Tournaments with High Stakes Prizes

[Dead Scribe]

One of the things that I, and a lot of the people in my area, are working towards is to bring tabletop tournaements more prestigious and with proper awards like games like Magic and XWing and other games do.  I feel there are a lot of people that would get more involved if there were actual world rankings and a world championship.  It was exciting to read about Dungeons and Dragons going full into the esports tournament scene as well (I'm not sure if we are allowed to post links here so I will not, but you can google it, D&D will be supporting a full championship series now and be supported at the same level as Magic is)

Our first attempt is going to be a holidays tournament which will be a two day format and a $100 buy-in.  We have a lot of interest, and the idea is going to be a $1,000 first prize to the overall winner and a $500 second prize to the one that comes in second place.

What is the past experience of something like this with people that have run this type of thing successfully and what should be taken into consideration?

[JPjr]

I cant even begin to imagine how they'd make D&D a tournament game, though I'd love to know.

I think with WHFB/AoS and actual real decent'ish money on the line the first thing to take into consideration would be rage induced table-flipping insurance.

Seriously though whilst it wouldn't be for me, good luck with it and I'd say make sure a chunk of that buy-in money goes towards paying to have more TOs/referees around to oversee games. I think assuring people it was fair and all above board is paramount and will give you a shot at doing it more than once.

[JPjr]

Ah found the D&D tournament thing, so looks like they're essentially stripping out 99% of the RPG aspect and turning it into more of a Blood Royale/Gladiator Arena style game with pre-generated stock characters to choose from,  though I can't seem to figure out if it will be miniature based or entirely pen & paper (or new fangled modern equivalent).

I think in a way that actually does point to one thing, that I'm almost entirely sure no one would want, but you could argue would allow you to create a more balanced game that actually resembles a sport and that's pre-determined set army lists.

As I said cant see many people going for that but if you really want balance and it to be about skill on the day (and a bit, well a lot, of luck) then limiting people to a handful of pre-set army lists is your answer and gets the game kind of on a level with things like FIFA tournaments where every team has the same stats.

[Overread]

The core issue is that GW isn't really interested in it. 

With Magic The Gathering, Wizards of the Coast are right stuck in there organising and backing and making sure it remains a sporting event. They invest in it and then let it run its course. GW pulled right out of the tournament scene for many years (kirby era) and are only now getting involved again. 

Thing is I don't think they want the headache of making it a sport, or at least for them running it. Just look at the Judges issue with MTG which caused a huge load of issues a few years back. Plus GW doesn't really need to push the tournament scene itself as hard as MTG does. Magic thrives and relies on its tournament scene, take it out and Magic would eventually die off; or at least seriously dwindle. Warhammer has the hobby areas to fall back on - building, converting, painting etc....

 

The second core issue is national level unity. Getting to a point where you've got one group that manages the major events and coordinates them at a national level (or at least state for the USA). I think if that happened there'd be more chance of securing things like sponsorship deals, advertising revenue and companies interested in paying for stall space at events (not just geek stuff but things like food outlets). Getting to that stage requires a lot of effort and, honestly, money too. Money to pay for facilities, to pay for peoples time etc...

 

I think it can happen and wish you a lot of luck - already getting $100 buy-in for an event is quite an achievement as that's quite  a steep stack of cash for people to pay to join in. 

[Dead Scribe]

Pre selected army lists would be an interesting thought.  It would totally remove list building from the mix, which is something that I have been brought up on believing is an important skill in and of itself.  However it would put to rest questions on skill.  However the game would need to become a lot less random as well (random charges, random abilities, etc)

[Dead Scribe]

 already getting $100 buy-in for an event is quite an achievement as that's quite  a steep stack of cash for people to pay to join in. 

When I travel to the big tournaments, I pay about on average $500 which includes cost of entry, hotel, etc.  For the local people (most of the atendees will be local) this is actually a lot cheaper than traveling to Chicago or Las Vegas and the potential reward greater.

[JPjr]

out of interest how many players would you expect? need to cover costs?

as obviously on top of the payout at a bare minimum you have venue hire, promo costs, staff hire etc. Then if you want it to be a repeat you need the vast majority of people who came and didn't win to go home enthused about it, so for me that would mean throwing an absolutely amazing event that they felt was worth paying to be involved in anyway, good tables, good scenery, good organisation (so people on hand to make things run smoothly/fairly), would there be food there (would that food be cheap/free in a casino style), what would you need to do to create a good general atmosphere (music, other entertainment etc).

Of course whilst most of these will cost you (and so have to come out of that pot), some may actually open up revenue streams (food, drink for example), allowing some local games stores/companies to have stalls on the side, stuff like that.

