My Alma Mater rpg club in Helsinki is interested in arranging more actual roleplaying activity lately. I listed some ideas for people there and there's interest for a "roleplaying tournament" of some kind. I didn't specify what that could be in any more detail at the time, just referred to the '70s history D&D has for that kind of thing. Now I should probably cook something up in the interests of experimentation and spending a fun gaming night with a bunch of people from the club.

What I know of the topic:
- RPG tournament: the idea is to play a series of games and reward the best player, team or something like that. This is most naturally a gamist endeavour, but I could imagine others if the rewards were taken with a dose of humor and the point was in a different gaming framework more than "winning". If anybody has experience with RPG tournaments, I'd be gratious of any experiences or advice.
- D&D tournament history: I understand that the traditional format has several teams of players running through the same dungeon, and the winner is chosen based on speed, gold earned or success in quests. Can be run simultaneously with several GMs, in which case the GMs might have their own "competition" based on player judgement of the quality of job the GM is doing. Might be split into several "episodes" with different GMs running for the same teams. I've never played this kind of thing, and at least in Finland it's rather solidly history. If anybody has information or experiences on this ancient practice, I'd be glad to hear more, including details of what the tournament scenarios were like and how the various subjective elements of play were controlled.
- Capes: I understand Tony ran a Capes tournament at some point in some convention. If he or somebody else could join the discussion and tell me more, all the better.

I have never run anything resembling a tournament rpg before, so I'm pretty much winging it. I'm willing to design the game for the purpose, but if there's already something that does the trick the way I want it, all the better. What I find important in this particular case:
- Ease of learning: D&D, for example, is no good, because success in that depends on intimate knowledge of the game. I want the tournament to be newbie-friendly.
- System for competition: by this I mean that the game system is solid enough to give righteous judgement calls, or includes elements to defuse competitive spirit without losing the point of the game. So it's either solid gamism of a particular brand, or nar/sim with a naturally fitting veneer of competition.
- Strong exploration: competitive gaming is easy to do if you're willing to sacrifice some of the SIS integrity, but that's not my goal here. I'll rather take something less hardcore and play it with good humour than make the game less rpg and more boardgame.

For the gamist angle I'm pretty much stuck. The best game I can think of for the purpose would be T&T (the system is simple enough to be learned on the fly, and nobody plays it actively here, so everybody's on the same level), but I'm doubtful of the dungeoneering content, which might not interest people. But I can imagine it working if I design a compact, smart dungeon or three and give the players enough strategy to work with. For instance, I could have three GMs, each with a dungeon, and the characters starting in a town, wherein they could team however they wanted to conquer the dungeons. Dead characters replaced in town by new ones. Scoring per person based on who reaches certain waypoints in the dungeons first. That should give the players plenty to chew, as they'd have to scout the dungeons, choose the ones they had resources to win, choose a team with chances break teams to ensure victory at the right moment. Perhaps end the game after two or three hours of play and count the score, so it's a fast and furious crunch all around.

Another option for the purpose would be something with low rules content and the rpg aspect mostly subsumed and voluntary. I'm thinking of games like Werewolf or some kind of murder mystery. These don't work so well in the tournament model, so it'd be a single game, most probably. Also, these games reduce the Exploration aspect to the minimum, so it's at least a partial failure from the get-go, regardless of how fun the game itself is. Making it a larp would be a further step towards surrender, because it's really easy to mask the lack of SIS in a larp and leave it for the players to add it or not as they wish. Easy, maybe fun, but also not very roleplaying.

The faux-tournament route is much easier. A narrativist game about Mortal Combat, for example, could have all the characters participate in a tournament they're all there ostensibly to win. We could even have some small RL awards for the eventual winners, as long as everybody grogged that it's just a joke, and the real content is in the roleplaying, the various auxiliary goals of each character and the premise of surrendering victory for something more important. I'm not sure, however, how to make this feel "tournamenty" enough, so it still feels like a game tournament instead of a normal game session.

So that's where I'm at. Lots of options and some ideas for different routes. If anybody has experience, ideas or theory for competitive or faux-competitive roleplaying, I'm all ears.

For pure gamist competition - Buy or write a game like Descent, or Runebound, or Dungeon Twister.  If you buy the game then you have set rules people can read beforehand, and the rules define exactly what you can/can't do.  That's fairest, I think.

Slightly less board gamey, and you can do the standard RPG tourney thing.  In my experience, which is limited, this format usually has points awarded for roleplaying as well as acheivement.  In this case you have to make sure you design a game where roleplaying a character does not clash with in character acheivement.

