Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Being a long term member of a gaming club, I have always dabbled in various game systems of which their are hundreds. However there has always like a holy trinity of like 3-4 which are really popular.

Today I am seeing more and more dilution at my local club, so more systems, more diversity, more models and this is all great. But one of the common complaints from members seems to be why aren't there any tournaments for "X" or for "Y". I have been pondering on this and the truth is, there needs to be a critical mass (read wide audience) to draw in a credible crowd (Say 40+ gamers or whatever you need for rankings). But the problem seems to be, far too many things pulling away attention from each other.

A good example was Drop Zone Commander, about 8 people bought in, another 8 or so that probably would have bought in said no (due to price), opted for a cheaper option and bought X-wing. Neither system has hit a critical mass of players in the last few months, and players who would normally just pitch up and find an opponent on the night, now book in. Of those 8 who did buy one or two sold their armies after a few games, and the 6 left, soon got fed up of playing each other and it just stopped. Eventually these games pieter out as no plays them regularly and there is no local Tournament play. We debated putting them on our annual tournament and rapidly realised, it was a big risk for a system that hasn't took off massively when we know we can shift another 30 places for WHFB or 40k.

Mansions of Madness was a massive success, Settlers of Catan was also a great game we all loved. But other examples that never caught on were MALIFAUX, Hordes & Warmachine, Dreadfleet. SAGA, they just never achieved a critical mass or following that would last beyond a flash in the pan. A classic was Dreadball, some bought in and alot didn't, then everyone went back to Bloodbowl.

In the past, when interesting games launched we would have a core group maybe 12 or so, and then other players would gravitate towards it, and it would become very popular (good examples 40k, FOW, WHFB and the always Fresh BLOOD BOWL). Once popular it almost self perpetuates. The sheer numbers of game systems and the expense of them means that achieving a critical mass is actually really difficult. I love FOW and 40k because there are lots of events for them, and I know I can always get a game with them. I bought X-wing and have managed about 3 games due to lack of opponents.

It seems to me another week, another new Wargame for Crowd-sourcing. Will all the other games now coming out due to crowd sourcing like Kickstarter, will this dilution begin to affect the more popular lines as their prices inevitable rise well above inflation (ala GW and Battlefront?). It's strange because we don't really see this with Computer/Video Games so why are Wargames Different? Is it due to much larger outlay than say a $60 Video Game? Your thoughts

We live in different worlds. 8 locals all getting into a game here ensure it will be played regularly for a long time to come.

We also tend not to care about tournaments and see no problem with an 8 person tournament. Your club's approach of needing 30+ people to consider a game widely played just seems alien to me.

What does "book in" mean? Not familiar with that slang. Are they just not showing up? Are the scheduling games with known other opponents of their games? Why aren't these people all exchaning email addresses and scheduling games and running their own mini-tournaments on club day?

Seems like the problem is their expectations of club organizers rather than their game choices.

"Book in" as to reserve something or a game or like i would say "Book in a Squash game into your diary" or "Shall we book in a Game on Tuesday at 3 o'clock". It's a colloquialism much like "booking into a Hotel". We have a forum and a very large membership, I cannot force the membership to use the facilities available to them, the old addage "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink".

We have a nice gaming facility, so this costs money so our tournaments need to make a reasonable profit, and that means numbers usually around 100 - 140 depending.

No it's about the membership wanting Tournaments for their specialist systems which aren't popular enough to be viable tournaments and then complaining about it. I'm just pondering on why this phenomenon of critical mass. It happens in some parts of the UK a game is really popular, and in another corner of the country the opposite is true?

You could double-schedule smaller tournaments. Cross-over players might be annoyed, but if your goal is to fill tables, this is a way.

Or just be happy that your too-small tournament is most people's good turn out.

Unfortunately we cannot because of where we are based. We need to fill 50 tables and 30 minimum to make back the costs of putting on the tournament. We could do 5 x Systems with 20 players, but this is a huge undertaking. 5 Rules packs, 5 sets of judges, 5 results, more trophies etc etc. Plus I don't need to tell you how our club is run, or the size etc, it is what it is...Some clubs are big, some are small, I don't judge based on size, I judged based on the exposure and the money we need to keep the club going. Small tournaments are a none starter because the venue operator costs are too high to be covered by 20 people unless everyone wants to pay £70+ to attend (which is a no).

