|
|
|
|
Musings on… Conventions and Choice (#23)
Moderated By Tom Vasel
November 29, 2005
Welcome to Musings On..., which is a moderated discussion group in which a bunch of well known, dedicated gamers discuss and debate different games and topics regarding games. In this particular article, we discuss conventions, and the different ways in which they are run.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy your read - and look for many more of these in the future!
- Tom Vasel
David Fair:
With BGG.CON’s recent success at its inaugural event, conventions are on many gamers’ minds right now. Conventions and the choices they offer often cause some division in the minds of the gaming community, and they usually split along the lines of “Open Gaming” vs. “Tournaments” and “Invitation-Only” vs. “Open to Public”.
Open Gaming” vs. “Tournaments”
Having attended conventions that are exclusively one or the other, and some that have a mix of both, I can definitely say that I prefer a convention that is less structured than a typical Tournament focused convention, but both types of events have benefits and drawbacks.
Open-gaming events have a structure that allows players to hook up, select a game, and get going. When it is over, they find another game, and a group of like-minded players, and play again. This often leads to some downtime as you try to decide collectively what to play next, and often keeps you gaming with the same group, as when you finish a game, the only other people not in a game already, are the ones you just played with. Frequently one of the goals of the convention is meeting new people and this often keeps you from doing so.
Still open-gaming events have a lot to offer, they allow you to play more obscure, newer, and more niche titles. Tournament events often need to ensure a minimum level of participation in each tournament in order to justify that block of time, and so those events focus on games that have proven drawing ability over time. Open gaming events also let you explore games you haven’t played before, or strategies you want to test.
The tournament format encourages you to focus on games you already know well, and to go with what has worked in the past. This experimental vs. proven dichotomy usually causes each type of event to appeal more or less strongly to different gamers.
Tournament focused events offer some benefits: they typically have less downtime where players try to decide what to play, they encourage (force?) you to meet new people, and you get to play some of your favorite titles several times in one event, giving you a chance to explore fewer titles to greater depth.
All that said, I find that I prefer Open Gaming events. I enjoy the process of finding a game I have never played before, and I especially like getting to play a game that another player counts among their favorites and getting caught up in their enthusiasm for it. I enjoy learning new games, and getting an opportunity to try older, more obscure titles, as well as the latest offerings, is a big plus.
“Invitation-Only” vs. “Open to Public”
This is the difference that causes a lot of controversy. Conventions and events that are open to the public are quite democratic, allowing anyone with the time, inclination, and requisite registration fees to attend. Those that require an invitation are open only to those people who are asked to attend by the event organizers.
Let us look at why each of the event types exist before discussing the benefits of each.
Open events exist because the organizers wish to draw as large a crowd as possible. the BPA’s flagship event, the World Board game Championships could hardly call themselves that if they only allowed a select few players to attend (ignore for now whether an event always held on the east coast of the U.S. that draws fewer than 10% of its players from outside the US is really qualified to call itself that). Likewise GenCon and Origins exist to make a profit for their organizers, and that means getting bigger crowds and more vendors every year.
In contrast, invitation-only events are often limited in scope by the organizers themselves to a number that they feel is manageable, either from a facilities perspective, or from their own time-commitment perspective. They choose to keep the size of the event smaller so that they can organize it more effectively, and so that the attendees get more of a chance to meet the other attendees. Often these events run every year with only slight growth, making the attendees feel like a family coming together for a reunion.
Some in the gaming community say that invitation only events are elitist and that they breed resentment and hurt feelings. Some say that open events are too large or bring in gamers that they just don’t want to play with.
I know that when I attend a public event I will, at some point during the event, be asked to play a game with someone I don’t like. Whether in a tournament with random match ups, or in open gaming when this player approaches me as I stand there looking for a game and some opponents, I will have to either spend some of my limited time at the convention with a person I don’t enjoy being around, or I will have to think fast to get out of the situation gracefully (something I usually fail at, by the way).
I also know that when I attend an invitation only event, I will have very little chance of this happening. The organizers of these events usually invite gamers who have a mindset regarding gaming that is compatible with their own, and thus usually compatible with all those in attendance. I have never met a player at an invitation only event who ruined a game for me with a hyper-competitive attitude, or obnoxious personality, but both have happened at public events.
In short, all conventions offer the opportunity for a lot of gaming in a little time. Before you decide which conventions to attend, think a little bit about what you want from the experience, and make sure you select a convention that will give you what you are looking for.
Greg Schloesser:
I generally do not enjoy tournaments, and I rarely play in them. The only tournament I have played in the last 5 years was a light- hearted “Mamma Mia” affair. I only entered this one since it was at the urging of Joe Huber, who was throwing the impromptu tournament together at the Gathering of Friends.
While I enjoy winning games, I don’t really enjoy being too competitive. I just don’t enjoy the tension of “having” to win. Some people find such competitive situations and tension “fun”; I don’t. I really play to have fun, and winning is just lagniappe.
So, I MUCH prefer the open-gaming format. This is one reason why I’ll likely not be a regular at the World Boardgame Championships.
Frank Branham:
While I mostly agree with you, I spent my first couple of Gatherings playing a lot of tournaments. They are good ways to learn games, forcing you to set a schedule to play a game you want to try. If you don’t know anyone at a con, it is really easy to sign up for a tournament and sit down and play and meet people through a game.
