My three primary complaints:
- Lack of preparation
- Lack of organized play "best practices"
- Lack of game knowledge
- Judges are clearly defined
- The event staff have a process on taking match results, signing people up, dropping people out, etc.
- There are pre-published floor rules for tournament structure (in general)
Each of those events were flawed. I have a decently strong background in organized play, and part of what dragged me into it was the dislike of badly-run tournaments.
Talking about how bad things are and listing complaints is not necessarily a productive fix. Let's talk about general improvements, and assume there are lots of small improvements that I won't cover at this time...
1. Each event should have a break-down of the basics of how the tournament goes. What the format is, how many rounds, if the rounds are timed, how people are assigned to matches, are there breaks, how do people make the finals, and what the prizes are.... (This sheet should be available for anyone signing up to play, and ideally something they can take away so they can refer to it before the event or between rounds.)
2. A quick summary for the event staff on how pairings are done, how points are tracked between rounds, and how to handle breaks for the staff. Can players concede a round and still stay in? How long can a judge step out of an area?
3. The head judge for the event should have knowledge of the game. If they aren't an expert in the rules, one should be found before the event. In no circumstance should players at the table have to decide "what's fair". (If they don't have expert knowledge, they should at least be good at running events, and have read through the 'rules questions' thread on BGG.
Players in these events are giving up multiple hours of their time at PAX to play in poorly conceived tournaments. You could just as easily have played a couple of games in the board game area, and had a vastly superior time.
Here's to hoping for next year...
No comments:
Post a Comment