What makes a good tournament RP

I wasn't sure where to put this. It could go into Polls or Debates, but those two areas are too general, and RP Social on the other hand is not viewable to all members, plus hardly visited these days. So I'm putting it here.


I've been thinking about starting my own tournament before, but of course wanted Seth's to finish first, so we don't have more than one tournament going on at any one time. But since it's his final round, and I'm not starting yet, either, I wanted to plan ahead.

This topic is just collecting input from everybody here. I'd like to know what works and what doesn't, what you like and don't like in the tournament RPs. With data like this to consider I'll make a better tournament, knowing I'm not just doing it my way the way I like (although that too will be a factor).

If you'd rather answer more specific questions, then please think about:

- How many fighters? (1 per member, 2, more? Should all be expected to enter the same number or less?)

- Judges (How many, how often should they intervene, what should they tolerate and what should be punished)

- Judge-member's fighters? (On the one hand, the judge might feel bad missing out on the fun - on the other hand, they shouldn't judge themselves fighting. Here's a case why at least two members should be judges to watch over Each Other's fights, I guess.)

- Stages (Should they be simple or complex? Interactive or just destructible playgrounds left for the fighters? Follow one theme/style or be as varied as possible?)

- Format (Single elimination, group matches, teams/free-for-alls, round robin, some other format?)

- Retries/Continues (In case of elimination tournament, should some players be allowed to retry?)

- Power Level (Relative, huh. Any powers in particular that you think should be banned/unavailable in a tournament setting?)

- Scoring (Fight till KOed? Hit Points/Life Bar, or Point System based on performance in battle, or something else? Or just go at it till one side surrenders or the judge makes a call?)

- Time Out (When a member takes too long to reply, should he forfeit? Should an autohit connect, or some other penalty? How long is 'too long'? 1 day, 3 days, 5, 7, more?)

- Anything else (This is hardly everything)


I'll give my input so you can compare after a few posts in here. I look forward to reading your replies, guys.

- How many fighters?

Even bracket. No byes. Magic numbers: 8, 16

- Judges

1 is enough, 2 can work. Intervene only when necessary(fights dragging on, for instance)

- Judge fighters

*nope.jpg*

(If you want judges that won't be sore about missing out, supply your own)

- Stages

Up to the creator's tastes.

- Format

Single elimination is best. It works great. All the formats can be implemented successfully, but I think it's best to keep one for the whole tournament. And there, I have a preference for single elimination.

- Retries

*NOPE.jpg*

- Power Level

It's up to the creator, again. If you have to ban a power, probably ban Reality Manipulation....and Time Manipulation(however underused it is) being banned couldn't hurt. I think we've all read enough Jojo to know how that can get.

- Scoring

Fight until KO'd, surrender, "checkmate"(I suppose Migotliv trapping Python in that time faggotry you were gonna do would count as this, since the other dude can't leave no matter what. So yes, checkmate.)

- Time Out

It's up to the tournament creator. I think a week is good enough to implement a strong penalty like auto-forfeit. It's not too short a time, anyways.

If necessary I'd be up for judging without participating. It'd likely be the only way I'd be involved.

Delta wrote:

If necessary I'd be up for judging without participating. It'd likely be the only way I'd be involved.

Saaaame. If ever interested, I'd be a judge and a simple watcher.

Didn't post lately in anything here.... guess "getting a life" was a bad thing to do....

Bookman wrote:

- How many fighters? (1 per member, 2, more? Should all be expected to enter the same number or less?)

1 is enough. No real arguments here though.

Bookman wrote:

- Judges (How many, how often should they intervene, what should they tolerate and what should be punished)

1 or 2 would be best. I guess that anything breaking the rules of the game or too much dodging. One thing I'd especially judge as "too much defense" is when someone consistently blocks or dodges attacks using the same, cheap method that takes near no writing effort. An exception would be if there is some kind of trick to that defense though like "Only fire breaks it, yadda, yadda".

Being me, I'd usually just suggest some kind of system to make it easier, but then again..... aside from the one I am working on, I have no idea how to create a system that doesn't terribly limit people, making it too much counting.... So scrap the system ideas. It should be a beautiful battle of descriptive imagination.

And on that note, judges should start intervening when posts are starting to shorten too much.

Bookman wrote:

- Judge-member's fighters? (On the one hand, the judge might feel bad missing out on the fun - on the other hand, they shouldn't judge themselves fighting. Here's a case why at least two members should be judges to watch over Each Other's fights, I guess.)

Judges shouldn't fight. I can be a judge if you need one since I practically never take part in tournaments and I could judge people fairly. Besides, as mature people as we are, a judge "could" try to eliminate a harder opponent just to not face him.

Bookman wrote:

- Stages (Should they be simple or complex? Interactive or just destructible playgrounds left for the fighters? Follow one theme/style or be as varied as possible?)

I would vote for complex. Fighting in a virtual space with nothing but pure power is boring. However if the character is fighting in an abandoned town/city or a factory where dangerous acid is being produced, the fights could get extra flavored. Besides, imagine the uber-power characters fighting in a tight room that has devices that if hit will OHKO the hitting person. The battle of bigass AoEs would turn into accurate hits. Imagine rooms that could randomly remove powers depending on which room the fighters are in currently. It adds strategy.

