Do TO's have a responsibility to the wider community?

[Guest]

Do tournament organisers have a responsibility to the wider community, beyond their responsibility to those attending their events? I think this is an interesting question and possibly worthy of discussion.

Before I kick things off, a few disclaimers. Firstly, I have only ever attended one small tournament, although I have followed the tournament scenes for GW's various games from afar over the years -  the points I'm going to raise are specifically and deliberately made from this 'outsider' perspective. Secondly, I think tournament organisers should be applauded for the hard work they do putting on great events for players all over the world - my intent is not to denigrate them in any way or call their intentions into question, but to start an open discussion about the level of influence they may or may not have.

The reason that I ask whether tournament organisers have a responsibility to the wider community arises from the fact that I sometimes see people questioning the comp decisions that TO's make. I then see other people responding to this with what, on the face of it, is the entirely valid response 'if you don't like it then you can choose not to go'. At first glance this may seem to be the final word on the matter, but I suspect the reality is a little more nuanced than this. The question for me is whether (and to what extent) decisions and rulings made at tournaments have any affect those who do not attend, and by extension whether non-attendees have any valid justification for involving themselves in the debate.

Tournaments are in many ways the most visible and attention grabbing aspect of the hobby, and competitive players are often the most vocal in how they express their views. Add to this the fact that the organisers of some of the biggest tournaments either host their own popular podcasts, or appear on the podcasts of others, and I think it's fair to say that tournaments and the competitive mindset have a great deal of influence, or at the very least get a lot of attention. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that tournament organisers are essentially community leaders, with varying degrees of authority and influence depending on the size and reputation of the events they run and promote. I don't see anything unusual or wrong about this.

What I do wonder is whether tournament organisers fully realise that they have this authority and influence? To what extent are their decisions and opinions a factor in influencing the attitudes of the community beyond tournaments? Do they consider this wider impact when making their decisions and voicing their opinions? And finally, can any old-timers think of a specific example of a ruling that became standard at tournaments before becoming the norm in non-competitive play?

[wayniac]

I think in a way they do, I also think it extends to high-end competitive players in general; my experience (mainly with other games) is anything that happens at a tournament will trickle down to local levels.  If one guy is dominating the tournament scene with a particularly strong list (I'll refrain from accusations of "filth" here), that same list or slight variation's will start to crop up elsewhere, because it's been "proven" to work.  If certain armies never show up in a tournament, or are quickly knocked out of the running, you'll see less of them as the army gets the stigma of being "uncompetitive", even in a meta that doesn't have tournaments.

By the same token, if prominent TOs use a particular type of scenario, or comp or sportsmanship or whatever, you'll see more and more local tournaments adopting that format too because it's what the "big boys" use.  See how ITC took off for 40k, now there are good chances that even a small local event will be "ITC style" and use "ITC rulings" even when it doesn't have any need to.

So yes, I think TOs and tournament players in general have a responsibility to the community because what they do affects things.  It's not anecdotal to Warhammer, but in Warmachine/Hordes this is especially true, as any top player will inevitably see copies of their list crop up at all levels of play.

[Arkiham]

i think what people often forget is that the TO's who are getting serious flack for comp'ing compendium stuff own/owned compendium stuff, and they are not the bad guys sitting on a high backed leather chair mechanically laughing at the chaos and anguish they may cause that people want them to be

the points put forth in the hotly discussed subject at the next SCGT are done by people who helped decide the initial points in the generals handbook, and are working in the next iteration of the generals handbook so they are in a very good position to decide what should cost what, over various podcasts i've listened to from people who helped on this the points are put forth, test games are done, the feedback is taken in then the result is given. 

in the case of tomb kings everyone is going mad about. they are not doing it to screw you over. why would they?

One of the people who helped work on the book was saying in some podcasts that he saw people running tomb kings to tournaments and that those lists should have absolutely crushed people time and time again but didn't due to their inability to play that army to its fullest potential, then ran it to prove his point and won the masters, this showed that the points for tomb kings needed adjusting. and were adjusted, and we're likely being worked on before then.

all people have seen is a small list of like 8 from like 50+ compendium warscrolls and have decided that everyone is looking to screw compendium players over and force them to move onto the newer models without seeing the whole list of all the armies and the rules, or even potential new rules.

such a knee jerk reaction to so little information it's amazing. i'm surprised with haven't seen a army burning like lord tremendous/death holy death  done at the end of 8th.

