Tournament: Sheep of the Dark Ages?

As you now know, I recently attended my first tournament for this year, Panzershrek.
It was a fantastic event and a lot of fun, and it was great to get back onto the competitive scene.

The tournament was run as a generic tournament template, and its new TO did a fantastic job of it. However across the weekend, and later, him and I discussed how sportsmanship and paint scores effect the scoring, and if there is both an easier and more efficient way of doing it. This then got me thinking.....

The standardisation of Ninth Age tournaments (along with many other platforms competed in its like), run a scoring of Best Paint and Best Sports. Both of these are then calculated into percentages, added to the battle points, to give you the positions of Best Overall. Most events do not have a separate award for purely Best General based on battle points, so the impact of your sportsmanship and your painting skill effects how you will place.
You may be the top scoring player in an event when it comes to battle points, but maybe your ability to paint is terrible, or is not the reason you are in this hobby, and because of this, your placing in the event can be effected.

Alongside of this, apart from knowing what time you need to be at the venue, player packs have become almost copycat pieces of paper that do not require any attention. I say this, as apart from the randomisation of what game type is played in each game (something I no longer pay attention to until just before the game itself), there is no difference between them.

In a sense, I feel as tournament goers and tournament organisers, we have become stagnant.

Have we become sheep? Has creativity in ideas become unwanted? Are we sitting in the Dark Ages of tournaments? Have we given up looking into the progression of how to evolve events?

Four years ago when I set out to establish Warbanner, which in its first year saw only 6 players, I opted to aim for difference. Every tournament in the country, and almost across the world, was using the standardised 20-0 system for Warhammer Fantasy.
However, a major USA event called Brawler Bash, was using a different scoring system called Carnage. This system threw out the 20-0 scoring, based your tournament points on your victory points per game, and the end results were not effected by sports and paint. It also utilised very creative and different scenarios, which were designed by the TO to force players to think differently.
Although in its first year this was frowned upon, and the second it was somewhat questioned, by adopting this style of tournament, Warbanner was able to create a major point of difference in the tournament scene.

Okay, so now you are sitting there thinking, "Oh so he thinks the tournament he runs is better then the others?" "This is just pride and vanity talking".

The answer, is no.

Warbanner's design was a needed stepping stone away from standardisation, and to hope move stagnant waters. But it is not perfect, and as each year goes on, I work hard to tweak and amend its systems and style to better create the event.

What I am saying, is for tournament play to progress, we need more creatively designed events.
I am not saying that every event needs to move away from the 20-0 out of the book style format. That still has an integral part in the tournament scene.
What I am seeing is that we do need to see change.

When a great painter but poor player gets ranked higher then a slightly better player because he has been painting for 10 years and the other player on a matter of months, there is an issue.
When a player amicably questions or disputes a rule issue, and is right, but gets knocked down in placings due to a poor sports score by his opponent, there is an issue.
When the venue time is all that really matters in every single player pack, there is an issue.

Do I have the answers? Absolutely not. I wish I did. Warbanner for me was the start of change, but by no means, the end all.
For real change, it requires those who wish to see the evolution of the tournament scene take the time and energy to work to develop new systems in how they run events.

My intention is to run a new Napier event alongside Warbanner. This event is yet to be named and will likely be held at the end of next year's April holidays. Although I have no idea as of yet how to break the tournament wheel with something else that is different yet competitive, I aim to work tiresly to do so.

I know this blog may annoy some competitors, and in particular, tournament organisers.
But I also know that change does not occur without the ruffling of feathers.

Until next time,
Peace

[RANT] If you don't like it, there's the door, but don't break my toys on the way out!

If you don't like it, there's the door, but don't break my toys on the way out! 

Last night, in my not so sober state, I listened to a video on YouTube by a wargamer who I have followed since I started watching YouTube videos. This gent has been a solid brick in the foundation of the Warhammer YouTubers Collective over the past many years, and I have just about always enjoyed his content.

However, last night, he posted a video that really threw me back. It was about the major reason he will not be playing The 9th Age. Now I am not going to get into the reason, as that is not the part that threw me, but if you wish to watch the video you can here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2NzT2nztLU

After watching, I commented on it, listed my opinion in regards to what he had to say. And was about to leave it at that, until I read the other comments on the video by other subscribers, and saw an issue that has been happening for a long time. Just this time, it got too far under my skin.

We all play games, whether board, video or table top wargames because we enjoy it. No one is forcing us to do so, we do it because we enjoy certain or many aspects of the game. Basically, it's because it makes us happy. But we aren't going to dedicate the same amount of time to a game we don't enjoy, that doesn't excite us or give us a fun time. And that's fine. Maybe we will try it out, watch videos about it, read up about it, and make a decision based on information and experience that the game is just not for us. If we don't like the game, "then there's the door". Take it. Don't spend anymore time on it, and find something that you enjoy.

"...but don't break my toys on your way out!"

Why is it, as a global community, that when we do not like a game, or a gaming company, we feel the need to dedicate time in 'bashing' the game, in making negative sentiments towards the game, and making anyone who has a part of the game either as a gamer or developer, feel like you are targeting your negative feelings at them.

It's quite simple. If you do not like something, walk away, and leave it at that.

Over the past several months I have spent a lot of time in the 9th Age forum, reading posts from various levels of gamers. And on numerous occasions, I have watched people who have felt that their entitlement to the game means they have a say in the way things happen, or what should happen, and when it doesn't, they call the creators "delusional" and spell out the doom and darkness of the game. Purely because they didn't get what they wanted.

Its that sense of entitlement that people have that makes them feel that a game should be the way they want it to be, and that they have a right to bash games they don't like. Since when did we as gamers become so self righteous as to think we can tell others that their games are crap? To tell game developers they are delusional? To tell people that this is the way it should be, and if we think otherwise, we are stupid? And when did we become so self entitled that we feel we can dictate the way a game is developed or played.

9th Age is an interesting concept in this, as it isn't company built but community driven. But even though that is one of its biggest strengths, the weakness that comes with this is it increases the amount people feel they can have their say and that their say should be listened to and, obeyed.

We are stakeholders, not shareholders.

The decisions made relating to a game effect us as we have an invested interest in the game. But we do not own the game, we do not have shares in the company, we are not its developer, design team, executive board of directors. We are just the people at the end of the chain holding onto it for the ride, whatever it shall be.

The 9th Age is Community Driven, not Community owned.

It's a game being designed and built by many hard working volunteers for a community of wargamers wanting to see the complexity of WHFB continued on in a balanced and competitive game. But just because we are the reason it is being built, we don't own it. We don't have a controlling power invested in it. We are not financially entwined in the organisation. We just have an invested interest, even financial based invested interest based on the fact we own the miniatures to play the game, but we do not own the game.

Is someone wants to play AoS, that's cool. You don't have a right to tell them their game is shit.
Is someone wants to play KoW, that's cool. You don't have a right to tell them their game is shit.
Is someone wants to play Warmachine, that's cool. You don't have a right to tell them their game is shit.
Is someone wants to play 40k, that's cool. You don't have a right to tell them their game is shit.
Is someone wants to play 9th Age, that's cool. You don't have a right to tell them their game is shit.

Let's stop being self righteous and entitled. Let's just play the game we enjoy, and leave others to play the games they want to. Because, "if you don't like it, then there's the door, but don't break my toys on your way out!".