I believe for these reasons that scheduled game tournaments really need to be a part of any convention of more than 70 or 80 people.
I do really hate the emphasis at Origins on events and event tickets. Even demos in the gaming halls require standing in line to get a signup, extra fees, and are just annoying. Origins then provides only a handful of tables for open gaming. It is like they are just TRYING to suck the fun out of the whole convention experience.
Mike Siggins:
It will be interesting to see the reaction to this one. Like Greg I am simply not fussed by tournament play. In fact, I will go further and say I actively avoid it. About the only exception would be something light and friendly, such as the Liar’s Dice tourney at Gathering I, in which I wiped the floor with every single damn sucker that took me on.
Sorry. I have no idea what came over me there. And that is it in a nutshell. In a tournament we see an unsavoury side of people. I am pretty sure this is not a good thing to experience. I think it is down to a type of gamer (I see it in the miniatures field as well) and it is not edifying to watch. This behaviour gives rise to cons that have a profile - heavy, plaque hunting, tourneys (often including wargames) or cuddly, friendly, Euro cons, with all shades in between. As much as some WBC attendees try to shrug its reputation, I am pretty sure it is there. Stories leaked this year that a) I doubt were made up and b) made my toes curl.
Simply put, I enjoy gaming for the experience and the people. I try my best, I pull some leftfield plays, and I join in the game experience. If I win, great, but it really doesn’t matter.
Open gaming is the only way for me, and I’d like the tournaments in a different room please.
Greg Schloesser:
Amen, brother Siggins.
Morgan Dontanville:
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been to a number of cons now and I always find myself playing games in the bar, the cafeteria, or some neighboring restaurant.
The number one reason that I play games is that it gives me an excuse to interact with people that I like. Winning can be entertaining, but it is more of a perk of time spend doing something fun. Hey look, I won.
People who are playing specifically to win are boring. The game is boring. The time is wasted. Sometimes the game is ruined for me. At WBC I played a pick-up game where one player’s A/P was killing me. It was a light silly filler and it took an hour. He won. His decisions brought him to victory, but who cares. Did he have fun? I didn’t. I ended up buying the game and love it, but I recognized it was the player not the game.
I’d even go so far as to say that some games are ruined by playing for wood. There are a number of games that can be manipulated for the good of a team playing a tourney rather than the spirit of the game itself. When it comes to that level of metagaming, I feel that it destroys everything I look for in board games.
I went to Essen this year and while I really had a great time, it was just a forum to sell games. I miss open gaming tables. Origins, and Gencon are fun, but I only play in open games. Paying to play just seems awkward to me.
BGG.con was my kind of convention. It was by the people, for the people. The only reason to go there was to have fun, play games, and hang out with people that you like. It wasn’t for the elite, for wood, or for sales. If they had beer there, it wouldn’t be able to be beat. (Now I know what to bring next year).
Chris Brooks:
In the past year I attended Essen, GenCon Indy, BGG.CON, and GameStorm (a local smallish convention in Portland, OR). Each felt unlike the others.
I would likely not attend GenCon if I didn’t have family in Indianapolis. Our favorite parts of GenCon are the show floor and opportunities to play role playing games, particularly RPGA events. The open gaming is less satisfactory and pretty much will always cost a ticket. Lately my sons and I have done most of our gaming on the show floor. I was able to play Parthenon, Railroad Tycoon, and other new or soon-to-be released games.
Essen is a show unlike any other I’ve seen. I was there to sell (and buy) games. Almost all of my gaming was done after hours at the hotel. Not a game players’ convention, but a game buyers convention.
GameStorm is great because it is local (cheap), and there’s a great concentration of folks I know. I get in a mix of rpg and boardgames. Concentrated fun and the focus are on gameplay.
BGG.CON is the best I’ve been to. Similar to GameStorm but with a total focus on boardgames. The show was well run and it was always easy to find a game.
I have no desire to participate in tournaments, so I doubt you’ll ever find me at WBC.
Nick Danger:
Since I’ve only been to two cons in my life (GoF, BGG) I’m barely qualified to comment on them, but since when has qualifications ever entered into tossing opinions around?
I like the idea of tournaments as I love competition. I play games for the competition. When I want camaraderie or socializing I’d rather go out to the pub where chatting is the main activity. For some reason it seems the majority here think competition is a bad thing. One can be competitive without being a jerk.
In contrast to what has been mostly said so far, I think a lot of gamers like the competition and favor tournaments. The only organized tourney at BGG (Texas Hold ‘em) drew over 1/3 of the con’s attendees.
My thoughts are a good con should be open gaming with feature tournaments run throughout event. Nobody should ever feel pressured into entering, but I think they (tournaments) do a good job at forcing mingling, something Frank alluded to in his post.
Now having said all that, let me do a total about face and say I’d rarely sign up for a tournament. Why? I can’t handle the structure of having to be at a certain place at a specified time. It’s all about the freedom, baby!
Pierce Ostrander:
Nick hits it on the head. I think one of the main reasons we play games is because we like competition. The “tension” that we talk about as a positive quality in the games we play only exists because we want to win. Testing our skills against our fellows (and bettering them!) is a substantial part of what makes this fun.