 

wait and see what the book says. the scene and society of today is not the same from 7th/8th edition.  

[Donal]

I agree with the fairly common mantra of "if you don't like it, organise a tournament yourself".

I am a fairly active tournament goer, but dont have interest/time to run one myself. As such I am usually happy to go with whatever the TO decides, even if the decision isn't what I personally prefer. If I feel that strongly about it, then I'd withdraw from the tournament - though i have never done so and doubt I would ever take my life that seriously. 

In the UK we are in a super privileged position to have a selection of tournaments all choosing different interpretations of the rules/experimental points etc... Withing the next 2 months I'm heading to Sheffield Slaughter (no experimental rules), Tomorrow Burns (no compendium/experimental rules) and SCGT (with experimental rules). Personally I prefer the experimental points (I'd like the novelty of seeing Fyreslayer filth over Tomb King...), but its a game of toys at the end of the day. I'm looking forward to going up having 5/6 games, meeting new people and catching up with friends. 

If anyone feels passionately that their view is more right than others, then there is nothing stopping them starting a podcast and becoming another leader/voice in the community.

[Guest]

Whilst my topic is in part inspired by the reaction to the recent experimental points reveal, I'm genuinely hoping to have a broader discussion about the influence of TO's in general. That said, it's inevitable that some specific examples of community debate will arise.

 

32 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

the points put forth in the hotly discussed subject at the next SCGT are done by people who helped decide the initial points in the generals handbook, and are working in the next iteration of the generals handbook so they are in a very good position to decide what should cost what, over various podcasts i've listened to from people who helped on this the points are put forth, test games are done, the feedback is taken in then the result is given. 

I think this supports the idea that TO's, and particularly the TO's for SCGT, do have a great deal of influence over the game beyond the effect their decisions may have at this one tournament. Tournament organisers are now actively involved in determining points values, game mechanics, battleplan rules and so forth at the most 'official' level. And the feedback you mention is presumably largely drawn from other members of the tournament fraternity. So if we assume that the basic premise of tournaments influencing the wider community is correct, then this is an example of TO's and tournament players using their influence in ways that will ultimately impact the casual player. We can debate whether that's a good or bad thing of course.

 

32 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

One of the people who helped work on the book was saying in some podcasts that he saw people running tomb kings to tournaments and that those lists should have absolutely crushed people time and time again but didn't due to their inability to play that army to its fullest potential, then ran it to prove his point and won the masters, this showed that the points for tomb kings needed adjusting. and were adjusted, and we're likely being worked on before then.

This is interesting. So what you're saying is that Tomb Kings were in fact, in many instances, not performing particularly well. One tournament organiser who is not representative of the general skill level within the community attended one tournament with Tomb Kings, won, and on this basis has used his influence to encourage significant changes to the army's points values. That seems like a very flimsy and distorted justification. Whether or not this is true I can't say, but this is how you've presented it. If this is the case, surely this is a prime example of a TO using a disproportionate level of influence in a way that will disproportionately affect the average player? If true, wouldn't this suggest an abuse of influence rather than a recognition of responsibility?

 

[Bimli]

I thin it depends. If the TO holds a big tourney that bring in a good amount of players they should be listening to the community as to what they want to see in the future... this will also bring in more players

But that being said if a Tourney organizer holds small scale tourney it would be nice but no need.

Now in the direct sense of "Do they have a responsibility to the wider community" I would not hold them accountable for it but it would be more of a nice to id say.  

[Arkiham]

Matched play is meant to be for competitive games, for tournament games.

If casual players want casual games they should play open play, or use matched play rules and points as a guideline not as law.

The generals handbook states that there is 3 ways to play, and games workshop is responsible for open play and narrative and have had TOs help with competitive games.

Tournament organisers who run successful tournaments making rules to make successful tournaments.

I struggle to find matched games outside of clubs devoted for them as people arent interested.

Tbh there is definitely enough appetite for non competitive games, and for those running compendium units competitively the new point values  represent what the makers of those rules value them as, just how it happened in generals handbook initially.

 

And as I said, games workshop ultimately decide what the values are, not the TOs

[Dez]

I think an example of the trickle down rule effect is measuring base to base. I think a lot of people were doing it, but The Warlords really brought it home.

