"Umpire's Toolbox" Topic

This year, we are committed to putting on demonstration games at two local Shows.One is in October, the other November. For us, these show games are a big deal – 5-6 players & several hundred figures, bespoke terrain etc.We'll be staging a WW2 and a Punic Wars games.

A previous, AZW game:
theminiaturespage.com‌

‌"TMP link
A large table, multiple commands, and an umpire keeping the game flowing.

I'll be umpiring at least one. I've found that the umpire's contributions often have more impact on the success of the game than you might expect.

By this I don't mean major house rules or wholesale changes to published systems. I'm referring instead to simple, low-effort techniques that reliably improve player engagement, create a sense of fog of war, keep games moving and add a stronger historical feel without increasing complexity.

In the past, I've used things like asymmetric player briefings, hidden or conditional objectives and deliberately limited information about enemy morale or reserves. I've also found that handling command friction through the umpire, rather than through extra tables or dice rolls, can smooth play while still preserving uncertainty.

I'm interested in hearing what small, practical umpire or scenario-design tricks others have used that consistently work in large, multi-player games. What techniques have you found make a noticeable difference at the table without slowing the game down?

Something that I learned, after several times doing it the wrong way, was this: Take the time in your pre-game briefing to walk through example fire combat and melee combat resolutions (using the playsheet – which you are of course providing players with – as a training aid). A few minutes spent doing this before the game starts will pay ample dividends during the game as players are mostly able to run the game themselves. Skipping this step to save a few minutes before the start ends up bringing the game to a constant halt as the players turn to look at you saying "how do we shoot, again"?

Impressed with the table.

My games are fairly data intensive. I've made customized unit data cards that also walk the players through how to execute orders, shooting, etc.

I also use a QR code for each section to give a short video explanation. I've never had to use the rules book at conventions.

Measuring sticks, lasers for tracing LOS, place to roll the dice, separate good scenario/pre-game and intel briefing to get the players head in the game and what to expect and accomplish.

Wolfhag

What strikes me in several of these comments is that the goal isn't for the umpire to be the ultimate rules authority at the table, but to be clearly conversant with the system and to provide the players with the tools they need to run the game themselves. Playsheets, unit cards, measuring aids, clear briefing notes, even short videos or visual cues (great idea, Wolfhag!) all shift the burden away from the umpire having to explain things repeatedly.

In a big, public game that feels important. The umpire can then focus on pacing, fog of war, and adjudicating the unexpected, rather than being dragged into constant "how do we do this again?" moments. When that balance works, the game flows better and the players feel more in control, even though the umpire is still quietly shaping the experience.

to provide the players with the tools they need to run the game themselves

Exactly. I've had many good large convention game experiences, both as player and referee, where the players were able to handle most of the action on their own, leaving the referee/umpire free to handle the items you mention.

Two things that I've done that worked out well:

(1) 1-page quick summary/overview of the most important rules and concepts -- 1 for each player.

(2) Written orders for each side. I try to keep these to 2 or maybe 3 pages. The orders include the objectives, some intel that may or may not be reliable, any details on how to use any special capabilities of that side's forces, and any other details for that side (e.g., where to set up, where to exit the table, reinforcements schedule).

That's a great way of putting it and it mirrors what several people have described from successful Show games. When the players have clear, concise tools in front of them, the game largely runs itself and the umpire is freed to concentrate on pacing, uncertainty, and the inevitable edge cases that crop up in larger games.
NB the best rules in the world, the rules that you & your pals are most experienced with will still not cover every contingency. Players, as proper gentlemen, should discuss and try to quickly find an acceptable solution. This process is best run in a Show game by the umpire &, if necessary, he provides the final adjudication.

As the umpire, I assume the players are not familiar with the rule set. Each game starts with a 10 minute overview of the rules. Most of my time during the game is spent monitoring activity and knowing the rules to apply to a situation: ie how many dice to roll this attack, or what to roll for movement/command. When there are 1 or more players who know the rules, it does make the job much easier.

If I knew that multiple players already knew the rules, then I would have the opportunity to play around with fog of war, communications, and other "fun" rules.

Some really good stuff mentioned above

Would just add – I count one measure of success if after the first turn my guidance on rules is no longer except for the unusual and rare things that turn up from time to time – or perhaps for facilitating the first turn of melee.

DW, it isn't hard to know if the game is a success – & your input as umpire has been worthwhile. I would agree that not unlike professional sporting matches, if the umpire is almost "invisible", things have gone well.

I would only add:

Pick rules that fit the room. Don't run Empire V unless everyone already knows it. KISMIF—keep it simple, make it fun. Always think about how long a turn takes. If your system is so heavy that one or two turns routinely eat up an hour, choose something faster.

Pick the right scenario, too. It's easy to fall into the "mega-game" trap because you want to impress people. I've seen plenty of tables that looked spectacular and still played terribly. A smaller scenario can look just as good—and it usually plays better. When I run games, I'm happiest with three or four players per side, and I've had very successful games with just one or two. Start the forces close enough to get to decisions quickly—no long approach marches.

If you do want to run a big scenario, bring enough helpers to manage it. That's the difference between "epic" and "chaos."

When the game is flowing, enjoy it—but don't vanish. I've been in games where the GM disappears to the dealer room, wanders off to chat, or gets buried in their phone. The GM needs to be present to keep things moving and to clear roadblocks. I've even seen a GM playing in another game while supposedly running theirs. Don't do that. Stay engaged and keep your eye on the table.

Keep the pre-game briefing short. Don't use it as a history lecture or a chance to show off. Most people signed up because they already know (and like) the period. Summarize the rules. Give a quick setup—just enough context to frame the situation—then get straight to the scenario specifics, including victory conditions. Give each side a couple minutes to coordinate, then start play. Three to five minutes is plenty.

Be cautious with rules that slow the game down—couriers and delayed orders especially. Unless the group is experienced and specifically wants that friction, leave it out. If you do use advanced mechanics, seed each side with one or two experienced players to help keep things on track. The goal is to be almost invisible—facilitating smoothly—without ever fully disappearing.

My two cents.

Game Night last night. 5 players for Midgard – all new to the rule system. 6 contingents of 1 hero + 4 units each. Players had a good game – 6 turns and both sides were on the brink of breaking by the end. We called it a draw rather than go for a 7th turn.

Just the right size. I don't think I'd want to add either more players or more units. With players who understood the rules, I'd certainly want to expand with more of everything.

Excellent points there, OC. We run a couple of public games each year and those lessons have all been learned the hard way!

I particularly liked "pick rules that fit the room" and the warning about the "mega-game trap". A spectacular table that doesn't actually play well is something most of us have probably seen at shows.

Your point about the GM staying present is also important. The umpire's role is partly invisible, but if the umpire vanishes the game can lose momentum very quickly.

Thanks for adding those — very much in the spirit of this thread.

@Ran The Cid – Nice example of finding the "sweet spot" for player numbers.

Nobody has mentioned the most important tools- a strong sense of humour and patience.