The latest video from The Quarantined Wargamer went out on Friday and in it, I talk about whether we need an umpire when we wargame? My group nearly always have an umpire to coordinate and oversee our games when we play in the shed-o-war. There are routinely up to four players per side and it can get a bit 'noisy' (Imagine 'Presidential Debate' noisy, but a bit more civilised!). Having an umpire to adjudicate rules interpretations and to shepherd us through large and complex games makes those large and complex game possible.
As always I'd love to know what you think. Please join the conversation either here or on my YouTube Channel and as usual I'd ask that if you enjoyed the video please hit the Like button and consider subscribing to my channel. Next week I will be discussing the apparently controversial subject of Undercoat!
I feel large multi player games run better with an umpireReplyDelete
They certainly do in the Shed-o-War. With up to eight players we need someone to marshal us or we'd never finish a game!Delete
You don't usually "need" an umpire for most wargames. But some types of games work better with one, and other types of game won't work without one.ReplyDelete
I'm sure we could play without Postie acting as Umpire, but its keeps everything moving and keeps us civil.Delete
I think it largely depends upon the rules used. For example you can play a large Franco-Prussian War game with two players without an umpire when using Bloody Big Battles rules. If you tried to do this with say Black Powder II, you would most certainly need an umpire.ReplyDelete
Agreed, some rules/periods need an umpire less than others. And if its a system you play regularly (such as in a club) then the need for a rules specialist is less still.Delete
Horses for courses. Certain rule set don't need an umpire, especially if everyone is familiar with them. But once you have much more than six you need to decide who is going to decide disputes and be a de facto umpire. Equally is you have a real need for an umpire (ambushes, hidden movement etc) then an umpire is needed to avoid potential "huffs"ReplyDelete
Agreed. An umpire can get away with nasty surprises... Postie is an expert at them!Delete
I love umpiring . Large games always benefit I think .ReplyDelete
Our big games certainly benefit from having an impartial hand on the tiller. Particularly if we have guest players who have even less of a clue about what is going on than us (and we're experts at 'clueless')Delete
Yes. but not an umpire as in football, more an umpire as in the director of a play.ReplyDelete
We often use plumpires (player-umpire), usually the host of the game and/or he who knows the system best. He runs the game, guides the players through the rules, and decides on any ambiguities.
I love the term 'Plumpires'. It can be used to describe a player-umpire, or an overweight middle-aged wargamer who like to run games.Delete
I think all games are better with an umpire. The umpire should design the scenario, prepare the briefs, give advice as well as adjudicate. It is not just about how well an individual knows the rules. We know that situations arise which are not covered by the rules. That is why the individual who umpires should also have the best knowledge of the period being represented.ReplyDelete
I think it is beneficial if someone can adjudicate from a historical perspective for the game being played. Knowing the rules well helps, but understanding what might have happened historically, when a situation falls between the rules, that's the skill of a good umpire.Delete