What's more important to a good stage

[Mark Perez]

The typical IDPA stage usually has a story line and then some directions or procedure.

So - in general terms - what should the emphasis be on by the stage designer?

Scenario ?

or Procedure??

Mark

[Crusher]

Not a real big fan of the "senerio" description, to me it is "comic book stuff". Undertsanding what the course deigner has intented to test (as skill/skills) if far more important and the ONLY way a stage designer has of communicating this is through written directions.

[tightloop]

If you are not into the storyline kind of stage, then the MD needs to set up shooting tests that really test all the skills needed to shoot IDPA, like moving and shooting and some long distance stuff over 20 yds and some stages with lots of usse of cover...

my .02 worth

[JayC]

When I do stages, I'll do it two ways. The first is by procedure if it is a skills test. I will tell the shooters what is is that we are testing and what to do. The second way is when I do a scenario. I don't go through the story line. I'll tell them what we are simulating and testing, as every stage is a skills test when you get down to it, and then give the procedure.

Where I run matches though, we have multiple bays (not all clubs around here do) and I squad the shooters and then send them to the respective bays where they will start. Each squad will be given the directions when it is their time to shoot a stage. Some clubs around here will give the COF walk through to the whole group, split the groups and then repeat the COF walk through at each stage, wasted time if you ask me.

Jay

[COF]

The scenario stage is the basis for IDPA. We shoot skills tests or standards to do exactly that - test the shooters skills. The scenario stage tests the shooters abilty to react under pressure and choose a course of action. As such, a scenario stage should be written with a minimum of direction. The design of the stage should determine what the shooter's options are, not a detailed checklist expected actions. A real scenario stage should present a problem for the shooter to solve within IDPA rules.

That being said, we see a lot of scenario stages that direct every action the shooter takes. This happens a lot of times as a convenience in setting up a stage - if I tell the shooter they have to do something, I don't have to fool with putting up vision barriers that would make them do the same thing. I've been guilty of that myself. Usually what happens is some smart shooter shoots it the most efficient way instead of how you wanted them to.

Jerry

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

I hope this is an appropriate answer, I like stages that mix it up. Three rounds on target, a long shot that requires some skill, a bed time story if needed, but I just want to shoot.

There is a club that runs three stages for their monthly Saturday match. It is a 2 hour one way drive for me. I will not drive 4 hours to shoot 50 rounds. It is a waste of my time and gasoline.

Make them challenging, interesting, and make me say "I wish I had thought of that"

Regards,

[Crusher]

Maybe I should clarify my response. "Senerios" as far as I understand is the part of the breifing that starts: "While on your way to your........." This is the part I am not a big fan of.

Stage proceedure is the part that starts: "While standing with boxes in both hands......."

I have seen (and designed) stages that can be "solved" in multiple fashions (via placement of targets, vision barriers, windows, doorways ect. While still following ALL of the IDPA rules regarding use of cover ect.)

These types of stages are (IMHO) the most challenging to shoot for there are several ways to solve the problem. The challange for the course designer is to build stages that ALLOW for mutiple shooting solutions.

Generally called a "field course"

The only other "stage type" I am aware of is a "Standard exercise" This is specifically set up to test ALL competitors on an identical (shot the same by everyone) set of proceedures for that particular stage.

[JayC]

Ya know any stage is a test of skills under pressure for most shooters. Once that timer goes beep, game on and the clock is running. I don't believe that only a scenario puts a shooter under pressure.

Procedure and direction is not the same. A procedure will include start position, target identifiers (multiple shots for black shirts for example, etc), maybe the use of a secondary weapon, etc. Direction on the other hand leads me into start here,

move here, reload here, engage this way, etc.

I have shot at places that gave "direction" for a scenario type stage, but the range setup almost required it. It's one of those things where you don't want to go an hour to get there, shoot 50 rounds and go home, and the range only provides for 2 stages so it's crammed. They usually will change the stages somewhat that way they can get 4 stages out of the match. Can't blame them for trying to do something good .

I also like matches that mix it up with skills and scenarios. I also like matches and put on a lot of matches using targets in stages that are not static. It makes the difficulty go up, makes it more fun, and is practical. Not everything stands still for you to shoot.

Stages have to be done so that they are challenging to the higher class shooters, but no so hard that other shooters have trouble. Two problems I see around here are very low round counts at a match and a low level of difficulty .

Ok I'm done ranting

Jay

[Ted Murphy]

Procedure is more important.

Scenario is usually like the plot in a porno, secondary to the action.

Sometimes they are amusing or there is a nugget in side the scenario that is pertinent to the COF, but usually it's just how the stage designer asigns the "it could happen"factor to a COF.

Ted

[TractorTed]

When I run my local matches, the scenario takes a back seat to the procedure, things are generally pretty laid back. When I build a stage for a major, the scenario is at least as important as the procedure, because it's what people remember, and if they remember how much fun it was shooting bad guys in a helicopter, or how funny it was to jump out of a bathtub and shoot down a hallway while wearing a pink bathrobe, they'll jump at the chance to go to your club next year.

Ted

[Jake Di Vita]

I'm gonna vote for option number 3 - Neither.

Work on challenging and fun stage design, not stories or telling people how to do it.

Priorities people.

[diehli]

I'm gonna vote for option number 3 - Neither.

Work on challenging and fun stage design, not stories or telling people how to do it.

Priorities people.