 

[Terry Pike]

In the past they had an impact on Warhammer outside of tournaments and most likely influencing how other people ran their tournaments.

I'd say it has changed now and the responsibility lies with Games Workshop and Warhammer TV / Warhammer Community. They stream enough games showing people how they play the game and how they rule certain interactions.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

Matched play is meant to be for competitive games, for tournament games.

If casual players want casual games they should play open play, or use matched play rules and points as a guideline not as law.

I agree completely. It's worth bearing in mind though that pre-AoS narrative play and open play were still available options, but the decisions, mechanics and play style favoured at tournament level still had a disproportionate influence on the type of game people could expect to have in a casual setting. For example, I believe (and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that certain WFB and 40K scenarios weren't used at tournaments as they were considered unbalanced, which lead to them also being dismissed out of hand in casual settings where balance is arguably much less important.

Now that Narrative Play and Open Play have been presented as fully fleshed out choices and become well established, I would assume that the influence of competitive standards on the non-competitive community should be less. The potential danger is that with tournament organisers and competitive players having a such a strong voice within the community, and with some of them being granted an even greater voice at the 'official' GW level, the community may slip back into old habits and begin seeing Matched Play and other comp decisions made at the highest level as the de facto 'standard'.

It's interesting that despite some absolutely stunning Narrative Play content being produced by some very talented and dedicated individuals, only those community leaders representing the interests of Matched Play have been invited to contribute to the official material at Games Workshop HQ. That alone suggests something about the influence that TO's have.

[EvDJ]

2 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

It's interesting that despite some absolutely stunning Narrative Play content being produced by some very talented and dedicated individuals, only those community leaders representing the interests of Matched Play have been invited to contribute to the official material at Games Workshop HQ. That alone suggests something about the influence that TO's have.

You do realise that they have narrative games as part of the twitch/warhammer tv stuff...and they have interviewed people like Tyler Mengal on it as well, that doesn't really fit with this 

[Terry Pike]

13 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

It's interesting that despite some absolutely stunning Narrative Play content being produced by some very talented and dedicated individuals, only those community leaders representing the interests of Matched Play have been invited to contribute to the official material at Games Workshop HQ. That alone suggests something about the influence that TO's have.

Do you know the names of all the people involved with all of the play testing? I think not. You are presuming that only a few TO's were involved, when in reality the reason you know about these few is due to them being on podcasts and recording a show about it.

For completeness one of the players you do know about it is in fact a narrative/open style player and is not a matched play power gamer.

[wayniac]

3 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I agree completely. It's worth bearing in mind though that pre-AoS narrative play and open play were still available options, but the decisions, mechanics and play style favoured at tournament level still had a disproportionate influence on the type of game people could expect to have in a casual setting. For example, I believe (and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that certain WFB and 40K scenarios weren't used at tournaments as they were considered unbalanced, which lead to them also being dismissed out of hand in casual settings where balance is arguably much less important.

Now that Narrative Play and Open Play have been presented as fully fleshed out choices and become well established, I would assume that the influence of competitive standards on the non-competitive community should be less. The potential danger is that with tournament organisers and competitive players having a such a strong voice within the community, and with some of them being granted an even greater voice at the 'official' GW level, the community may slip back into old habits and begin seeing Matched Play and other comp decisions made at the highest level as the de facto 'standard'.

It's interesting that despite some absolutely stunning Narrative Play content being produced by some very talented and dedicated individuals, only those community leaders representing the interests of Matched Play have been invited to contribute to the official material at Games Workshop HQ. That alone suggests something about the influence that TO's have.

That's because the "competitive" crowd was always the loudest.  The biggest detractors from base AOS were the ones who felt Warhammer could be a dedicated tournament game and felt AOS was unbalanced by default and didn't want to "negotiate" with opponents beforehand.  Ever since Matched Play came out, I've seen any interest at all in things not after page 98 in the General's Handbook drop like a stone.  Trying to do Open or Narrative tends to get you laughed at where I am and from others (in the USA at least) I've talked to, because it's "not balanced" and "unfair".  For whatever reason, the big tournament people have a larger say, and it's no surprise that "sales of AOS shot up" after points were put back into the game, allowing the min-maxers and competitive gamers to play it again.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

 If one guy is dominating the tournament scene with a particularly strong list (I'll refrain from accusations of "filth" here), that same list or slight variation's will start to crop up elsewhere, because it's been "proven" to work. 