As I say whilst entering has zero appeal for me the actual logistics of putting on an event like this does (I ran club nights, raves, private events and all kinds of horrifically ageing, sleep depriving, stress inducing things throughout my 20s & early 30s).

[Dead Scribe]

We have a large store that can accomodate 20 tables so we can get upwards of 40 people ($4000).  Our costs right now are 0.  

The other costs for food etc are being discussed.  We need $1500 for prizes, and if we went over a certain threshold they'd start opening up other prizes for third and fourth place.  Also gift cards to the store.  

[Overread]

24 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Pre selected army lists would be an interesting thought.  It would totally remove list building from the mix, which is something that I have been brought up on believing is an important skill in and of itself.  However it would put to rest questions on skill.  However the game would need to become a lot less random as well (random charges, random abilities, etc)

I can't see it working for 40K unless you had store-made and owned armies; otherwise you'll lose so many people who just don't own the right models to play. Plus at least when its player built the balance rants go on GW themselves; if you prebuilt any balance issues would fall squarely on the organisers (an added layer of headaches). 

 

Also don't forget you need to cover costs, but also have excess money at the end to be investment for the next time around. Many major events hold quite a lot of money in limbo between events; its the money used to help ensure the next event starts up properly; to cover slow/bad years and to deal with issues - eg roof water leak means tables get damaged and a ceiling repair. 

[JPjr]

ok! big store. well that's cool and I guess they (hopefully) make some bank from having a load of people down all weekend (or for however long).

yeah I think if you did have say $4K to play with then obviously you want to skim some for all the time and effort but as an event organiser you just want to invest as much as that as possible into making sure everyone goes home as happy as they can.

there's actually loads you can do that is pretty cheap but impresses people, tote bags with a t-shirt and some other nonsense like that in. Even orders as small as 40 you can do these things pretty cheap, everyone goes home with something as a memento (plus of course if they're wearing a tournament t-shirt they're a walking billboard for future events).

god even doing a deal with a local pizza place and having a bulk delivery made, something like that would be cheap in $pp terms but would engender a lot of good will and keep people hanging around who might ****** off, after all if you want it to be really successful it needs to work on some level as a spectator sport and not just a participatory one.

not much of a grand tournament if the final battle is fought with no one else there apart from a bored store owner desperate to close up.

 

[Gaz Taylor]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

What is the past experience of something like this with people that have run this type of thing successfully and what should be taken into consideration?

I don't want to be negative but the game isn't really designed to be that tight a ruleset needed for something like this. I think if you do decide to do it, you will need to have a set of rules/guidelines that anybody entering will need to sign up to. For example...

• What happens in the event of somebody cheating?
• What happens if your friend enters the event and wins it? Does this mean anything bad for you if people accuse you of things?

To me it's going to be all about managing people's expectations about what is acceptable and what isn't. A great example is from the 40K event at this years LVO, as there was a good bit of controversy (which thankfully worked out for the best). The issue is that some people will take things too far. Read about the LVO moment here -> https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/02/01/a-teachable-moment-from-lvo-40k-championships/

If everybody knows what to expect and it's made clear from the start, you should be fine. ?

As for running the event, try to think about the following....

• Rulespack covering what you are doing and how players win games. Make clear about army selection, lists, painted models, etc. Also make clear about scenarios, as well as any other rules you want to use.
• Terrain and tables. Do players need to bring any? will you have enough tables?
• Drop outs - what happens in this event? Do you have a standby player?
• Health and Safety - Do you need any additional insurance or covered by the venue? Do you need anybody with first aid skills at the event?
• Food and Drink - Are you going to offer it or will there be places nearby to get it?

And that's not the whole list! 

 

[SwampHeart]

3 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

We have a large store that can accomodate 20 tables so we can get upwards of 40 people ($4000).  Our costs right now are 0.  

The other costs for food etc are being discussed.  We need $1500 for prizes, and if we went over a certain threshold they'd start opening up other prizes for third and fourth place.  Also gift cards to the store.  

Do you have enough judges/refs for a 1 ref to 1 table ratio or atleast pods of 1 ref to 2 or 3 tables? What is your stance on active judging versus passive? If you want to make the move into more of an esports arena then there can be no hint of a perception of impropriety. And given that you'll want to be streaming the event you've got to be ready for large scale scrutiny of every move and play.  I think the absolute first step you need to take is making sure that there will be no rules questions that your judges can't answer definitively and quickly (and answer using actual rules, not fiat). 

Really I could get a lot more into how you're going to officiate this - moving into a professional sports arena means having an appropriate amount of highly qualified rules judges who are going to actively police your games. 