But this isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about Critical Mass and how some games achieve it and some don't. With all the extra systems being created, is it possible their will be even less players at the major systems in future.

You're operating at a scale where you simply need large numbers of attendees. It's awesome that you have such a big club, but I can definitely see all sorts of people playing all sorts of games making running events where everyone plays the same thing difficult.

What can you do to get more grass roots organization going on? As you said, you can't organize five tournaments simultaneously, but it certainly can be done as long as you have one judge/organizer for each system step up.

The next time soemone asks about a tournament for their new game, ask them if they'd like to run one.

Do you operate at a loss without tournament fees? Are there not club dues/rental fees that everyone contributes to for the club? If tournaments become less viable, regular dues need to go up.

EDIT: Just to show you how different of a scale we operate in, I have a local club that meets in a small multipurpose room at a local community centre. We need six people to show up each month to not loose money on renting the space. We usually have 14-20. We don't run tournaments and instead everyone goes on a email list and people arrange games. All terrain is supplied by volunteers who bring it. We consider our operation a complete success as it allows everyone interested in a monthly space to play the games they want to do so. We have board games and four or more different miniature games being played each month.

I also think the type of game determines this.

A game designed for 2-5 players doesn't need a tourney circuit for organized play. You simply play 'a game' and whomever there is playing. Most times, people need nothing but themselves. And the same group can play the same game over and over with no impact to gameplay.

Other games are 1vs1 games which require each side to own their own materials. This is the type of game which needs much more logistical organization as you need even numbers of players, and organized time to meet opponents and such. Playing the same opponent with the same army over and over can get old and burn out. These games really shine with larger playerbases and organized play. People want to show up at 10am and know they will be handed an opponent opposed to bouncing around a FLGS all day to maybe get one game in.

I guess the new thing will be which crowdfunded games then have a strong corporate push for organized play behind them so not only can I buy your crowd funded product but I can actually get gametime without having to become a game system evangelist which is discouraging for many gamers who just ant to do what 'the crowd' is playing.

I like knowing that there are large 40k tourneys within 200 miles of me at least once a month. I can literally plan to play 40k a weekend in February and BAM, I can find a place to show up to, and play a full day of games. Bloodbowl is kinda the same way this time of year there is always people playing it.

It is discouraging to want to play a game and always be playing the same few people or no new opponents. I have bought figures with the expectation I may never play the game but at least I enjoyed the figures...

Critical mass levels are a matter of perspective. As one poster before said, in other places, 8 people are a good mass (usually). Here that is the case as well. I do have a couple of regular FoW opponents and things show no sign of going stale. The scene here has developed in a way that more games actually is good for us as people are getting a little tired of the major systems like 40k. Things move in waves here. For example Mortheim or Necromunda see love on and off, as Tastes change. Malifaux, DzC, FoW, Dystopian Wars and Infinity, Godslayer as well are now played regularly here. One thing that seems to be different here is that tournaments are not important at all. We have 40k and Fantasy ones about twice a year but without them, things here would not be different. All in all, quality is what makes people interested and tastes are different. Warmachine for example has no foothold here, despite being one of the more popular games all in all.

agustin wrote:


EDIT: Just to show you how different of a scale we operate in, I have a local club that meets in a small multipurpose room at a local community centre. We need six people to show up each month to not loose money on renting the space. We usually have 14-20. We don't run tournaments and instead everyone goes on a email list and people arrange games. All terrain is supplied by volunteers who bring it. We consider our operation a complete success as it allows everyone interested in a monthly space to play the games they want to do so. We have board games and four or more different miniature games being played each month.

This was exactly how we used to do it like 4 years ago. Then a new store opened, and it had a warehouse out back with 50 tables. So our club moved from the Community Centre in house at the FLGS, and the membership exploded interms of numbers from 30 to 60 and now we have about 50, with another 150 affiliated who come down and play but aren't members and just pay at the door. We are independent but we pay to be members and get some perks. In many respects we were more fun and more agile when we were smaller, but we do have better facilities and amenities and we certainly have more space. It's common on a thursday night to have 8-9 different systems being played, as well team games like Mansions of Madness.

I would agree about the perspective comment on critical mass, but for example for "Ranked" Tournaments you need a minimum number for it to count towards national standings or Grand Tournaments, and although this isn't important to me and probably you, it is a major draw for competitive players and they pay a premium if it is guaranteed rankings.