Bookman wrote:

- Format (Single elimination, group matches, teams/free-for-alls, round robin, some other format?)

- Python is right here. Period.

Bookman wrote:

- Retries/Continues (In case of elimination tournament, should some players be allowed to retry?)

- Python is right here again. Period.

Bookman wrote:

- Power Level (Relative, huh. Any powers in particular that you think should be banned/unavailable in a tournament setting?)

One thing that makes me sick and not wanting to enter tournaments is usually the insane power levels that characters have. Technically speaking, it's up to the creator of the tournament what he wants to ban or not. As a big fan of Devil May Cry games I must say that powers used should be kickass, but the character shouldn't be able to blow up half the field with an impossible to dodge nor block attack.

You would never believe how many attacks you can perform with simply body blows or a sword, without using flashy god-mode moves.

So.... depends on the creator. But I suggest tournaments for weaker characters too.

Bookman wrote:

- Scoring (Fight till KOed? Hit Points/Life Bar, or Point System based on performance in battle, or something else? Or just go at it till one side surrenders or the judge makes a call?)

I would strongly suggest style-points. Like, fighters have unlimited HP and Mana. However the more descriptive and kick-butt the attack is, the more style points are awarded by the judge. However dodging/blocking in style will diminish enemy style points. A "bad block" however that is pure plain or even worse will further increase earned SP by the enemy. Anyway, this would require a lot of thought, but I would suggest that the more kickass and descriptive the attack is, the stronger it becomes and the more accurate, unless it meets a similarly powerful block.

......Book, we're gonna test a battle like that tomorrow.....

Bookman wrote:

- Time Out (When a member takes too long to reply, should he forfeit? Should an autohit connect, or some other penalty? How long is 'too long'? 1 day, 3 days, 5, 7, more?)

I guess a week and then auto-win. Nobody is that busy not to reply at least once per week, unless he had no net access, lost interest or had a life.

Bookman wrote:

- Anything else (This is hardly everything)

Maybe the winner of the last tournament will have the privilege of choosing his first fight? (who he will fight that is)

Thanks for your input, Python, Zags, Elie-chan, SX. It means so much to me. ^^


As to the others... maybe if I post it'll encourage them too.

Bookman wrote:

- How many fighters? (1 per member, 2, more? Should all be expected to enter the same number or less?)

1 is the obvious minimum, but I'm fine with more fighters (heh, I have plenty fighters to spare so filling up slots is no biggie for me). In the tournament that I'd host I'd have the added task of filling up missing slots with 'extras' to achieve a number fitting the Format (a power of 2 if it's single-elimination, for example).

Bookman wrote:

- Judges (How many, how often should they intervene, what should they tolerate and what should be punished)

1 is enough, and makes the entire tournament more unified. But if the judge adds some fighters (to fill in slots or otherwise), it's good to have a back up judge, see below.

Bookman wrote:

- Judge-member's fighters? (On the one hand, the judge might feel bad missing out on the fun - on the other hand, they shouldn't judge themselves fighting. Here's a case why at least two members should be judges to watch over Each Other's fights, I guess.)

I'm all for allowing a judge-member's fighters to join, so long as they are treated on equal terms with everybody else's fighters, and if it takes an extra judge to ensure this fairness, then so be it. I'm considering a second judge, maybe someone that wouldn't have an interest in throwing their own fighters and maybe some reason to enjoy judging fights with mine (SX comes to mind for this role).

Bookman wrote:

- Stages (Should they be simple or complex? Interactive or just destructible playgrounds left for the fighters? Follow one theme/style or be as varied as possible?)

I like them balanced, not too simple nor too complex, interactive, but not to the point that victory or defeat lies in using the stage instead of the fighters' own skills, and if the stages somehow connect through a common theme then that's a bonus. Speaking of bonuses, little temporary bonus powers spread out on stages are okay in my book (I just might use that idea myself).

Bookman wrote:

- Format (Single elimination, group matches, teams/free-for-alls, round robin, some other format?)

I like variety, so variation between rounds is welcome. I also don't like 'luck of the draw' where a single player can lose utterly due to a bad matchup. Therefore, single elimination I like best for the finals and maybe semifinals (which could be free-for-alls just as well). For the rest, I'd prefer points or even round robin (within small groups?) so that everyone participating gets their share of the action whether they win or lose.

Bookman wrote:

- Retries/Continues (In case of elimination tournament, should some players be allowed to retry?)

I like giving players second chances, especially if I feel they have potential to do better than their fights showed (again, an unlucky match up can screw one over real bad). But since this slows down the tournament itself, I feel it they should be used sparingly, maybe to round out the number of fighters for a particular round.

Bookman wrote:

- Power Level (Relative, huh. Any powers in particular that you think should be banned/unavailable in a tournament setting?)