[Lord_Skrolk]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

 However the game would need to become a lot less random as well (random charges, random abilities, etc)

Why do you say this? Variance is an important part of the game and if anyone can't accept that then they shouldn't play. I had to learn this myself as a poker player, haha

There are so many rules balanced around random things that trying to remove randomness yourself will most likely just leave everyone confused and with a ruleset that makes an already leaky ruleset even less balanced. For example, I know Thanquol can do 2D6 mortal wounds every shooting phase. That is very different tactically than someone that can do 7 or 8 MW every shooting phase, even though just giving him 7.5 MW of shooting damage every turn represents how much damage he should do on average

That being said, overall this tournament is an interesting idea and I'll be eagerly awaiting updates on its progress! 

[jackmcmahon]

I agree with the randomness of dice being integral to the game.  (It evens fits narrative-wise with unpredictability of a unit made of many individuals not all on same page). That being said: scenario selection, realm rules, secondary scores can heavily favor certain armies and with money on the line, the thought of collusion with TO will always be a worry.  To reduce this, I think they would have to be announced prior to list entry so all parties have a chance to make adjustments.  Sports scores would also have to be a non-monetary prize. I suggest a pat on the back.

[Future]

2 hours ago, Lord_Skrolk said:

Why do you say this? Variance is an important part of the game and if anyone can't accept that then they shouldn't play. I had to learn this myself as a poker player, haha

As someone whos been playing poker for years I try to explain this to gamers all the time. If a game has a high variance and each event has different winners it pry isn't much of a skill based game -- think uno. However, with poker for example you see the best players win over and over and over. I think a game without any variance such as chess is incredibly boring. I'm not the best player in the world (at any game) and enjoy a swing of luck to occasionally tip the scale in my favor, otherwise its an academic grind.

[amysrevenge]

I think there's a distinct difference between other e-sports (even including card games here under that banner) and tabletop games - discrete versus analog. 

Video games are discrete - the game is measured and codified and there's no gray area.  You play, and there is a winner.  Same with a card game - you have the cards you have, they work the way they work. 

Tabletop games are analog.  Your models sit on the table, and you have to measure them with a ruler and check line of sight with your eyes.  The dice rolls are discrete, they either hit or miss depending on the results without interpretation.  But all measurements are analog, and close ones rely on agreement or judgement.  And the more intense/competitive the game is, the closer the measurements will be.  The difference between 7.99" and 8.01" determines the difference between champions and also-rans, and the tiniest nudges while measuring are both unavoidable and impossible to pinpoint as deliberate.

The bigger the prize, the more the analog nature of the game will get exploited.  You basically need a judge at every table at all times.  Maybe the judge is the only one allowed to touch models?  Or maybe the judge is the only one with a tape measure?  Just trying to think through the ramifications.  If 7.99" vs. 8.01" separates me from $10,000, boy oh boy that tiny nudge with my tape measure sounds really appealing...

[JPjr]

Also talking of random considerations, the dice themselves...

If there's more than chump change at stake you can bet someone might have a couple of barely indistinguishable 'lucky' dice amongst their collection that always comes up 6 (or 1 or whatever) when it's really needed.

In fact I'd be stunned if there aren't some people out there using loaded dice at tournaments where there's nothing more than a pat on the back and cheap trophy to be won.

 

[Lord_Skrolk]

3 minutes ago, JPjr said:

Also talking of random considerations, the dice themselves...

If there's more than chump change at stake you can bet someone might have a couple of barely indistinguishable 'lucky' dice amongst their collection that always comes up 6 (or 1 or whatever) when it's really needed.

In fact I'd be stunned if there aren't some people out there using loaded dice at tournaments where there's nothing more than a pat on the back and cheap trophy to be won.

 

I know some of the big 40K tournaments provide their own dice at the final tables, this would have to be done at every table for big money tournaments 

[amysrevenge]

3 minutes ago, JPjr said:

Also talking of random considerations, the dice themselves...

If there's more than chump change at stake you can bet someone might have a couple of barely indistinguishable 'lucky' dice amongst their collection that always comes up 6 (or 1 or whatever) when it's really needed.

In fact I'd be stunned if there aren't some people out there using loaded dice at tournaments where there's nothing more than a pat on the back and cheap trophy to be won.

 

This at least is manageable - you'd absolutely have to provide dice at the event and require their exclusive use, no personal dice for anything other than wound counters.  I've heard of this at events now and again already.

 

@Lord_Skrolk Twinsies!

[Overread]

Upping the stakes would certainly up the requirements. 