I'd be really interested in seeing what Systems are popular in what countries and the demographics from a purely intellectual point?

In my area, WHFB and iNfinity are the two popular games at clubs (in the local games store, it's 40k and WM/H). I make a distinction because most clubs here are NOT based in stores.

Within those clubs, we also have people who play Dreadball, x-wing, malifaux, Bolt Action, FoW, etc. The diversity isn't doing anything to harm our local scene.

Whilst there is some crossover, most of the gamers will play one or two systems at most. I'm a gaming whore and I'll play most things if I like them.

Our club is explicitly a non-commercial entity. Even if we were offered gaming space at a local store for club events, we would decline. We are specifically interested in remaining commercially unentangled. We had some issues with store rivalries and store loyalty and the club was formed specifically to be a place where you could game and not have to deal with that bull****.

WM/H, Dystopian Wars, Infinity, Warpath, Kings of War, Board Games of all different types, Bolt Action, Flames of War, 40k. That's what gets played right now.


.

I agree... As with many things in life, less is more, and too much choice tends to feth things up in my eyes, be it number of choices on a pub menu, or games to pick from.

An enormous amount of games to chew over will Surely feth a small games club if you can't find a consensus.

Haven't had a problem with it - though I don't know if we are a club or not. We have a half dozen to a dozen guys who end up gaming a few times a month. We play pretty much everything. Playing more games hasn't reduced the number or interest and generally the only reason people don't show up to play are other conflicts of interest (Birthdays, Anniversaries, children's events...).

The local club's pretty diverse. 40k's the king, but FoW, WHFB, all have a solid following and Infinity and small systems get some play too.

At the local club, it's mainly 40k and WM/H, with 40k having more players and the number of WM/H players staying even. WFB is also played, but people generally have to organise games prior the the morning.

I've gotten people onto LOTR. 3 other people play it in the club. I hope that the people will continue to play, but I'm afraid that they won't.

As for Kickstarter: no KS games are played. The LGS just started stocking Dreadball, but I don't think too many are interested.

I suppose it depends on the size of the club, and the attitude of the players..

if 4 or more players like a game at our club it gets played.
We just play what takes our fancy, as an when we feel like it.Tournaments don't realy bother us that much...
(We pay weekly subs to our FLGS to use the spare store rooms for our games.)

Anymore, when I see a game that I like, the decision on purchasing that system rests on one factor.

How much do two armies cost.

I don't need to buy one, I need to buy two. And two decent, equal, matched armies.

Because there is no shortage of "players" around here. There is a shortage of players willing to fork out for yet -another- army for yet -another- system. I've tried to reason with people that for the cost of thier fourth 40K army they could have picked up two complete armies for two different systems and now have three different games they could play...but most people don't see it that way.

So Dropzone got dropped. Two armies was too much for me to shell out on my one. FoW, with plastic providers, wasn't and I have a Russian force to go up against my Germans or my Finns.

Shotgun wrote:
Anymore, when I see a game that I like, the decision on purchasing that system rests on one factor.

How much do two armies cost.

I don't need to buy one, I need to buy two. And two decent, equal, matched armies.

Because there is no shortage of "players" around here. There is a shortage of players willing to fork out for yet -another- army for yet -another- system. I've tried to reason with people that for the cost of thier fourth 40K army they could have picked up two complete armies for two different systems and now have three different games they could play...but most people don't see it that way.

So Dropzone got dropped. Two armies was too much for me to shell out on my one. FoW, with plastic providers, wasn't and I have a Russian force to go up against my Germans or my Finns.

See this is actually interesting from the opposite side of the coin, players are sticking with popular systems and not diluting into others? Does this actually mean my premise is wrong and all the diversity will lead to a contraction in Wargaming where things like MANTIC etc just left alone as everyone says "Meh, cannot be bothered/ cannot afford it".

As a fellow FOW player, I've moved wholesale from 40k into FOW, because of the slightly older demographic and the cheaper miniatures. Combined, with things like EasyArmy.com (I couldn't see GW allowing what Battlefront does!) means I'm happy to play but I simply cannot afford and won't dilute my pennies by buying flash in the pan games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agustin wrote:
Our club is explicitly a non-commercial entity. Even if we were offered gaming space at a local store for club events, we would decline. We are specifically interested in remaining commercially unentangled.