I could bust out a whole list. XD But like I said, power level is relative. One rule of thumb that I'd like to follow is that any power that guarantees victory and the opponent cannot do anything about it is a no-no. A tournament match is meant to be just that, two fighters in a battle. Not one fighter setting up an ultimate unstoppable kill. >> Mind you, I'm not against preparations and strong, charged-up attacks. But the enemy needs to be able to do SOMETHING in response. Even if it's as simple as pinching oneself to break out of an illusion.

Another thing, notwithstanding dedicated summoners, is that I'd like to ban extra lives/familiars/summons that you bring out to do battle instead of yourself. You're the fighter, not those servants, and a tournament match is a man to man battle (except when women are involved XD). This is subjective but I figured that it's a great source of abuse otherwise (where every summon can bring in their own abilities to the fight, abilities the original character doesn't have, to compensate).

Bookman wrote:

- Scoring (Fight till KOed? Hit Points/Life Bar, or Point System based on performance in battle, or something else? Or just go at it till one side surrenders or the judge makes a call?)

I'm fine with leaving it up to the members to battle until one can't go on anymore, or surrenders. If that doesn't happen, it's up to the judge, and as a judge myself I'd follow the Point System: the more active, aggressive, and fair-play fighter will win in the end. That's my take on it.

Bookman wrote:

- Time Out (When a member takes too long to reply, should he forfeit? Should an autohit connect, or some other penalty? How long is 'too long'? 1 day, 3 days, 5, 7, more?)

I'm a frequent poster, though even I have times I can't visit the forum. <.< But for the sake of tournament matches I guess 3 days is more than enough for 1st warning and 7 days (full week) for a 2nd degree warning. Should the penalties be autohit/forfeit? Who knows... I might just come up with something more juicy than that, myself.

Bookman wrote:

- Anything else (This is hardly everything)

Here's an extra to nudge your brains - team matches, like what Dante brought up for his tournament. How about teams or tag teams sometime? As one round or a whole tournament? Switching out during battle or fighting a 'best of' between the teams? Members picking their teams from among their heroes or mixing it up with others? Anything you want to say about that idea, please share.

I was originally very keen on making it 'tag teams' with swapping mid-battle, and 3 heroes per team (since I could use Leo, Krystal and Sakura this way). But this is a very specific setup so I'm not sure many people would actually join up.


On that note, as I read above... I'm totally urged to make two tournaments not one, since the votes (so far 2 out of 3, but that ain't stopping me) are showing away from my trends, therefore - a simple 8 fighters elimination tournament, 1 fighter per member, just to get it done RIGHT and satisfy folks, is in order. First thing after Seth's, even.

But it's not definite - YET (waits to hear some more from you folks)

Ah, sorry. I misread the first question. I thought you meant, like, total fighters. Uhh, 1 to 2 for each member. 1 is fine. 2 is okay too.

Team matches are always interesting. It worked relatively well when Seth implemented it in the middle of his tournament. But an entire tournament based around team fights, especially with multiple members represented on each team(3-on-3 a la later Shaman King, or tag team, or 2 on 2, plenty of possibilities to spice this up)...yeah.

A team tournament. I don't think we've ever had one of those. I think Dante might have wanted to do it before, but it never got off the ground. It's a novel idea though.

Hmmmm, I see. Thanks, that's very encouraging. ^_^


Also, something that I thought of only today. This is because of Seth's tournament when in Semifinals Alpha came 'platforms' with supposedly random effects that could be beneficial or harmful when a fighter touched them.


I figure, since we have a dice function, I can totally leave that to pure chance. A member would be allowed to make a short post touching the 'random trigger' on purpose, or declaring it happened as a result of some other action (like having to dodge an attack). In the same post, the member rolls dice. Then either, as a judge, I step up and tell what effect that roll result has, or (if I made the options public in the first place) the member then follows up with a full post, including the random effects. The short roll post and the latter are treated as one post, and a member can only trigger (hence roll) once before the opponent(s) react(s). If the fighter triggers multiple random bonuses/penalties at once, then the initial post may simply 'roll X dice' instead of 1.


With that in mind, I'd throw it in to some stages, but not many. It shouldn't happen too often, as that can be a very destabilizing factor. But it's interesting, isn't it? And much more fair than leaving it up to the judge's whim, I reckon.

I had an idea for a "survival" styled tournament, where it's not one on one fighting exactly but..sort of "live as long as possible" and the last person who isn't dead or whatever is the victor.

Which could be kind of cool. I thought at least. Not like it'd pose a problem for any of the characters we have now though.

True.......... I just wonder if that wouldn't be a format more for a deathmatch/free-for-all than tournament. It'd surely get done faster and we don't require any specific amount of fighters then.

I'd join that. Or host it if necessary. But assign a different judge so I'd fight in it. Either way, the idea sounds appealing Guy.

It's a survival thing, not like a big arena and everyone just goes apeshit on one another.

In a tourney format, I agree with many of the limitations, as I understand how they can be abused if unchecked. Reality Manipulation? Of course its cheap. Time manipulation? Duh. Another thing Booky threw out in the Chat Box is Teleportation. Indeed it becomes frustrating when fighting against it, and I know because I'm guilty of abusing the teleport option with certain characters. XD

As for a Tourney format, a survival seems interesting, but an Eight Man tourney would most likely be easier to manage.