Also, it's worth noting that you can judge players through other means than character success.  You don't have to be gamist.  You can run a roleplaying tournament where each table competes with the other players at that table to best roleplay a character.  The GM puts the best 2 through to the final table.  So you judge the ability of the players to portray a character, rather than solve problems.

I guess this is like saying "you can win Oscars for playing characters who fail at stuff and end up dead".  Seems kind of "well, duh!" for acting, but for some reason less so for roleplaying.

TheTris wrote:
For pure gamist competition - Buy or write a game like Descent, or Runebound, or Dungeon Twister.  If you buy the game then you have set rules people can read beforehand, and the rules define exactly what you can/can't do.  That's fairest, I think.

Slightly less board gamey, and you can do the standard RPG tourney thing.  In my experience, which is limited, this format usually has points awarded for roleplaying as well as acheivement.  In this case you have to make sure you design a game where roleplaying a character does not clash with in character acheivement.

Also, it's worth noting that you can judge players through other means than character success.  You don't have to be gamist.  You can run a roleplaying tournament where each table competes with the other players at that table to best roleplay a character.  The GM puts the best 2 through to the final table.  So you judge the ability of the players to portray a character, rather than solve problems.

Eero,

The Shab-al-Hiri Roach might fit the bill for faux-tournament play.  It can be fiercely competitive, there is a clear victory condition, and it is easy to learn.  Victory isn't exclusively predicated on player skill, since there is a large random element, but I think it would be really fun if organized as a tournament.  The fact that the play experience is rigidly structured (allowing various groups to compare the events in their games) would also be appealing.

Jason

Eero, would Donjon work?  Some of the details might take some explaining, but the core of it is simple enough.  I'd think the big problem is finding enough dice!  (Though if you have a laptop, you could probably simulate it.)

Eero wrote:
- Capes: I understand Tony ran a Capes tournament at some point in some convention. If he or somebody else could join the discussion and tell me more, all the better.

Oh, man!!

The Greak Ork Gods

It's perfect.

Best,
Ron

I'm with Ron.  <a href="http://www.greatorkgods.co.uk/">Great Ork Gods is a great choice for competative play.

Thomas

Hey, GOG is actually a really great idea, I wonder why I didn't remember it. Probably because Jack's been pretty quiet about it lately. I think I'll refresh myself on it now...

Yep, seems like it'll do the job quite well. The only potential problem is what happens if players get opportunistic about the task difficulties. I wouldn't worry otherwise, but the current text seems to specifically entreat players to be fair on challenge difficulties. I wonder if that worry is substantiated by actual play, and if tournament environment will worsen the problem, whatever it is? (I imagine the SIS appreciation can get a little quirky if the player completely lose the pretense of realistic difficulties. Perhaps a tournament rule wherein higher difficulties have to be substantiated with more detailed description or something.)

Other than that, I can imagine GOG working quite well. I can easily couch a couple more GMs in it, so we can handle 3x7=21 players, for instance. I doubt we'd have more than that as long as we keep it inside the club. Could do a preliminary round or two, with highest-Oog orcs (players) going into the finals, I think. How long does the scenario in the rules take, I wonder? It's possible to split the tournament on two days if necessary.

Donjon: I think it has a substantial amount of GM-fiat and/or player whining in it, as there's so many judgement calls involved. Tough on the GM socially. Also, the rules take time to master.

The Roach: Another excellent choice, actually, especially as the club is an university roleplaying club. I'll have to familiarize myself with the rules in more detail and think about the logistics of making the cards, though. The existence of the victory condition is a big plus for it.

Tony: otherwise agreed, but in a tournament there's the possibility that players get confused by the tournament structure and it's inherent reward cycles, which are of necessity gamist (if you do these particular things, whatever they are, you win the price; getting them, this being a tournament, involves beating other players). That's why I'm considering the faux-tournament, where nobody is seriously willing to break the game, bitch about rules or otherwise be a nuisance just to win the tournament. I imagine your Capes tournament was the faux kind, with the players playing more for the fun than the win.

--

Planning a GOG tournament... need to write and test some scenarios, to get a sense for how long they take. Need some fun prizes (the game itself would be good if Jack'd allow a really small special printing), too. Other than that it doesn't seem so tough. Perhaps name somebody the head judge just in case there's some flaw in the rules that comes up during the tournament.