What a public tournament does is add to the stakes and therefore to the tension… making the play all that more exciting. Certainly, some folks don’t like or can’t handle the increased tension. When I say “can’t handle” I don’t mean to call anyone a wimp, on the
contrary the worst offenders in the “can’t handle” department are the people who turn into monsters, cheaters or jerks in these situations. Thankfully, they are rare. And to the contrary of what many seem to believe I think that they tend to self-select OUT of such venues.
I played ASL as a lifestyle for about 20 years – 10 of those competitively at 3 conventions per year and always in tournaments. The tournaments were like old-home week, a big group of friends getting together to do something we all loved. Each game had the extra “electricity” of having a bit more at stake than “normal”. Sometimes there would be an ass-hat or two, but everyone has quirks. Most of the time, it was just good, clean fun and some of the highest level of play I have ever experienced.
I’m glad I had the opportunity.
Now I play euros… lots of different euros all the time. I’m not “good enough” at any one of them to win a large, public tournament, yet I still understand why others prefer to specialize and compete – its fun!
So, I’m glad tournaments are there for them, and for me… to play my way through a round or two just to “see how I do” and meet some new people that I might not have otherwise gamed with. But most of the time now it’s open gaming. Either way… it’s all good.
Greg Schloesser:
Well, I guess I’ll disagree here. I play to have fun. I like to win, and do try my best to win, but that is NOT the main reason I play. I play to socialize, to enjoy the gaming experience, and to just plain have fun. I honestly don’t get “jazzed” by keen or intense competition. It does occur in some games (usually the “meatier” or “thinking” games), and I in most cases I, too, will get more intense. This can be enjoyable. However, it is NOT the main reason I play games.
That being said, I don’t think playing in such intense fashion is inherently wrong. Some games are designed to be intense experiences. I do have a problem, however, with folks who carry such intensity to all of their gaming experiences. It really can ruin the game for the rest of the players.
A story of why I don’t enjoy tournaments. While attending my first big gaming conventions, I grabbed a burger and was sitting at the end of a table consuming it. The Settlers of Catan tournament was in progress, and I, of course, was not participating. One of the players got irate over a trade, and actually began berating one of his opponents. It was ugly. I knew then-and-there that I would not play in any tournaments.
I’ve watched other tournaments in progress, and in many cases, the level of intensity displayed by the players was just, well, unattractive to me. Some folks may enjoy this ... I don’t.
Pierce Ostrander:
Greg, I don’t think we disagree on most of your points. Notice I say “ONE OF the main reasons...” I unreservedly agree with your statements, “I play to have fun” and “winning is not the main reason I play”. Taking my point out of context and not
acknowledging the qualifier in your response turns it into something I didn’t say.
Your experiences with tournament play are different from mine (see my warm fuzzy description above). For me, a single bad experience is drop in an “ocean of good feelings” about tournament play. In my universe, bad actors and experiences are the exception not the rule.
If by “intensity” you do mean “ungracious and anti-social” then I totally agree that it is completely inappropriate at all times. And certainly, if you are playing “Igloo Pop” with the kiddies, then you shouldn’t worry about “having your game-face on”.
On the other end of the spectrum, a game can also be ruined by someone who plays a game and is so “sociable” that their play is disengaged and arbitrary. There is a golden mean (as there is with most things).
Either competition is inherently bad and we should not encourage it, or it isn’t and we should learn how to do it in a fashion that doesn’t irritate and alienate others – regardless of the setting – tournament or no.
Bottom line: I think that tournaments should be there for people that want them and open gaming should be available and encouraged as well. I’ll even make a shameless plug: I think that the two conventions “EuroQuest” and “Game Days” (the two conventions hosted by the Games Club of Maryland - one in the spring and one in the fall) have the emphasis about perfect. Plenty of open gaming (which is what I mostly do) with tournaments available for those who want the opportunity to test their skills against the best players - or alternately just like to have scheduled events that make it easy to “get playing”.
Chris Brooks:
I think “playing for competition” can be different than “playing to win”. I like the competition, but that still doesn’t make me want to play in tournaments. Why? I would prefer to play a variety of games and not a single game for extended periods. I’m an intuitive player that cares more about enjoying the game and people than winning, and it is difficult for me to play with others who are more concerned with analysis and winning. That said, I do prefer to win when I play and I LOVE it when there’s a tight finish and I’m in the running for a victory.
Richard Young:
My career as a conventioneer is somewhat stunted from having been shunted from one end of the country to the other, and out of it on occasion, usually to places far from where such activities take place. I did however live in Pennsylvania for a time and was able to get to a couple of “Origins” when they were being held at Widener in New Jersey. That, of course, had everything you could ask for in a con: tourneys, workshops, new product demos, open gaming - the works! I tried them all.
I sat in a playtest session for Alamo from SPI (what was I thinking?!?), I got a copy of Colditz from the charming old Brit who inspired the game, after sitting the demo; and, of course, blew the budget in the dealer areas and gamed my brains out in the open gaming areas. I also entered a tournament or two and that side of the whole affair was the only really negative experience that I take away from those cons (other than suffering through Alamo).
