PDA

View Full Version : Why Tournaments? Why not gaming meets?



fruitystu
13-07-2011, 22:38
Evening all.

First of all, cards on the table, I'm not a massive fan of tournament gaming. But, I am going to try to word this initial post in as neutral and objective way as possible. Please bear this in mind and allow for a little leeway, and dare I say it this early on, RAI.

So.


There are a few Tournament Gamers in my local area. I am not one of them. I prefer a random pick up game, or to arrange a dust up with a regular opponent. Now, I get the advantage of Tournament Gaming for expanding your experience. New people, new armies, different places etc. So far, so good. But, from the local Tournament Crowd, it seems that they actually do the opposite. I keep hearing 'top tier' 'optimal' etc. Which is fine, if that's what you're into, but surely that just limits your options, and apply this to enough people attending the tournament, and suddenly it becomes a case of 'different gamer, same army'.

Clearly, Throne of Skulls is trying to change this. Haven't been to one, but I'm actually kind of tempted. I like the idea of multiple placings, but I do wonder if it goes far enough.

So why don't you get general Gaming Weekends? Sure, have prizes for well painted armies, and other 'soft' scores, but does it really matter who trumped who as long as everyone had a good time? Would simply removing the 'best player' title affect peoples enjoyment? Would it change the thought process for those attending from 'I want this army to compete' to 'I want this army to be interesting'. Don't get me wrong, no reason it can't do both, but from my experience of the local crowd, the former trumps the latter every time.

Would you be interested in attending such a meet? Would you be prepared to pay just to turn up and play a dozen games over a long weekend, with no fanfare for the most successful participant?

And as ever, as I type, more ideas are vomited forth from the foetid depths of my brians. For instance, aforementioned long weekend (that's with a holiday monday for foreign types) of gaming. Book out a hall for the day time (we'll use Warhammer World as an archetype, as I'm familiar with it). Lots and lots of tables. Then, in the evening, arrange a locale for specialist games, perhaps bring your own board. Play some Malifaux, possibly Blood Bowl, or even Magic The Gathering. Just a three day orgy of geekdom and dice rolling, designed purely to forge links to other gamers country, possibly even world wide.

The last day could include the option for Apocalypse. Sort a smorgasbord. As long as you allow for two people per board, nobody should be left out, no matter whether some decide to bring WotR for the Monday, and others want a big Storm of Magic bash. Just reaching out and seeing who is out there, without worrying about someone taking the competition aspect a little too far.

So, discuss! And yes, depending on feedback this is something I would look into running.

IcedCrow
13-07-2011, 22:58
Most of the gamers in my area are also tournament-only. If they aren't playing tournaments, they are playing pick up games preparing for tournaments. They won't touch non competitive games, and if you show up with a soft list, they kind of frown on that as they are going to table smash you with little effort and it is no fun for them.

Its' just a very popular way of playing. Each person has their own reason for it, so for me to try to blanket response it would be unfair of me.

I am also anti-tournament, simply because I got burned out on it and like to explore other aspects of the game without facing off against another standardized tournament list. That's my main issue with it... all of the armies are the same or derivations of the same template.

Goldenwolf
13-07-2011, 23:02
stu,

Some of the events you describe are already working. Near me, they also run gaming days, but a new gaming weekend is being built in which we will have games during the day, but painting sessions at night, lord battle royales, dupe armies(making a bad 2000 point list for your opponent), as well as other stuff.

I actually like Ard Boyz, as making a rough list and playing it is fun for me. I understand that not everyone enjoys this, so playing a game that you can just relax and have fun at is also a possibility.

However, when we play during the week, we try stuff out and mostly spend time laughing about dice luck. Maybe you should try and teach some new players, and then forge the group as you would like it to be.

qwertycg
13-07-2011, 23:06
Now when I hear gaming meets or gaming nights I am not a fan of it. Mainly cause my local store used to do Thursday night. Fantasy/40k. Now it is mailifaux(sp?). And talk about how you hate the rules of warhammer. Me I don't have a problem with fantasy rules. Sure half the guys there need to learn a new list but what ever.

The bearded one
13-07-2011, 23:36
It's funny, I tend to win or do really well with my pretty mid-level lizardmen army, while not weak or anything still dozens and dozens of miles from being optimised. I think if I cheesed out my lizardmen as much as I could I'd roflstomp local tourney people :p

Heck, my slann doesn't even have the cupped hands of the old ones, or the loremaster ability!