Not to get all defensive our Club is a non-commercial entity too, or more specifically non-profit, money we make on the tournament allow us to purchase terrain, t-shirts, put on our own special 30k tournaments or whatever. This is because TAX kicks in on our profits so I have to account for it all, and ensure the HMRC (Tax office) are kept upto date.

We had some issues with store rivalries and store loyalty and the club was formed specifically to be a place where you could game and not have to deal with that bull****.

On this we are the same, there is always politics where clubs are concerned and ours is no different with people saying we should stay at the FLGS, others have said we should go back to how it used to be.....Human's were never happy unless we are causing problems.

I think more diversity in the industry is nothing but a positive thing. The more diversity, the more the companies have to compete for our dollar. The more they have to compete, they higher quality or more affordability they have to provide. All wins in my book?

And are you saying there isn't dilution in the video game industry? Whaaaaaaaat?

 cincydooley wrote:
I think more diversity in the industry is nothing but a positive thing. The more diversity, the more the companies have to compete for our dollar. The more they have to compete, they higher quality or more affordability they have to provide. All wins in my book?

And are you saying there isn't dilution in the video game industry? Whaaaaaaaat?

I agree with Diversity from a consumer point of view, but this is about gaming which needs two people with their own (or borrowed) forces to come together socially to play a Non-competitive or competitive game, both parties need to have the same system in order to play. This means there is a much bigger outlay than a single video game (Excluding the PC or Console as it can be used with different games) the 40k Rulebook cannot be used with FOW for example but a Console can have a new disc put in and you can play.

You comparing two different things, you can Video game on your own. You cannot War-game on your own - One is electronic entertainment, one is a physical game with real pieces decided by statistic and random chance, with some tactics thrown in - Ergo your point lacks context.

Overall to buy forces, rule books, terrain and have location to play requires a considerable outlay much more than say a console and a game (dependent on system and console) and this excludes, painting or modelling your force, primer, paint, decals, varnish, flock, etc etc on top.

This is an expensive hobby, and Video gaming - once past the initial outlay of the system is cheap and doesn't require anything other than Electricity and a TV. War-gaming takes a hell of a lot more than that, and with this in mind many of us do not what to shell out Hundreds of Pounds on games that struggle to have enough players and rapidly become obsolete and die (like Dropzone Commander etc) or never achieve a big enough following to survive to collect them (AT-43 anyone?).

You cannot play a War game remotely, unlike say an MMO or other Online type multiplayer game, so the context of wargaming is very different. There are some similarities, but the cost of a bad video game you ditch it, and buy another one. In Video Gaming Quality matters, however in Wargaming sometimes the quality of the game is irrelevant, some are brilliant but never achieve the critical mass to survive, others become cult like Blood bowl, it's whether there is a big enough fanbase locally to support your investment into the system, this is not a consideration you have in a Video game.

Many is the time I have collected something everyone else has rather than collect the thing I really want to play because I know I will be one of three people who play it.

 mwnciboo wrote:

See this is actually interesting from the opposite side of the coin, players are sticking with popular systems and not diluting into others? Does this actually mean my premise is wrong and all the diversity will lead to a contraction in Wargaming where things like MANTIC etc just left alone as everyone says "Meh, cannot be bothered/ cannot afford it".

As a fellow FOW player, I've moved wholesale from 40k into FOW, because of the slightly older demographic and the cheaper miniatures. Combined, with things like EasyArmy.com (I couldn't see GW allowing what Battlefront does!) means I'm happy to play but I simply cannot afford and won't dilute my pennies by buying flash in the pan games.

Most of my group is of the younger demographic, starting that branching from "mom gave me 50 bucks this weekend" to "mom helped me cover rent this month." As a result, I think some of it is a combination of using what they have and some semblance of not wanting to see if anything else out there is "better". Nothing could be better cause they "don't make mistakes" so why bother looking at Battlefront when GW is obviously the biggest and best.

Interstingly, at least with my group, there seems to be more of a willingness to branch into other card games rather than miniatures games. Somehow it is percieved as being "cheeper" in the long run.

So I'm rotate between playing FoW or one of PP's games or maybe some variation of 15mm war of the roses or napoleonics.