Hi Eero,

Setting task difficulty is not an issue during play. It has nothing to do with being fair or unfair; people set tasks high when they want the other person's character to lose and low when they want them to succeed, and that's part of the whole dynamic. No one has to "turn off the Gamism" in order to set the difficulty, in this game.

Also, there are no rules flaws. Sure, check it out as you see fit, but this is one of the finest competitive role-playing games ever written, and unlike the Roach and Capes, it's not Narrativist with a strategic or competitive helping mechanism, but flat-out, balls-hanging competitive Gamist. I'd hate to see you second-guessing the rules and messing about with them before you see it in action.

Best,
Ron

Eero,

I've run the scenario in the rules three or four times now.  It's pretty flexible, but rarely lasts more than three hours (and generallly takes between 1.5 and 2.5 hours).  The setting of difficulties turns out to be a non-issue.  Remember that whatever you do to someone else they can do back to you, so there's not a lot of "he's screwing me over to win!" stuff.  Try it out, I think you'll find that it does indeed do what you want it to.

I'm with Ron too, the game runs smooth as silk no matter how competative it gets, so I recommend against making any changes.

Thomas

Good to hear about setting the difficulties. As I said, it wouldn't register as a problem without the author explicitly entreating for "fairness" in the text. Usually that kind of text is a sign of less-than-perfect game balance, which is alleviated with support from the SIS. Not that it usually succeeds; in my experience players will rather abandon the Exploration and win the game than the other way around (as they, of course, should). Probably one reason for there being so few solidly constructed gamist rpgs.

Ron, Thomas: don't worry, I'm not tinkering with the rules, least of all before playing the game a couple of times myself. The only thing I might do is give the survivors of a round/scenario a goblin resupply (to the current Oog value) at the beginning of a new round, but that's just a hunch and has to be substantiated in playtest before applying at the tournament. At a glance GOG seems like it works without any trouble in a tournament; just drop the players with least Oog at the end of each scenario, and make the one with the most Oog in the final table the winner. Simple.

Apparently I'm too tinkering-prone with games, being that lately I get warned against it from all sides. Makes me feel like some kind of a mad scientist.

Pairings: those who have played GOG, any idea of the best numbers of players? Should I just assign seven players per table or some other number? One option would be to let the survivors of each round form their own pairings through some simple subgame (say, the currently highest Oog characters pick their partners in the next scenario). Is there a correlation between gained Oog and the number of players, can anybody guess? Correlated per hour and per scenario? If there is, there probably should be the same number of players in each group.

Play time: Thomas' numbers tell me that it's pretty easy to do two rounds in a day, or three if the players are motivated. If we do the tournament as a centerpiece of a mini-convention with other stuff to do alongside, the differing running times are not a problem, and people can be dropped off from the tournament between rounds without leaving them with nothing to do. Perhaps make it a round per table of players, so with 20 players it's two preliminary rounds and a final? With that formula we'd have to drop a tableful of players per round, which seems pretty good.

Tournament system: of course, an elimination tournament is not the only possible model. A league might be more appropriate, my boardgame experience tells me, as the majority of players would still be occupied on the last round. An elimination is good for the player motivation, though, as all players still in the game have equal chances of victory.

Well, those are stuff I'll have to figure out at some point. Shouldn't be a problem, however, as the game seems to hold well by the testimony. If the game works, the rest of the arrangements are quite similar to a boardgame tournament.

Eero wrote:
I imagine your Capes tournament was the faux kind, with the players playing more for the fun than the win.

Eero wrote:
The Roach: Another excellent choice, actually, especially as the club is an university roleplaying club. I'll have to familiarize myself with the rules in more detail and think about the logistics of making the cards, though. The existence of the victory condition is a big plus for it.

Why does rewarding a particular behaviour necessarily mean the game is gamist?  If that is the case, I've misunderstood the vocab.  In this case the reward is a tournament win, but that's just one kind of reward structure right?

Can someone let me know what's going on - Is it true that setting a reward makes it gamist; I'd always thought that setting a reward structure to encourage the type of play you want, be it narr or gamist, was good game design?

TonyLB wrote:

Eero wrote:
I imagine your Capes tournament was the faux kind, with the players playing more for the fun than the win.

No, it wasn't.  We weren't hitting narrative points in spite of the competition.  We were hitting narrative points because of the competition.

You say "If you do these particular things then you get the prize" as if it means Gamism.  But in this case "these particular things" were "address premise, and aid others to do the same."  So ... what do you think?  If people really want the prize, and just flat-out balls-to-the-wall address premise ... does that make it Gamist?