I go to my local GW on thursdays and fridays, which act as 'gaming meets'. We play pick-up games with random people and regulars with armies that are decently competitive, but certainly not maximised. It's good fun. I kinda try to make slightly unusual builds and avoid cookycutter to sort of show "that these lists can win too!" Right now I'm working on a skaven army with queek & stormvermin, and no furnace, bell or even grey seer.

Kloud13
14-07-2011, 00:11
Tournament game, or friendly game, it matters not, EVERYBODY wants to WIN.

Don't one of you Dare and try and ******** the rest of us and say you don't care about winning in the slightest.

Even the pillow fights you see in the White Dwarf, the loser always starts off expressing his disapointment in something, and the winner is always estatic about how well things went.

Only a Tourny might push the desire to win a bit higher due to prizes.

BigbyWolf
14-07-2011, 00:12
So why don't you get general Gaming Weekends? Sure, have prizes for well painted armies, and other 'soft' scores, but does it really matter who trumped who as long as everyone had a good time? Would simply removing the 'best player' title affect peoples enjoyment? Would it change the thought process for those attending from 'I want this army to compete' to 'I want this army to be interesting'. Don't get me wrong, no reason it can't do both, but from my experience of the local crowd, the former trumps the latter every time.

Would you be interested in attending such a meet? Would you be prepared to pay just to turn up and play a dozen games over a long weekend, with no fanfare for the most successful participant?

So, it'd just be like a normal day at the club, but with prizes?

Sclep
14-07-2011, 00:55
Tournament game, or friendly game, it matters not, EVERYBODY wants to WIN.

Don't one of you Dare and try and ******** the rest of us and say you don't care about winning in the slightest.

Even the pillow fights you see in the White Dwarf, the loser always starts off expressing his disapointment in something, and the winner is always estatic about how well things went.

Only a Tourny might push the desire to win a bit higher due to prizes.


Try not to be offensive. Sometimes when I play, I play to win. Sometimes I play narrative battles, when the actual outcome is irrelevant compared to the drama of the game. In each case the type of game I am playing is clearly agreed upon before the game itself.

silashand
14-07-2011, 01:22
I like both, but I prefer tournaments because they are supposed to be a means of measuring your relative skill vs other good opponents. I also like to meet up and play games vs new players and in different venues. Contrary to popular belief, most of the tourney players I've met have been great opponents, both in skill and sportsmanship. One of the reasons I hate 8th edition WFB so much is because it has IMO removed much of the skill required and thus I have no interest in it. JMO though...

Cheers, Gary

Hellebore
14-07-2011, 01:29
Tournament game, or friendly game, it matters not, EVERYBODY wants to WIN.

Don't one of you Dare and try and ******** the rest of us and say you don't care about winning in the slightest.

Even the pillow fights you see in the White Dwarf, the loser always starts off expressing his disapointment in something, and the winner is always estatic about how well things went.

Only a Tourny might push the desire to win a bit higher due to prizes.

I suppose it depends on how seriously you are taking a game of miniatures.

I don't have to prove my worth by beating you at toys, so winning has never been something I much care about in 40k/WFB. I enjoyed it for the storytelling aspect. I suppose you could argue that I place the 'win' in a different place - I 'win' at storytelling.

My friends and I often pull manoeuvres that would be considered dumb because they fit the story. A single ork nob is protecting a kill point but instead of hiding him to save it he does what an ork does, he charges the enemy and kicks some ass before dying.

I won't say that winning isn't enjoyable, but it hardly matters in the scheme of things. If you've found winning at toy soldiers 'serious business' then IMO you need a reality check. It boggles my mind that people will compete at toys to win money and that they'll cheat simply to win.

So you cheat and you win - all you've done is cheated at TOYS...

This doens't mean I don't appreciate balanced rules though - that is in itself a requirement for games.

Hellebore

PANZERBUNNY
14-07-2011, 01:38
Tournament game, or friendly game, it matters not, EVERYBODY wants to WIN.

Don't one of you Dare and try and ******** the rest of us and say you don't care about winning in the slightest.

Even the pillow fights you see in the White Dwarf, the loser always starts off expressing his disapointment in something, and the winner is always estatic about how well things went.

Only a Tourny might push the desire to win a bit higher due to prizes.


There are people who are just in want of a good time with good company. Not every gamer is out for the big win and when they do, feel any different than if they had lost.

Kind of like every john that picks up a hooker. Some just want someone to talk too. (<----oh it happens.)

IcedCrow
14-07-2011, 01:47
I like reading about how 8th edition requires no skill and 7th edition requires lots of skill.

It gives me a chuckle.

