Shadowdark Shadowdark Discussion Thread [+]

The scoring requirements were okay but I would have tried to make it a little less subjective (there were points for "good roleplaying").
Yeah, makes sense. Objectives secured, treasure values, traps avoided, number of casualties, stuff like HP damage taken (though this one is tricky, given how whether you lose/how long you keep Cure Wounds is pretty luck-dependent), spells remaining at the end, could all be used as measurable criteria for success and effectiveness, where "good roleplaying" is inherently subjective.

And Dave is a good guy and great GM. The crew at that con is pretty tight knit and we run a lot of multi-table charity events together.
Great to hear.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Subjective scoring elements for tournament play are always a bit fraught. I know that for GW tournament play the sportsmanship category was (is?) always a subject of much gnashing of teeth.
 



Naw, it was more the after-tourney chats where it was revealed that certain people just did handshakes to give each other max sportsmanship before their games. Very contrary to the sporting spirit, what what.
Why would you even need that in a Warhammer tournament? Just go until the other side dies...
 

Why would you even need that in a Warhammer tournament? Just go until the other side dies...
Because a lot of guys are complete jerks and the sportsmanship component is supposed to make winning overall something of a more balanced result.
 

Because a lot of guys are complete jerks and the sportsmanship component is supposed to make winning overall something of a more balanced result.
I admit to not knowing enough about Warhammer to know how that works or why it is important to balance in particular. I get not wanting to play with jerks, of course. I guess I sort of assumed a Warhammer tournament would determine winners simply by, you know, winning.
 

I admit to not knowing enough about Warhammer to know how that works or why it is important to balance in particular. I get not wanting to play with jerks, of course. I guess I sort of assumed a Warhammer tournament would determine winners simply by, you know, winning.
The idea is that 'everyone having fun' should be an important part of winning an overall tournament trophy. Same with having a well painted army. I would think that sportsmanship in an RPG tourney is there for the same reason. In GW tourneys there an award called best general that's specifically for winning the most games in convincing fashion.
 

The idea is that 'everyone having fun' should be an important part of winning an overall tournament trophy. Same with having a well painted army. I would think that sportsmanship in an RPG tourney is there for the same reason. In GW tourneys there an award called best general that's specifically for winning the most games in convincing fashion.
I think it's a good idea, but obviously, putting the award into the hands of the competitors to decide makes it way too easy to game the system.
 

I admit to not knowing enough about Warhammer to know how that works or why it is important to balance in particular. I get not wanting to play with jerks, of course. I guess I sort of assumed a Warhammer tournament would determine winners simply by, you know, winning.
I played that tournament scene pretty intensively for more than a decade. I wouldn't say that a LOT of guys are jerks, but the minority who are, are enough of a pain that it's worth disincentivizing. There was a big effort on Games Workshop's part for some years to push the "total hobbyist" aspect for their tournaments and the ones they provide prize support for at independent shops. Winning games, painting your army well, being a good sport, even for a few years making and using an army list which was specifically tailored to represent the background fluff well and not load up on limited "elite" units.

Of course there was always debate about this in the community, some folks pushing it back that GW should just make more restrictions on army lists if they wanted the background honored more, etc. A lot of independent tournaments just focused on winning battles, or did simplifications like "just give your opponent a pass/fail on sportsmanship". Here's an example of a system I wrote back in 2011:

 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top