By the same token, if prominent TOs use a particular type of scenario, or comp or sportsmanship or whatever, you'll see more and more local tournaments adopting that format too because it's what the "big boys" use. 

I agree with the above, but will also add a factor.  In my experience living in three different areas of the US (northeast, mid-atlantic, and midwest), local gaming time is at a premium. Because of this, and because tournaments are exciting things that people want to attend, most games are played in preparation for specific tournaments. I would say, from what I've seen and done, that at least 80% of games in my circles  are played using the rules modifications enforced at various tournaments.

I don't know if this means that TOs have a responsibility to the larger community, but I do think a certain awareness would be nice.  Dismissing the views of non- attendees with the assumption that those folks don't have to play by the rules of their events is a bit aloof or ignorant, in my opinion.

[wayniac]

Just now, Sleboda said:

I agree with the above, but will also add a factor.  In my experience living in three different areas of the US (northeast, mid-atlantic, and midwest), local gaming time is at a premium. Because of this, and because tournaments are exciting things that people want to attend, most games are played in preparation for specific tournaments. I would say, from what I've seen and done, that at least 80% of games in my circles  are played using the rules modifications enforced at various tournaments.

I don't know if this means that TOs have a responsibility to the larger community, but I do think a certain awareness would be nice.  Dismissing the views of non- attendees with the assumption that those folks don't have to play by the rules of their events is a bit aloof or ignorant, in my opinion.

This is something I've seen, but less so in warhammer.  In my primary "competitive" game, Warmahordes, virtually every game is a tournament style game, either preparing for the upcoming tournament ("Steamroller"), playing in a Steamroller, or preparing for a convention.  Casual games are few and far between.  I imagine it might be the same in some areas with Warhammer too, where every game is a "competitive style" list as though you were playing in a tournament.  I know a few 40k people (not personally) who only ever want to play competitive lists in an ITC style format, but I'm not aware of them participating in tournaments.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, EvDJ said:

You do realise that they have narrative games as part of the twitch/warhammer tv stuff...and they have interviewed people like Tyler Mengal on it as well, that doesn't really fit with this 

I have to confess that I haven't been able to watch their Twitch channel - I think I'm right in thinking it's a paid subscription and unfortunately I can't justify it, much as I'd love to check it out. Interviewing narrative creators is great and a really positive step, but I don't think it's on quite the same level of influence as being invited to make a direct contribution to an official publication - although the way GW has been playing things recently I wouldn't be surprised if this were to happen with Narrative creators at some point in the future.

Maybe I'm coming at this with an outdated mindset. In some ways I suppose the influence of TO's on wider community gaming habits has been mitigated to some extent by the solid official support for Open and Narrative Play. But equally, with the most widely listened to and most charismatic podcasts being run by the organisers of one of the world's biggest and most influential tournaments, and with the special status granted them by GW, you could argue that the influence of TO's and the competitive mindset is stronger than ever.

[Terry Pike]

2 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I have to confess that I haven't been able to watch their Twitch channel - I think I'm right in thinking it's a paid subscription and unfortunately I can justify it, much as I'd love to check it out. Interviewing narrative creators is great and a really positive step, but I don't think it's on quite the same level of influence as being invited to make a direct contribution to an official publication - although the way GW has been playing things recently I wouldn't be surprised if this were to happen with Narrative creators at some point in the future.

Maybe I'm coming at this with an outdated mindset. In some ways I suppose the influence of TO's on wider community gaming habits has been mitigated to some extent by the solid official support for Open and Narrative Play. But equally, with the most widely listened to and most charismatic podcasts being run by the organisers of one of the world's biggest and most influential tournaments, and with the special status granted them by GW, you could argue that the influence of TO's and the competitive mindset is stronger than ever.

Again this is all presumed information as you have no idea who is actually involved with play testing. You only know about the ones on the podcasts and as I stated before they recorded a show and told you all about it.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Terry Pike said:

Again this is all presumed information as you have no idea who is actually involved with play testing. You only know about the ones on the podcasts and as I stated before they recorded a show and told you all about it.

You're right, I can't claim to have full knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors at GW, and if people who are more representative of the community at large rather than just TO's have been involved in the development of official material I'm happy to stand corrected. But the fact that I'm only aware of the TO's who were involved surely in itself says something about their community presence and level of influence?