Maskedman5oh4
14-07-2011, 06:13
Let's just be friends.... :shifty:

Spider-pope
14-07-2011, 13:24
Tournament game, or friendly game, it matters not, EVERYBODY wants to WIN.

Don't one of you Dare and try and ******** the rest of us and say you don't care about winning in the slightest.

Even the pillow fights you see in the White Dwarf, the loser always starts off expressing his disapointment in something, and the winner is always estatic about how well things went.

Only a Tourny might push the desire to win a bit higher due to prizes.

Well i'm afraid i'm going to have to dare to venture my own opinion, so sorry if it goes against your delicate sensibilities and apparently only valid opinion in the world.

I couldnt give a stuff if i win or lose. Far more important to me is that both of us have a good time playing the game. If that means giving my opponent the benefit of the doubt when his mistake could've won me the game then so be it, who cares.

As for the White Dwarf write ups, of course they are bloody going to say they are disappointed or ecstatic. Which do you think makes for a better read? "oh i won/lost, but who cares really its just a game and we both had fun" or "Oh woe is me i lost/Hurrah i won!. I'll get you next time guy-at-white-dwarf-who-until-last-week-only-made-the-coffee!"

GW already run campaign weekends akin to what the OP suggests. Unfortunately lack of finances or friends in Nottingham to put me up prevent me from having tried them.
And really OP there is nothing stopping you from organising exactly what you suggest at your local games club. I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to come along and give it a try.

myrdinn
14-07-2011, 14:23
Answering the OP's question here: yes. I'd be up for that sort of thing. I'd like to play against a more diverse list of opponents but I'm not that fussed about entering tournaments, largely because I don't build the kind of armies that compete in them.

I'd be particularly up for really over-the-top megabattles (hello, Storm of Magic ...) and/or campaigns played out over a couple of days.

The bearded one
14-07-2011, 14:42
I like reading about how 8th edition requires no skill and 7th edition requires lots of skill.

It gives me a chuckle.

7th requires a humungous amount of skill if you played armies from the lowest tiers :p

WarbossKurgan
14-07-2011, 15:21
Answering the OP's question here: yes. I'd be up for that sort of thing. I'd like to play against a more diverse list of opponents but I'm not that fussed about entering tournaments, largely because I don't build the kind of armies that compete in them.

I'd be particularly up for really over-the-top megabattles (hello, Storm of Magic ...) and/or campaigns played out over a couple of days.

+1 for this from me too.

I'm all about campaigns and narrative battles and I've pretty-much given up on tournaments completely. I haven't really enjoyed any I've been to (which, to be fair, isn't that many). I've done a lot of "Gaming Meets" though and loved every single one of them. I'm looking forward to playing Storm of Magic in this format!

IcedCrow
14-07-2011, 15:21
lol yes I agree. I respect more the people who can win games with weaker armies than those that can template power builds and then win with those.

But the same is true in 8th just to a lesser degree since the random nature equalizes a lot.

fruitystu
14-07-2011, 17:10
I'd say 8th just requires very different skills. Knowing when you're not in charge range is one thing. Appreciating that you cannot predict exactly where your charge will fall short is quite another.

Hmmm. You know, I might start putting feelers out elsewhere, see if anyone else would be up for a weekend long orgy of gaming?

Blitz001
14-07-2011, 17:32
Tournament game, or friendly game, it matters not, EVERYBODY wants to WIN.

Don't one of you Dare and try and ******** the rest of us and say you don't care about winning in the slightest.

Even the pillow fights you see in the White Dwarf, the loser always starts off expressing his disapointment in something, and the winner is always estatic about how well things went.

Only a Tourny might push the desire to win a bit higher due to prizes.

see its funny cause i really dont care about winning man...its all about having fun in the game with fun people...ill be competive in somthing else. Ive just never felt this game should be just about winning its not balanced enough for it.

BBWags
14-07-2011, 18:53
While there are exceptions, I do believe that competition and the desire to win, sometimes heightened to the desire to crush the opposition ruthlessly, is part of human nature. I care about winning, because what would the point be otherwise.* I enjoy playing fluffy background-based battles as well, and it never made sense to me when people say they don't care about winning, they just want to play a fluffy game, because don't the characters in the story you're playing want to win? What Bretonnian Lord or Chaos sorcerer would ever go to the battlefield and not care about winning the engagement (or meeting the goal of why they are met in battle, whether that goal is 'winning' by decimating the enemy or winning by acting as a diversionary force that 'just has to hold them off long enough,' etc, whatever the case may be.

