"Big Games at Conventions" Topic

Someone posted earlier about the lack of big games at conventions, most notably Historicon. Something I suggested some time back is to tie the number of free entrances to the convention based on the game size. For example if you have 6 slots in your game then one free GM, if you have 12 slots then two free GMs, and if you have 24 slots then 3 GMs.

Why? Bigger doesn't mean better, and I have played in six player games in which two GMs help run things along.

I know that people seem to like these big games with fantastic terrain…. I like taking pictures of them, but do you play in them?

In my experience these games often don't make for the best gaming experiences.

It really depends on the design and the GM's.

I often find that when you have more than 6-8 people sitting around the same table the game mechanics start to breakdown real fast because players are spending too much time waiting for their turns.

More quality games is every bit as important as large tables.

To accommodate players? Sure. But it has never been necessary. I've always found something to play. I rarely preregister for a game.

I agree with Dervel. The best convention games I've played in were all simple with basic terrain. Incidentally, they've also been some of the easiest games to get into. I suspect others will try to get into the big and pretty game with mixed results.

When I make it to Hcon I make it a point to play in the Desert Breeze game, always fun.

Possibly because big games can look spectacular if done well. It is a draw for people to come to the convention as they see these massive, awesome looking games.

The only large game I played in that I really enjoyed was the battle of Camden by All The King's Men at Historicon last year. Those guys were very well organized. Other than that I avoid huge games.

Usually the "Big Game" at a con is the one you can't run at home due to space or needing players.

A few points here:

Yes, a big game doesn't necessarily make a better game. Conversely, a smaller game doesn't gaurentee a better game either.

Larger games tend to provide more "eye candy", and on the whole that is a good thing. And I do understand a great looking game doesn't always translate into a great gaming experience. Often, the opposite is true.

Big games that successfully engage more players are good things for a convention. That is the entire purpose of putting games on in the first place, right?

Some rules do not make good convention games. Some unit activation mechanisms work against large convention games. Some games are great when there are two GM's doing the "cat herding" and making sure things move along. My biggest fear is having players who are doing nothing for too long a time. Some GMs have to realize that their favourite game at home or the club, doesn't necessarily make it a great convention game, when trying to engage 12 players.

Keeping track of how many players are actually playing a game and awarding extra privileges for that would be a problem, don't you think? Plus, there is some opportunity for abuse.

Scott, from Pictors Studios, was one of the first people putting on Black Powder. His games look great. His figures look awesome (Lol!) and he moves the game along pretty well, making sure all the players feel like they are engaged in the events. Plus, the Warlord games make for good convention style games, as they are easy to pick up and don't produce a lot of dead time. Balancing all those aspects is what makes a good GM.

Is this another difference in the hobby on either side of the pond.

I don't know of a single show in the UK or Europe that charges for a demonstration or a participation game. In fact most shows don't even charge a GM or a club an entrance fee if they are putting on a game.

I once ran a huge War of the Rings game at a local convention. I ran it in all 5 time slots with 8-12 players each time. The secret to large games is simple 1-2 page rules and lots of GM's to keep the game moving.

6-8 players is a perfect sized game IMHO and I can usually handle up to 10 or 12 because I use a simple, easy to learn set of rules for convention games and I keep everyone engaged from turn 1 on.

I don't like rules that require an activation die roll because it leads to the possibility that one poor player will never make his activation roll.

Delayed arrival of troops in a convention game can also be a problem. As Rob from Eureka once told me, " people come to conventions to game and most of them want to line 'em up and start shooting on the first turn." That's a good piece of advise to remember for convention games.

"It is a draw for people to come to the convention as they see these massive, awesome looking games."

And therein lies the Catch 22 – how do you know there will be a big, visual game you may want to see ahead of time? HMGS seems allergic to using photos to promote themselves. The YM site is no help promoting HMGS or the hobby. I think the recent Hcon flyer was the first in a long time to utilize a few photos from recent cons.

So, back to the original issue – what good are such games if they are not promoted ahead of time – with pictures!!??

Bigger is not necessarily better. That being said, there is a dynamic, a synergy when a bunch of gamers get in the groove. The energy and often the creativity spikes, providing a heightened entertainment value. Admittedly, that can be somewhat counterproductive when the noise level outpaces the interplay.

I have played in several very large games. They have mostly been a real bore to play as there are not many decisions to make. That may be realistic as your average lower level commander, but it sure is no fun.