Some years later, in Ottawa, I was able to take in several years’ worth of Cangames, which was a similar thing but on a much smaller scale. Again, my only negative experiences came in the tourneys. Even the one I won (History of the World) was soured by the way I was handed the victory in the final round. A kid had somehow made his way to the final table but either lost his interest or his mind and gave me Russia in the last epoch when I had gone last in the previous one and had built up a slight lead. The reaction from the other players was pretty predictable. I was almost embarrassed to take the trophy that day. The kid spent the rest of the weekend defending himself from some of the other contestants ("but I was told Great Britain was the best faction in Epoch VII and I wanted to give him a worse one rather than maybe let him get it!"). In a Shogun tourney, another player decided he couldn’t win and threw himself on his sword in favor of one of his buddies at the same table.
My point about tourneys is that while I’ve seen some of the better play in them, I’ve also seen the worst. All of the stereo-typical nightmare player characteristics seem to come out in tournaments. AP, revenge seekers, king-makers (the worst is when a couple of buddies hook up to make sure one of them wins), quitters, whiners, the lot! Maybe it’s because of the pressure to win, I don’t know, but I would never enter another tournament.
On the other hand, my open gaming experiences were generally much more positive. Sure you can see everything there too, but maybe because there is so little pressure and you’re just into having fun, the extremes that I saw in the tourney area were just not there. Our individual experiences are bound to be all over the map so I won’t condemn tourneys out of hand, but they are a big negative in my mind.
As for “invitation” only affairs such as GOF, I couldn’t comment, not having any direct experience. The folks I have talked to that go seem to enjoy themselves but I think my advancing maturity would take me out of a forum like that after a day or two. My “burn-out” quotient is a lot lower than it used to be. Besides, I would miss the other aspects of cons that go with the more public affairs such as the dealer displays, demos, auctions, etc.
I guess this discussion is all about choice and for those that are luckily situated there is a lot of choice out there. Everyone’s tastes are individual so there is bound to be a format that suits you. The key is to focus on what represents the most positive experience for you, and enjoy!
Thomas Cabalzaro:
I enjoy Cons. I don’t get a chance to attend nearly enough of them. I generally utilize Cons to try games I haven’t played before; as such, I tend to stick to open-gaming areas. I have participated in a few tournaments, but they were all either RPG, miniatures, or CCG games-- I’ve never tried a board-gaming tourney. I have a feeling that I’d tend to fall on Morgan’s side of the equation regarding tourney play. Frankly, I’d find the experience of playing the same game over and over a bit stale. I have had one negative experience during a tourney (RPG), when a certain overzealous individual began browbeating and berating some kids who weren’t playing up to his expectations. Though his ranting was not directed at me, I was extremely annoyed on behalf of the two kids involved. However, that is the sole bad experience I’ve had. What’s interesting about the sociology of Cons to me is how some seem to be rather regrettable affairs while others flourish. Dragonflight (Seattle) which I have attended and enjoyed several times, has been going strong for decades. OryCon (Oregon) continues to churn, but I find it most sterile and disappointing. GameStorm (here in Portland) is great, and hosts “mini-con” gaming events throughout the year. I can’t wait for the next one!
Wei Hwa Huang:
And I’ll venture a third opinion here. The main reason I play games is not because of the competition, and it is not because of the socializing either (although both are certainly secondary reasons). The main reason I play games is because of the mental exercise, and the fascination of watching simple rules and goals unfold into complex tactical sequences and logistical dynamics.
Larry Levy:
This, too, is a big thing for me. I love the mental challenge of a well designed game. Like Mike and Greg, I also like the socializing and, perhaps most of all, I just plain like games (particularly new ones). And yes, it’s the total package that keeps
me coming back for more.
Pierce Ostrander:
I think Larry’s comment probably sums it up for all of us. The social
aspect that Greg “the evangelist” favors, the problem solving / experimentation exercise that Wei-Hwa “the tweaker” loves, and yes, the testing and perfecting that goes with being a competitor. These are the things that keep us gaming. This, plus a high tolerance for spending hours sitting on our butts.
People who truly dislike any of these things wouldn’t play board games like we do.
Wei-Hwa Huang:
My concept of an ideal boardgaming scenario would be to have a group of friends sit down with a new game with a new set of rules, and have everyone explore the strategy space. Takebacks and open analysis would be encouraged, as would be playing for multiple players. The most common sentence would be “Okay, so let’s see what happens if we do *this*.”
Obviously, very few people are willing to play boardgames this way. I think the main reason is that while I’m very motivated by exploration and analysis per se, your standard gamer isn’t. Instead, they might want socialization. Also, most gamers greatly prefer identifying with a particular “player” at the table; the concept of having multiple people discuss the moves of one player, or having one person control the actions of multiple players, is unorthodox and unnerving. Finally, some gamers enjoy the feeling of friendly rivalry; trying to outperform or somehow “do better” than the other people at the table.
But why do I mention all this? I guess I just want to point out that the reasons people play boardgames are various and sometimes completely unexpected as well.
Morgan Dontanville:
Wei-Hwa, I actually sat down and played the Age of Steam - Reunion Island Expansion the other night doing nothing but playing open, doing retakes, seeing how things played out and backtracking like some kid with 4 fingers stuck in their Choose Your Own Adventure book.
I often do this with two player games with a certain friend of mine. It is a shared experience that I enjoy specifically with this person and thereby is social. I like him, I know what he expects from a game, and we are just there to have fun. I would be more than happy to do this with others, but I can’t imagine breaking down a game like that with strangers.