[Terry Pike]

Just now, Jamie the Jasper said:

But the fact that I'm only aware of the TO's who were involved surely in itself says something about their community presence and level of influence?

They may not be on podcasts, or could be behind signed NDA's not letting them talk about it. Unless you're high up in GW you probably wouldn't ever know who's involved. Maybe it is just the guys you are aware of, which seems highly unlikely though. Remember they are also taking feedback via Facebook and sent out spreadsheets asking people to get players of all levels from clubs to give feedback on what they think points should be.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I don't listen to community podcasts as I'm not much interested in "high level" play at tournaments, because what happens there rarely matches what's happening when I actually play. I will say that one TO rekking with an army hardly constitutes a reason to consider them unbalanced, but on the other hand Tomb Kings were an undercosted crutch to keep Death propped up, and I find myself nodding in agreement with the teased new costs, for the most part.

As far as local play, a lot of it is practicing for tournaments. Often it's a game or two in prep, lately it's been lots because we're having a doubles tournament, so players are learning to build complementary lists and work together. 

Most games are played in anticipation of the next local tournament at the store, and the format changes each time which keeps things fresh. However we often have the odd narrative game to cleanse the palate as it were.

It's worth noting that the Fyreslayers group on Facebook apparently got 500 people or so to sign an agreed amendment to points values they all came up with, which apparently looked very similar to the teased points values. TOs may have a fair amount of influence, but apparently the players and communities do as well.

[Ollie Grimwood]

No they do not have a responsibility to the "wider community". They do have a responsibilty to try to make their event as enjoyable for their attended as possible. In the terms of tournaments I suspect making sure things are balanced and fair probably sits quite high on the list of things necessary to make this happen. It's in their interest to make the game work as well as possible  

What I find slightly interesting about this contraveresy which seems to arrise from certain TOs being consulted by GW on the points is that roughly a year ago they weren't just being asked their opinion on the points they actually wrote the most widely used Comp pack (in the UK certainly). The current situation isn't an increase in their influence but actually a decrease. 

[chord]

We all have a responsibility to the larger community. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Terry Pike said:

They may not be on podcasts, or could be behind signed NDA's not letting them talk about it. Unless you're high up in GW you probably wouldn't ever know who's involved. Maybe it is just the guys you are aware of, which seems highly unlikely though. Remember they are also taking feedback via Facebook and sent out spreadsheets asking people to get players of all levels from clubs to give feedback on what they think points should be.

I totally accept all of your points, but I think the issue is becoming a little muddied since we're focusing quite heavily on points values, which are ultimately decided by GW and not TO's. What I was intending to explore is more comp decisions made at tournament level that add to or modify the officially released material; specifically, whether the level of authority that the community (not just tournament players) gives to those making these decisions means that TO's have a responsibility to avoid comping in a way that would be detrimental to the wider community if their decisions are likely to have an influence beyond the event itself.

For example, if a respected and influential tournament were to ban a particular unit because the TO believes it's so overpowered that it would distort the outcome of the event, does the TO bear any responsibility if using that unit then becomes taboo across the whole community, even in non-competitive games? Do they have a responsibility to those who have invested time and money in that unit, perhaps long before it became overpowered? And if the TO does bear some responsibility, shouldn't the people who own the unit have some right to question the comp decision, even if they don't plan to attend the event?

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

No they do not have a responsibility to the "wider community". They do have a responsibilty to try to make their event as enjoyable for their attended as possible.

Can they not have responsibility for both? I don't envy them the difficult balancing act of satisfying both the competitive crowd who buy tickets and the wider casual community on which their decisions have a secondary effect, but perhaps people who choose to put themselves in the position of community leaders have a duty to recognise that their actions and opinions have a broader influence than they would perhaps ideally wish? It's not an easy question and there's no easy answer, but I would like to think that TO's have the self-awareness to entertain the idea that their decisions don't exist in a vacuum even if it might sit a little uncomfortably.

Out of interest, why do you say that they have no responsibility to the wider community?

[Spiky Norman]

The AoS community is spanning the globe, and I do not think that it is fair or realistic to place expectations on a TO in some other country somewhere on the planet.

TOs should put on the tournament/event that they want, and if you happen to live nearby, you can choose to support it by attending or not by staying away.