Historical nerd question. Is my location unique or is it your experience as weil that Nap players do not and shall not ever delve into ACW and vice versa? I swear some of the most stuck in the rut gamers I have met locally are the hard core historical guys. One side plays Naps and scoffs in disdain at any ACW system out there. One side plays ACW and scoffs at the other. Both, incredibly enough, picked up 40K as a middle ground for the two groups to play with dilligently painting space marines while arguing that the 40K system is totally bunk because there is, and I kid you not, "no mechanic for the dedregation of energy weapon effectiveness for passing through an atmosphere". Two grown 50 yr+ men happily rolling dice and bitching about GW rules for 2.5 hours when fisticufss would occur if one or the other had been forced to play ACW or Naps.

Yeah, people tend to adopt their pet rules, period, scale, whatever and scoff at the alternatives.

There are some seriously serious gamers out there as well, who think pushing toy soldiers around is serious business. For serious.

Shotgun wrote:
[

Historical nerd question. Is my location unique or is it your experience as weil that Nap players do not and shall not ever delve into ACW and vice versa? I swear some of the most stuck in the rut gamers I have met locally are the hard core historical guys. One side plays Naps and scoffs in disdain at any ACW system out there. One side plays ACW and scoffs at the other. Both, incredibly enough, picked up 40K as a middle ground for the two groups to play with dilligently painting space marines while arguing that the 40K system is totally bunk because there is, and I kid you not, "no mechanic for the dedregation of energy weapon effectiveness for passing through an atmosphere". Two grown 50 yr+ men happily rolling dice and bitching about GW rules for 2.5 hours when fisticufss would occur if one or the other had been forced to play ACW or Naps.

See this is interesting to me because it seems to be lead by demographics, or local anomolies, or even just random.

It's funny because we kind have the opposite, a 40k counter-culture has emerged, with 30 or so players giving the middle finger to GW. They play ACW, ECW and NAP, they all have a great time with Blackpowder rules and Pike and Shot etc. It's a nice anti-dote to the competitive gaming as they all game for fun, not to win, and the table with the best banter and the most laughing is always the Big Historical table (they push 3 6x4 tables together and usually have 8 players in the big games, and others help or umpire or just enjoy watching the spectacle. They are the "Real Ale club" the old salts and they are all really good fun. They aren't quite as intense as the younger 40k gamers, and I prefer their company in many ways. It's funny that where you are 40k is a olive branch, played by all, in our club FOW or BB takes this role.

Where is your club and can I join?

I have a hard enough time finding games that aren't 40k at the moment.

I saw something similar with the Star Trek Heroclix expansion. A ton of people bought it up, but most only played 5 or 6 games with it before going back to superhero clixs. And X-Wing where I am seems to have just picked up the Wings of War crowd since its almost the same game as well as the Star Wars Die Hards looking for something since the Star Wars Miniatures crowds dispersed since that game was shut down.

But I have found that a number of games do better at home than at the FLGS, games like Dixit, Fluxx, Munchkin, don't draw huge crowds to my FLGS's but every body I know plays them and loves them. Then you have games like Settlers (SoC) or Ticket to Ride (TtR), which draws people to them at Cons as well as casual gamers at homes and at the FLGS.

So I think it depends on the system. Some games like TtR and SoC find a home with any game group others are niched within the nich and they struggle, like Dropship commander or At-43.

Yeah SoC is great, Mansions of Madness is also pretty damn good as well. It's interesting to hear everyone's experiences.

mwnciboo, where is your club based? I can hardly conceive of a club that gets 50-150 people on a regular basis. At ours we struggled to get 4-8.

Cardiff - We are based at FIRESTORMGAMES.

http://www.firestormgames.co.uk/battlefields

The Store :-

http://www.firestormgames.co.uk/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=7

We have 50+ members, but 150 on the forums, the 150 are semi-regulars e.g Students, people who come and go at different times of year and aren't the core membership.

Wargaming in South Wales is very robust, we have another large club less than 4 miles away. These guys are within the city limit.

http://www.penarthwargames.co.uk/

These are quite successful.

As are our neighbours in Bristol vanguard.

http://www.bristolvanguard.co.uk/Bristol_Vanguard/Vanguard_War_Gaming.html

There is a group of large Wargaming clubs clustered around South-Wales - Bristol areas.

I make no bones about it, we are exceptionally lucky to have this facility on our doorstep - Our membership would be no-where near as big if it wasn't for the Battlefields at the back of the store.