That said, I’ve playtested games at cons with strangers so this isn’t too far off the mark, but by doing so it brings people closer together. Much like the old theory about giving two strangers a couple shovels and telling them to dig a ditch; by the end they will have some camaraderie.
Mike Siggins:
I’ll venture a third opinion here.
Just goes to show how many assumptions I make here. Sorry. The main reason I game is because I like games. Seeing the mechanisms, exploring the system, spotting clever design tricks, gradually (or suddenly) realising that there is some depth, or (woohoo) a lot of depth and some atmosphere. The social element is secondary for me as well, but it is increasingly important. Otherwise, as someone said earlier, I might be down the (smoke free) pub.
I do like the idea of ‘experiencing’ a game; what you describe sounds almost like a solo playthrough but with many players? Without knowing what sort of games you play, I am going to say that Euros don’t often provide a good basis for this. There simply isn’t enough substance there in many cases. We quickly get the trick, categorise it based on previous games (see the early posts on Beowulf for rapid classification) and we move on. Occasionally there is a game where you think, ‘Okay, Ra bidding, Goa development, but really clever tile placing. I am looking forward to this’. I like to quantify at least a small and noticeable jump forward in each game design. It is why Faidutti’s games usually frustrate and annoy, because we are seeing nothing new. And a case in point, Caylus doesn’t offer much new except a rejigging of elements, but it has obviously hit a sweet spot for many.
This sense of adventure was very strong during the CCG boom. It was also surprisingly strong back in the day, when translations of new German games weren’t all they might be, so there was a major element of trying as you went along, seeing what worked, and pushing the game’s parameters. Then we played again and found out we had invented a new game… I don’t think we ever played Maestro correctly.
Greg Schloesser:
I’d say for me, the social element probably has a slight lead on the “game” element. Like you, I thoroughly enjoy discovering how a game unfolds, how the mechanisms intertwine, and having that “aha!” moment when a particular strategy or tactic is first noticed. I also am on the same page as you in regards to looking for some progress in game development, something which nudges the game forward or gives it a novel twist. Sometimes this can occur with a brand new mechanism never seen before, while at other times it can be just a clever new blending of familiar mechanisms which gives the game a fresh feel.
That being said, I enjoy the socializing which usually results with the people playing even more. Yes, the game is the centerpiece providing the opportunity for the resulting socializing, but it is that socializing that jazzes me the most. The conversations, the joking, the commentary ... all transcend the joy I derive from the game itself. But it is a package: neither would be as good without the other.
Paul Sauberer:
Although both centering on conventions, David brings up what are at heart two radically different topics.
The open vs. tournament question is one of taste. You can love them or hate them, but having a tournament format or an open format is not a question of being right or wrong. As David points out, each format appeals to different impulses and thus to different gamers. If a particular format is better for you, go to conventions that use it.
The invitation vs. open controversy is another animal entirely. This is because to complain about invitation-only conventions is to say that your preference is “right” and those who run such conventions are “wrong.” One side of the debate is trying to enforce their preference on the other side. There is no chance to arrive at a resolution of “to each his own” because the only way to solve this difference would be to eliminate invite-only events.
IMO, the *real* complaint about the invite-only conventions is “I didn’t get an invite to the Gathering of Friends.” Well, I don’t have an invite and I am OK with that. Those who are likewise on the outside looking in should either rent a hall and run their own open gaming convention where anyone who wants to come can do so or just learn to deal with it and enjoy the gaming they do get to do instead of being envious of those who are derisively referred to as the “elite.”
Morgan Dontanville:
Why is it derisive to refer to the people that go to the Gathering of Friends as “elite”? There are people who just are elite—Tastemakers, Designers, Publishers, and Lackeys. To deny it is silly.
Personally, the only reason I’m envious of the people invited to the Gathering is that it is supposed to be fun. I like fun things. I talk to some of these people online, and I want a good excuse to hang out with them. BGG.con was a great excuse. I’d love to play some games with Joe Huber. But, of course, Lobster Trap was scheduled at the same time as the geek. Blast!
Perhaps, I should have a Gathering of Bastards in NYC. It could be the first anti-invite con. If you have to ask, you aren’t invited. Just demand entry, send money and you are in.
Paul Sauberer:
When “elite” is used as a synonym for “snobs,” it most certainly is derisive. There is no problem with wishing one had an invitation to these events because they would be fun. If that were all that was involved in this issue, then there would be no controversy. The problem is that those who initiate the controversy hold that since they don’t have an invitation, such events should not exist because they harm the hobby. They insist that if they can’t go, then no one else should be able to either. I find that point of view extremely selfish. Someone didn’t get an invitation to Columbus? So what? Quit crying and grow up. Wish those that are going a good time instead of saying that they are bad people for wanting to get together and game with their friends.
Instead, someone on the outside looking in should adopt a course of action like your hypothetical GoB. If they don’t like not going to an invitational, start their own convention. That is far more productive than whining that others are having fun and they’re not. In fact, starting a get together can be rewarding, even if it’s not tied to “GoF envy.” Our Palm Beach Gamers sessions, particularly our monthly Game Days, are open to anyone interested. That even goes for you, Morgan, if you find yourself in South Florida when we’re gaming (and it’s not a bad alternative to NYC in the winter, that’s for sure.)
