion in our hobby either.

Definition of sport…

I repeat. The IOC doesn't agree with you.

I repeat. The IOC doesn't agree with you.

The IOC doesn't seem to know what a sport is.

The IOC doesn't seem to know what a sport is.

Actually (in case you hadn't noticed) I agree with you. Chess is not a sport. In the same way wargaming is not a sport. Even the IOC doen't consider wargaming to be a sport!

A. Who gives a crap what the IOC says?

B. What in the seven hells does this have to do with the OP?

C. Do you want to actually participate in the discussion or just be disruptive for no reason? ( I know the answer to this one)

"And therefore if wargaming is not a sport then are you also saying that tournament games (which imply a sporting context) are inappropriate?"

What a completely illogical jump in reasoning! And again, with no relation at all to the discussion at hand.

I have missed something. Does anyone really care if wargaming is a sport or not? It is not covered by ESPN anyway. Does anyone care if some people play in tournaments or not. This is about the most worthless thread I have seen on TMP.

Who cares whether war gaming is a "sport" or not. It is, without question, a competitive activity.

A tournament is nothing more than a series of individual games organized in a manner such that overall standings or winner may be determined.

So, we *all* compete. The goal of a war game is to determine a victor. Sometimes it's to determine who the better player may be; sometimes to determine which army is better. In any case, without competition, there is no game.

So, back to the OP's postulate. That being that there needs to some sort of defense of tournaments. There need be no defense as there is only a defense required in response to an attack. What we've seen in post after post, after post are gamers who either enjoy or don't enjoy participating in tournaments in varying degrees and for a variety of reasons. But I haven't read a single one that expresses anything other that personal preference and none that would advocate doing away with tournaments or forcing everyone to play in them. Thus, with no attack, there's no defense and question is moot.

"What a completely illogical jump in reasoning!"

Not necessarily. It could just be logical reasoning coming from ignorance of the definition of the word tournament.

Dear Ubercommando

I played nice.

I don't like tournaments either.

But I see a lot of good in them.

Otto Schmidt.

Actually (in case you hadn't noticed) I agree with you. Chess is not a sport. In the same way wargaming is not a sport. Even the IOC doen't consider wargaming to be a sport!

Ahem
*stock_excuse* I am at work and read things way to quickly for my own good *end_stock_excuse*

Who cares whether war gaming is a "sport" or not. It is, without question, a competitive activity.

I agree with that.

Wargaming is a contest, even 1-off wargames. Tournaments are nothing more than a marathon contest with a lot of smaller contests used to resolve the final winner. There are probably lots of reasons to play in tournaments.

1) Gives you practice so that you learn the rules well. There is no better forum than an organized tournament to teach you the rules correctly…at least as it is interpreted by the local community.

2) It is a way to get several plays of a game you love in quickly. Works well for reviews if you really want to properly review a game.

3) Whether you are an old member of a tournament or a new comer, it is a way to meet like-minded people. Several of my friends from NC I've met through a Fantasy Rules! tournament down in North Carolina.

Is that what the OP is looking for?

I don't think you've read the rules to this thread

How long have you been on TMP? You actually think you can police the pages here?

Does anyone really care if wargaming is a sport or not? It is not covered by ESPN anyway.

Actually, I saw a "Magic: the Gathering" competition on ESPN2 once while I was in the hospital.

From the OP:

Worse still, it is an insult to history with armies not being fielded based on reality…

I would submit that 99% of all wargames fit in that category.
Perhaps I am on the low side.

Bottom line is that I get very cross with having to continually defend the way a large percentage of people play with their toy soldiers.
I am reminded of Ambrose Bierce's definition of "puritanism":

PURITANISM, n:
The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

There is quite a bit of arrogance in begging the question that tournament wargames need defending in the first place.
I reject the First Principles of this thread with a sneer and disdain.

Harrumph.
YouTube link

Not necessarily. It could just be logical reasoning coming from ignorance of the definition of the word tournament.

So how do you define the word "tournament"?

(There, that brings it back on topic!)

"Actually, I saw a "Magic: the Gathering" competition on ESPN2 once while I was in the hospital."

That is hardly relevant. ESPN2 will cover anything. I actually think I saw your hospital stay on ESPN2 while at the dentists office once.