Dice is an easy one to resolve by having official event only dice - which could be further safeguarded by rotating the dice colour scheme for the event - a unique appearance of the dice for each year (also makes it a nice collectable event item to market). (edit - triple post!!)

Officials is something wargames need more of; if you look at nearly any professional sport or espor there's a judge/official for every game. In fact many sports have several watching the game, and the instant reply, lasers, and several watching the lines. Now wargames are easier so could easily do with one official per game. That in itself would cut own on rule breaking.

As for moving things I think at some level some trust has to come into play; players should be moving their own models, the board should be free of non-game related elements; live viewing and the recording of each match coupled to an official for each match all lnked back to a record keeping system. A system that not only saves every game recording, but logs player details, their game history, any official notes as well as warnings, questions and interventions during matches (for noting repeat offences etc.... which is often the only way to catch a cheater). 

 

Officials is the real issue really, its the area that would cost the most to enforce for the day and its also trickier to get that many people who are experienced and knowledgeable enough to officiate who don't want to take part in the competition. 

[RuneBrush]

My thoughts echo other posts, I'm not 100% sure AoS is the right sort of game system so to speak.  I think quite a few of the game systems that have big money prizes have a lower "investment", both in money for the army/cards and games taking less time to play.  I actually think Shadespire has a better system than AoS, quicker games, lower investment and designed for a competitive environment.

I'm also not sure that the prize is high enough.  I know that sounds really odd, but a 1 to 10 payout doesn't feel high stakes considering how much an army would cost - $2500, $5000 or even $10000 with 100 players is what I'd consider high stakes.

[AaronWilson]

For me, this just isn't the game system (or even close to it) to be paying to play it and win cash and not only that I think it will REALLY affect the game and how it's played.

I know some people are bad enough with angle shooting, quick scooping of dice, quick measurements, etc etc. When you need to roll a 6 to win 1k dollars how fast will people up them dice, etc. Paying 100$ to roll poorly will only make some games massively negative to the point I can see people getting physically angry. 

I wish you the best of luck and if it works you and attendees, awesome but personally I really don't think the game is designed for it and will lead to some bad stories / situations. 

[Vanger]

Once significant money is involved, people tend to go nuts. As in any other professional sport or game, you need to regulate it, make it an even playing field and be able to settle disputes in a standard manner. AoS is not ready for any of it, for different reasons:
- GW just recently dipped it's toe back into the tournament scene, they are not ready to support their games (aside from Kill Team) in such a manner
- the ruleset is not watertight enough. It still lacks universal language and is often open for interpretation (MtG actually has people whos job is to read all of the cards and make it so that all rules use the same terms and language).
- once you have a solid and watertight ruleset, you need a system how to certify referees
- you need standardized missions, scoring system and terrain setup so that the playing field es even and the results are comparable. Look at the NOVA Kill Team Competitive pack GW published. It includes missions, exact scoring and pre-defined terrain setup. But it's the same in every other game. The football field doesn't change from one city o other. A 100m dash is not 101m or 99m, it's exactly 100m, wherever you go. You use the same board in chess too.
- you would need either balance between army books (ha ha... bwahhhahahahahahaaaaaaa *snort* *cough* sorry, not possible, too many variables), or standardized armies, or something akin to MtG formats. GW would publish every Season which units can be used in Competitive play
- it would need a lot more resources from tournament organizers. Have enough place, tables, enough standard terrain, enough referees

And to make all that possible, the game would need spectators. Starcraft, LoL or any esport is not big because people play it, it's big, because people like to watch it!

Warhammer Underworlds and Kill Team are the any current GW games that would be suited for streamed competitive play.

[AGPO]

As others have said Shadespire seems to be a much better fit for this than AOS. With the number of rules you're talking about changing, how long before it ceases to be the same game?

Another thing to consider is this - you're going to have two winners, but everyone else is going to be $100 out of pocket, plus the cost of keeping an army optimised for top level play.  What makes this event held at a store $100 more appealing than playing for free on any given club night at the same venue?

[Marc Wilson]

I think tournaments with large, strongly-advertised prizes that require a buy-in are guaranteed to result in two things. Firstly, I think the increased investment and expectations of players is almost certain to draw the very worst out of players. Secondly I think the TO will be in for a a very challenging weekend as a result of this. Unless you expect to make bundles of cash and are prepared to lay down some strong umpiring I can't see the attraction of putting yourself in that position. There is so much variance, subjectivity and inaccuracy in AoS that positioning alongside more suitable binary games is questionable.

I don't believe there is a precedent at least in the UK. BOBO initially proposed it but withdrew the idea in the face of community ire.