Larry Levy:
First of all, the fact that we have choices is great. Gamers can choose open or invitation cons and participate in open gaming or in tournaments, and have several choices of where they can find their preferences. Choice, good!
As for me, I prefer invitation events and open gaming. The controlled roster, the chance to regularly meet old friends, and the family atmosphere at by-invitation cons makes this an easy choice for me. Meeting new people to game with is nice, but it isn’t essential and the chance to make new acquaintances that you may see once every other year is outweighed by the greater possibility of a ruined gaming session due to a socially inept gamer. Gaming is at its best when it’s both social AND competitive and for me, the better I know the players, the more joking and smack talk will occur. I just think the atmosphere at the invitation events lends itself more to forming close friendships, and I’ve certainly been lucky enough to form a large number of them at these cons!
Open gaming is also a strong preference for me. For one thing, I find very few games lend themselves to tournaments. I crave variety and there just aren’t many games that I want to play three times straight. Can’t Stop is one of the few that work for me in that
regard (since it’s so short, but still requires skill) and it’s just about the only tournament I participate in at The Gathering. With open gaming, I can play what I want, with whom I want, when I want. You can go with the flow, or seek out particular gamers, all without
having to worry about some schedule. And while I like winning individual games as much as the next guy, the idea of winning “wood” does nothing for me. I have no desire to prove myself as a champion player. I’m better than some and worse than others, but my competitiveness simply doesn’t extend to that “best in class” mentality. For those that enjoy that kind of competition, more power to them, and it’s great that they have so many opportunities to participate in them. But it just isn’t the type of gaming I enjoy that much.
Alfred Wallace:
Am I the only one here who’s never been to a game convention?
I don’t mind invitational events like the Gathering; I wish I had an invitation (duh) but living vicariously through my invitee friends and (online) acquaintances is seeing me through. My practice the last couple of years is to run a silly “Gathering of One” alongside the real Gathering, where I play at least one game (solo, mostly) every day of the con. Keeps me entertained, anyway. I even post pictures…
Pierce Ostrander:
Wow! It seems like my positive experience with tournament play is totally unique in this group. Perhaps it is because of the game that I competed in: It wasn’t a multi-player Euro. The community of convention-going ASL players was really fairly small, and you would see the same people at every event. In that sense it was like an “invitation only” event – it was never a bunch of strangers. Because of that, it may also be that behavior was better than what all of you who have commented seem to have experienced with Euro-events.
The other thing with ASL is that it is infinitely variable – every scenario is a new situation with new components and new objectives, so the “who wants to play the same game all weekend?” objection was mitigated.
So, on all of your advice, I’ll be sure and steer clear of Euro tournaments. : )
Mike Siggins:
I think you are misunderstanding. My bad experience is of all types of tournaments - Euros, wargames, miniatures, even poorly run CCG events. I can’t say which is the worst as I don’t have anything like enough data on which to base an assessment, but it was in a wargames tournament (Up Front) where I saw one player stand up, red faced, call his opponent a cheating [beep], and storm out of the room. I suspect at that point, the benefits of competition have been outweighed by the drawbacks.
The comments on Essen by Morgan are sad to read. I have lost count of the times myself and others have written to say that Essen is not a convention. It is a game fair. Don’t go there expecting GenCon or Origins writ large. And definitely don’t expect BGG.con or The Gathering! The primary reason to go is to see new games, buy them cheaply, play them (under less than ideal conditions); and if you are of that persuasion, to play them in the evenings. Balancing that, you can play at Essen but if you like gaming in quiet, smoke free surroundings, without waiting for a table, then it isn’t for you.
And because I saw a misguided comment on BGG recently linking Essen and Nuremberg, don’t even think about Nuremberg being like Essen. It’s a trade show and there is every chance you won’t even get in. I went once, and realised I didn’t need to be there, or indeed to ever go again.
I am writing this because I’d hate people to spend a lot of money and time to get to Germany, only to be disappointed.
Pierce Ostrander:
I hear what you are saying Mike. It may be that I was more tolerant of “bad behavior” because I enjoyed the tournament experience so much. In some ways, the compliants are like the person who doesn’t go to movies because “the last time I went, this guy sitting behind me talked for the entire film”. So instead, he watches DVDs at home - which is what he prefers anyway.
Nick Danger:
The question is whether one likes tournament play in general. If you don’t, then any kind of incident is easy to lash onto as yet another reason to not participate. However, if you enjoy tournaments letting the chance of running into a sore loser ruin the experience, or worse yet even prevent you from joining in the first place is a bad way to
approach life.
I mean if you live your life avoiding enjoyable situations because there’s the possibility of an unfortunate turn of events happening you’re losing out on a lot of fun. Let me put on my Morgan persona....
When asking out a girl there’s a better than zero chance you’ll get shot down (unless perhaps, you’re Brad Pitt). If you let that possibility shape your future actions it’s going to be a lonely life. If you don’t enjoy the company of women then it’s not an issue and a
circumstance that can easily be avoided.
So if you like competition then running into one or two buttheads along the way is of little deterrent. But to say you don’t like tournaments because they can turn ugly is like saying you gave up on women because a couple shot you down.
Dang, I probably really needed to work supermodels into that to get the full effect.
Mike Siggins:
That seems slightly back to front, plus it is a bit cheeky to assume I approach life badly. Though with a name like Nick Danger, perhaps everyone else seems lame. Anyway, thanks for your concern!