And the notion they are a "draw" is specious. In the first place you have no idea in advance if you'll see such. And second I seriously doubt gamers on the fence finally decide to go because of the big games.

My focus is always on good looking games. Nothing more disappointing than signing up for a game with two pieces of felt and a tree as terrain, played out on putting-green felt. It is certainly possible to make a good looking game where the field if pretty much a featureless plain. I still don't get the appeal of beautifully painted armies marching across what looks like a flea market scrap table.

If big games were promoted ahead of time, then maybe I could buy a few gamers attending to see/play it.

The other issue is one of price. If 15% of admissions are "free" to volunteers, how much does that raise the price for attendees and vendors?

"I don't know of a single show in the UK or Europe that charges for a demonstration or a participation game. In fact most shows don't even charge a GM or a club an entrance fee if they are putting on a game."

What ever are you on about? Nobody is talking about charging for anything, and no historical gaming cons I attend in the US do this and I've never heard of any that do. The topic is simply about huge, spectacular games at conventions. Do keep up… 8)=

And +1 to everything Bowman said!

@nazrat

The OP suggested a 'free entrance' for a GM which implies that a GM would normally pay for entrance. (See second sentence of the OP)

Like I said, a UK GM or an EU GM would rarely if never be charged for entrance.

Right off…. GM's who are members in good standing and run a game for 4 or more hours for 4 or more people in some combination get in for free as it is now.

Large games are often very beautiful to behold… are a crown jewel to the GM and friends who made it and often take many, many hours prep and set up/take down…. but, they are not always awesome to play in at a convention…

Sometimes there are not enough GM's… too many people talking at once and just too much action going on and an otherwise awesome game becomes cumbersome and confused….

When pulled off correctly though.. they are a beauty to behold and play in….

AT a convention…. they are truly something to see, but there is a downside to them too! UNFORTUNATELY!

Honestly, I've played in showcase games that were great and ones that weren't. I've played in games with masking tape roads that took the GM six minutes to set up and some were good, some were terrible.

I don't think there is a relationship. I do agree, a true spectacle with 20 or 30 players is likely to get out of hand, but there are always some awesome, playable, good games.

The OP actually has a great point. If you want more GMs so big games run smoothly, his suggestion is a great one. You get in free for running a 3 hour game for 4 people. You get in free for running a 6 hour game for 12 people. The bigger game should have more GM slots.

Small cons usually have to charge GM's something because they don't have a big enough draw to cover the convention expenses if they don't. Usually larger cons can afford to cover their GM's entrance fees.

We have a small con and we do some free $$ for the concessions stand for each game you actually run (Not just sign up). It's not as good as a free admission but then it is what the con can afford to do if we want it to continue.

We operate on a thin margin and keep entrance costs as low as we can. We typically net a couple hundred dollars each year and we have been slowly building a contingency fund in case we have to change venues on short notice or have other unexpected cost increases. Paying entrance for just 10 GM's would put us at a loss each year.

Also, at small conventions the huge games can be a draw but they also can hurt the con if they span multiple time slots. We had a huge multiplayer game and then had several other games that didn't get enough players and several GM's had to pack up their game without running it. This led to some GM's never coming back to the con. You always have to balance expected players against games and table availability at a smaller con.

On a personal note I tend to enjoy smaller games more for all the same reasons others have said. Spectacles are great but if the game play suck just set it up and take some pictures. Give me a smaller table, with nice terrain, good rules, and nice figures any day.

Howard Whitehouse and Jeff Wasileski have a filthy habit of shoehorning folk into their games, even deadbeats like me who just walk up and whine and plead and bribe….

I see, thereis a difference between USA and Europe. But i always thought, conventions give you the opportunity to have really big battles, that are otherwise not doable.

Waterloo Game at Hamburg Tactica 2015

The size of the game makes no difference. A well-designed scenario, no matter what the size, is fun to play, watch develop and ultimately to run as well. This goes for a brigade sized game all the way up to full armies. Objectives must be clear, rules easy to understand in a few turns and participation must be available from the start for all players. Reinforcements can go to late arrivals or those players that were in first contact and are now spent. A good GM or group of GMs can pull off a game of any size and make it fun and engaging.

Once you go past 10 feet, you have to start breaking it up into smaller games. So if one part of the table is done with the turn, they can move on, even if the rest of the table is not. Time is elastic.