* Now, when I say I care about winning, I mean that is my objective when the game starts, because that is the objective of my general. But while I admit that I do have a natural tendency to min/ max, I try to curb that to make the lists fairly balanced across the options (including, infantry, cavalry, ranged, etc) to represent a FB world force. I simply think that when people don't care as much about playing out a story, then all that is left is competition... The world just becomes the excuse for the competition. And that's ok, it's just different.

For example, I enjoy playing mtg with the same group that i play FB with, but where we focus on fluff in FB, we simply go by themes and competitive combos in mtg. We couldn't care less about the background or novels that further explain planeswslkers and duels. The cards are simply the eccuse for the competition. Same group of guys, much different approaches to two fantasy games...

IcedCrow
14-07-2011, 18:59
I think it also depends on the venue.

If you're going to a bring whatever you want tournament, the mentality there is obviously to pwn your opponent through the table and finish him off with a flying elbow from the cash register for good measure.

If you're playing a pick up game with a stranger, or a campaign game, or teaching a new player, then bringing your A++ list and Macho Man Randy Savaging your opponent will probably leave a bad taste in their mouth. This could result in their reluctance to play against you again, or if it was truly one sided, cause them to evaluate the hobby in general (which isn't a good thing).

I guess there's a time and place for everything. I usually know who my opponent is in advance and come accordingly. If I'm up against a competitive player, I know what type of game to expect and bring it accordingly.

Kadris
14-07-2011, 19:23
At the store I visit we have best general (most points), best sport (player vote), best painted, and brick award (either last place or someone who had something horrible happen like his vamp lord was sucked into the warp turn 1 and his army crumbled into nothing by turn 2).
Our fantasy tournaments are leaning more towards which army made it the most entertaining gets more attention than who beat everyone. 1st place is usually, "you won, here is your prize" and the others are getting much more.


Tournament game, or friendly game, it matters not, EVERYBODY wants to WIN.

i agree, but if i have fun, i auto-win.

me and a friend are planning a self destructive skaven/DE combo for whenever the store does its next doubles tournament. Basically we'll make cheesey lists and find ways to decimate our own forces. Such as Shadowblade hides in the warp lightning cannon crew, or deploy the doom wheels next to the hydras, sorc stabs half the black guard unit to death for more power dice, stuff like that. should be a riot.

hashrat
14-07-2011, 19:26
I like reading about how 8th edition requires no skill and 7th edition requires lots of skill.

It gives me a chuckle.

Same here, quite hilarious really.

BBWags
14-07-2011, 20:25
*edit*

I never actually addressed the OP's question. I would definitely enjoy a game meet or reasonably comped tourney far more so than a no holds barred style tournament, but that isn't to say that I would even think about playing less than my absolute best. I think attitude and decorum plays a heavy part in this. An opponent can crush me into the ground, but if he is a well spoken guy who shows some humility and even sympathy if the dice are obviously against me or doesn't correct my faulty tactics mid-game, I'll probably enjoy the game even when losing. And I will take every opportunity in the future to improve over that abysmal showing :-)



i agree, but if i have fun, i auto-win.

While this is true, and I have a ton of fun if I lose by a little and it was a close run thing, or I lose because of a fluke or the worst run of dice ever and I can laugh about it or because I happen to play a guy that is JUST THAT MUCH better than me. That's ok.

But I think the issue at hand is when people complain that a person plays to win. They say, why fo we have to compete, can't we just play for fun? But the question that comes to me is, "how is it fun to lose far more often than not?". That is just not fun for me, no matter if it is a one off game or part of a story based campaign.

I think, again while there are exceptions, the great majority of players desire to win even when they aren't ott or Waac style list builders and forum-goers.

Kuroi
15-07-2011, 07:38
Tournaments are for competetive play IMO, painting competitions should also be seperate events and not weigh in on the final score of the tournament at hand.
Gaming meets are what you arrange with your buddies or gaming group.

Kuroi
15-07-2011, 07:48
Doubble post >_< please remove <3

fruitystu
16-07-2011, 06:27
As to the whole 'play to win' thing...I am extremely competitie at work. This is where I make my mark and prove my worth. This means I have to work very hard, one to justify my ego, and two, to sustain it. I'm now looking at a fat promotion, with relevant payrise.

So after all that hard work, my hobby is purely for relaxing. I've got a cabinet full of kits to be built, and even more awaiting painting. I've got more stuff on the way, and around 10 armies for the various GW systems. Each of these armies is comprised mostly of units I think are cool. Sure there's the odd 'wow, that's hard' unit in there, but as the rest of the army is a hotchpotch or heavily themed, it's somewhat out of it's synergy slot. And of course, I'd like to win, but it's hardly the be all and all with me, that it can be to some.