Simply, because I don’t like the type of competitive player that I expect to encounter in a tournament, I don’t play tournaments. Players such as him (and it is my contention that almost anyone entering a tournament enjoys a higher level of competition than I do), are what make tournaments unenjoyable for me. My hunch, proven in my early years of gaming when I did try tourneys, is that the majority of competition gamers prefer winning to the game experience, and silence to socialising. I may be wrong, but I doubt it because for some reason they are in the tourney and I am not. Accordingly, I strongly doubt I am losing out on fun; more likely avoiding a whole bunch of grief.
I think, like much of what is discussed here and on various newsgroups, this is simply two sides trying to prove a subjective argument. We can’t win or lose, the other side most definitely isn’t wrong (though they might be clueless), and there is but a slim chance one of us will change our minds. Don Greenwood, bless his cotton socks, used to listen to all this and shrug, putting it down to different strokes. I have to remind myself of that occasionally, most often when told I am running my life in a bad way.
In my defense, I have never dated a supermodel. Or even an ordinary model.
Morgan Dontanville:
Pierce, I have to take the devil’s advocate here. I am not the kind of guy that is going to enjoy tourneys. I don’t particularly care about winning, and frankly the thought of playing the same game over, and over, and over to win some silly brass plaque seems an irritating concept. I have no inspiration to do so, and would not be interested in playing games where people will stop at nothing to get something so worthless to me. Obviously, I’m biased.
What I will say though, and feel comfortable in doing so, is that people that want to enjoy something, but have a bad experience based on other people, are still going to come away tainted.
I was raving about the new Battlestar Galactica last night with some friends of mine, and a girl at the bar was saying how the show was ruined for her because there were three irritating people that she had to deal with while watching Return of the King. They were all making multiple cell phone calls, getting back-up copies of that night’s show, while in the theater. They did a bunch of other things that were irritating that don’t need to be mentioned here, but she made the association. While she liked the show, she just couldn’t get over the image of these three obnoxious geeks ruining her much drooled over LotRs experience.
How many people have come to the table, looking forward to getting some serious games in and feeling like they are playing with subhumans? You can bet that they aren’t going to be quite as excited about playing in tourneys again.
Erik Areneson:
Choice is indeed a wonderful thing, and there are a lot of choices for gamers right now.
And it’s not all that hard to make your own choices if you don’t like any that are available right now. For example, Beth and I have hosted a weekend-long gaming event at a local bed and breakfast each of the past two years, an event which is very small and very fun. About six couples and/or individuals make it each weekend we do this. And earlier this year (2005), I tried my hand at a small open gaming event, Harrisburg Game Day. It was held at a local Wyndham hotel, and about 25 people showed up. I met some local gamers I had no idea existed! (We didn’t quite break even on HGD, but it wasn’t a budget-breaker either. Had it been organized by a small group, with everyone pitching in on the cost, it would have been truly minimal. I really think anyone who wants to can organize a small open gaming event pretty easily.)
I’ve had mostly good tournament experiences with Euro / designer games. At the Gathering, I’ve played in probably 10 or so tournaments over about five years of attending. I attended my first World Boardgaming Championship this year and played in two tournaments (and did a lot of open gaming). I do prefer open gaming, but tournaments fill a need in my psyche that open gaming just doesn’t.
Mike Siggins:
I agree with you on the smaller cons, Erik. I attend about six per year, with up to a dozen or so people at each, and they work extremely well. They are also very good value, or usually free. In the last few years a fledgling con has started to great effect on Scotland - DiceCon - and this is certainly do-able for an individual or small team to get going. Two questions arise: apart from trade presence, what benefits are there at a large or huge convention compared to a micro con, and do cons generally represent good value for money? I suppose what I am saying here is some of us can stay at home to game, or play at clubs, or at micro cons, so what is the draw of paying up to $60 and travel costs? More people to meet, more styles of play, wider choice of games? I do often feel that the money could buy me quite a few games....
David Fair:
Not totally unique, as I have had some positive experiences with tournaments. Each year I attend several conventions which are almost completely focused on tournaments. I spend 75% of my time at each of these in Open Gaming, though I play a few tournaments at each.
I often approach the tournaments as nothing more than an appointment as to when to play a game I like, and I usually try to play the games I don’t get to the table that often, but still like a lot. I still play them like I do any other time I am playing: Play the game, maybe win maybe not, have a good time, move on to the next game.
My wife and I have had some bad experiences in Euro tournaments. My wife played a game of Settlers at the WBC in a tourney. There were two teenagers and one middle-aged gentleman also in the game. The older gentleman announced before the game that he considered my wife his competition and would not trade with her. And he didn’t, for the whole game. Really ruined the game for her, and I haven’t got her to go back to the WBC’s since. Not that I blame her.
On more than one other occasion I have suspected or caught tournament players cheating. Making incorrect change in Amun-Re, suspicious shuffling/dealing in UP, what appeared to be a stacking of the prestige deck in Princes of Florence, and what appeared to be
collusion in bidding in Tikal. My reaction? I usually shrug it off, and count it as a moral and psychological weakness on the part of the cheater. If he has to cheat to win, of what value can the victory be? How can you hang the plaque in your house knowing you cheated to win it?
Tom Vasel:
I too, am very pleased to play in open gaming, and have a wonderful time playing games with pretty much anyone. However, it’s a great time in which we live. There are conventions all year round, each offering a different spectrum of tournaments, displays, and open gaming. So just research the conventions and find the one that can match your tastes - tournaments or not.
~FIN
Musings On…
Edited by Tom and Laura Vasel
November 29th, 2005
www.tomvasel.com
Posted by Tom Vasel on Dec 8, 2005 at 02:30 AM in Special Features, Musings on... / 1209
Comments:
You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!|
I am surprised at the general negative approach toward tournaments presented here. I have attended conventions for 25+ years and have played in tournaments often. It has been my experience that tournament play has two distinct advantages over open gaming: 1. The final rounds are usually the most challenging gaming available. These are players that ‘know’ the game. (Note: I am assuming a game with some depth not an LCR tournament for example). Very often new strategies were exposed; strategies that were alien to anything I had experienced in our gaming group. (After many years of gaming with some of the same people, the personal preferences of the gamers is fairly well known.) Playing any game in a tournament setting has a different feel to it. I remember how confident I was the very first time I entered a tournament only to be ‘taught the game’ by a sweet, young girl. 2. I find that tournament players are less likely to walk out on a losing position than has occurred with my open gaming experiences. Seldom has an opponent resigned during tournament play; he has an investment, a commitment that is not present in open gaming. Though I have never tracked the games, I am certain as many as 10% of the open gaming games I have played at conventions have had one or more players either resign a poor position or find a reason to leave before the game has finished. There is simply no commitment to finishing a game. (Unfortunately, it has been my experience that this happens more often with Eurogamers than classic gamers (Chess, Go, Risk)). Additional comments - 1. It would be unfortunate if the comments detailed in the discussion dissuaded players from entering a tournament. Everyone has a horror story but these are the exceptions (excluding Diplomacy tournaments). If one is concerned about impolite behavior then I urge you to enter a tournament sponsored and administered by a game publisher. There are usually several available at any large convention and these are usually so well organized that little, if any questionable behavior is tolerated. 2. I think that those who play games simply to socialize are missing some of the potential in the games themselves. There is a significant difference between Go and Apples to Apples yet both are good games under specific conditions. Go is not a game I expect to socialize while playing; Apples to Apples I do have such an expectation. (Actually I cannot imagine anyone taking the game seriously.) To limit one’s gaming experience to socialization alone is to dismiss half of the potential in games. It is as extreme and limiting as one who only plays competitively. Posted by Dave Shapiro on Dec 8, 2005 at 06:23 PM | #
|
|
Dave, I am absolutely shocked at your estimate that up to 10% of your open games at conventions have had players leave before the game was finished. That is extremely rude and simply wouldn’t happen with the good gamers I play with both at or away from conventions. I’ve played scores of games at cons (all of them open) and have never had a player leave early. Actually, I take it back--it’s probably happened a couple of times because the player had to go play in a stupid tournament! But in all those instances, the player mentioned ahead of time that he would have to leave early. I also believe that almost all of the Musing On folks who took the “anti-tournament” position are like me: they don’t play games *simply* to socialize, but they like it to be a part of the gaming experience. There’s really no reason why you can’t have a very challenging game in concert with socialization. I don’t think I’m missing out on any of the potential of the games I play and I’d be surprised if many of the other people felt that way either. Posted by Larry Levy on Dec 8, 2005 at 07:43 PM | #
|
|
I find it interesting that the Musings participants acted like the choice is a) open gaming vs. b) tournaments; with the strong implication that open gaming is the only way to play new games. I have attended GenCon and played 25 brand-new-to-me games. Every single game was a ticketed event. None were open gaming. None were tournaments. I sat there with the GenCon schedule in one browser window and BoardGameGeek in another, researching the games and buying the tickets before the convention. There are hundreds of scheduled, ticketed games at GenCon, Origins and other conventions that are not open gaming nor tournaments. Don’t any of the Musings participants play in any of those games? I was surprised that a discussion of options didn’t even mention the (arguably) most popular option for playing boardgames at large conventions. Posted by Chris Shaffer on Dec 9, 2005 at 01:59 PM | #
|
|
As someone who missed his first AvalonCon/WBC in 14 years last year and is now trending toward open gaming, I have to say that the tournament format does offer at least one thing not yet commented on. Playing a game with an established set of rules allows us, among other things, a peek into the inner workings of our opponents’ ethics. This includes the obvious things like cheating, disruptive anger and other unsportsmanlike misconduct. But in a tournament setting, where the ego is heavily invested, it also offers up the ‘acid test’, where one can demonstrate the ultimate in self-control. For example, you are incorrectly credited with too many Victory Points, given too much cash to start, or some other mistake that would normally go unnoticed. Sure, in open gaming, it shows you’re a pro if you point out the mistake. But the stakes are even higher in a tournament setting, especially a very competitive tournament. There is a peculiar joy that comes to those able to show their own self-control by being totally objective in a situation when the self is crying out for fulfillment. The esprit-de-corps that develops among those who recognize this trait in their friends is what the best tournament play is all about. Of course the downside of tournament play is dealing with the small number of those who are consciously scheming to subvert (usually having to do with the ‘art’ of rolling dice). Posted by Jared Scarborough on Dec 10, 2005 at 12:28 PM | #
|