[BroncoGlenn]

I've never gotten anything beneficial from reading the scenarios to the stage. They all tend to be over the top situations for the most part. Maybe some people like an explanation about the situation. Perhaps it goes back to that IDPA requirement where stages have to be "realistic" where it has to be something that could possibly happen, so the stage designer is simply trying to rationalize that per the IDPA stage requirements. Sure I guess it could happen, if you were a carrer Hollywood action movie star there might be a script come by that has a similiar scene. Or maybe working as a private security contractor around Baghdad.

[Joe D]

I generally do not include the story book dribble in a COF. It takes too much time. I like to design stages that allow more than one way to shoot them. I like to give shooters choices. There will usually be one best way to shoot the stage. Shooter needs to figure it out. I am a BIG believer in high round counts. Shooters are our customers. They pay good money to shoot and have fun. Most of my stages will have 16-18 rounds.

I once received an email match notification that gave the date and location. It ended by saying bring 26 rounds. Passed on that match. Was not worth the 1 1/2 hour drive.

If you think about it we spend 2-4 hours at a match that may have a raw time of 60-100 seconds.

This may sound a bit odd, but I feel all IDPA stages should be blind. You do not have a "walk through" in the real world.

One thing I absolutely hate are Standards stages. Where does it say that all big matches must have a Standards stage?

[Ted Murphy]

This may sound a bit odd, but I feel all IDPA stages should be blind. You do not have a "walk through" in the real world.

One thing I absolutely hate are Standards stages. Where does it say that all big matches must have a Standards stage?

I like blind stages, we do quite a few at our local matches. They are tough to run fairly at a major match though- too easy for abuse to set in.

I've always enjoyed shooting standards in a match. As long as they are pretty good that is.

Ted

[Crusher]

"Standards" (at ANY level match, even USPSA) are nothing but FILLER and round count uppers for lazy stage designers.

Any field course can be be designed to include "tests" if you wish to incorporate some type of "stadards drill" (eg. strong hand/support hand shooting).

In other words "STANDARDS SUXXORS" !

[Crusher]

This may sound a bit odd, but I feel all IDPA stages should be blind. You do not have a "walk through" in the real world.

On a side note this is not ALLWAYS true. Beware walking/running from the "known into the unknown for failure lurks inside"

[Ted Murphy]

"Standards" (at ANY level match, even USPSA) are nothing but FILLER and round count uppers for lazy stage designers.

I always thought standards were a great way to test shooting ability as with stages (field course is a USPSA term fwiw) shooters can balance an ability they don't do well (such as shooting long range distance) by picking up their feet or gaming out a stage well. With a standards the rubber meets the road and you will stand or fall on how you can shoot.

I've shot some pretty cruddy standards and some really fun ones. It depends. My favorite has always been the standards from the 01 carolina cup. Some of the IDPA nats stages have been boring, some have been pretty decent. My favorite there is from the 2000 nats. I'm not that much of a fan of the monster 36 round standards as I am of a good 12-18 round stage though. When you start getting above 18 rounds you start to weigh that stage a bit too heavily in the overall match.

For several reasons we didn't do any standards at last years state match and i doubt there will be standards this year either, but I do believe they are useful and worth doing. I do at least 1 standards stage a match at my local club, because I believe it's a decent way to present drills for shooters to test certain skills and it's a good feeling to come to the range on an off day and see some IDPA shooters setting up those standards because the light bulb came on and they realize they are a darn good practice drill to boot.

Ted

[Crusher]

Ted my point is that ANY (yea I know it's from USPSA) field course can incorporate some facet of the standards stages (through the use of props/proceedures) effectively eliminating the need for a specfic course set up as standards (true "deviate course designers do this).

[Joe D]

I too think Standards are just filler = boring.

[freeidaho]

To me, scenarios have a story or justification. It is after all a sport about concealed carry, and self-defense, no matter how much people try to break away from that premise. Yes these story COFs are much more work to come up with than just saying, "Lets see, two targets here, one there, two here, done." That is something, but it is not a scenario COF. The term scenario actually requires a story, that may be why the term was chosen.

To me, standards are actually standard COFs shot the same decades on end. So the shooter can compare their performance to last year, different equipment, TGO, etc.

Standards, that aren't standard, a misnomer, don't seem to make any sense.... to me.

So there are more categories. Scenarios, Standards, and "none of the above.

" COFs without a story are "none of the above." Standards that aren't standard, are also "none of the above." We really need some new names.

Scenario = scenario

Scenario without a story = ?

Standard = standards

Standards that aren't standard = ?

YMMVAPD,

Ken Reed

"You are what you do."

[Joe D]

IMO the only standard we should shoot is the Classifier.

[tightloop]

There are stages that could be considered standard....

[JayC]

OK, here we go. IDPA, USPSA, Steel Challange, ICORE, Bianci, Masters, they are all a game and a sport. People shoot IDPA to test defensive shooting skills under pressure (timer). They don't however show up to have somebody read a story book to them. Does a scenario require a story, no. But it should include a basis for the stage and what is being tested. I've been to mathes where the story goes on and on, no fun.

Standards to me are the basics of the shooting skills. You may have a stage that test accuracy, movement, reloads, etc, and most have 3 targets or less. I too believe that most are done to increase the round ount as most are multiple strings. I will also agree that most standards have been around forever.

I also think there are skill stages. They don't have a scenario base and they also go beyond "standards", but they test multiple shooting skills.

Ya know, when it gets right down to it, it doesn't matter what you term a stage. When I show up at a match, I want to see the stages, figure them out myself, know what needs to be done, and shoot the stage to the best of my ability. Maybe it comes from shooting USPSA, but we don't need all these labels.

It is all a game. IDPA tests your defensive shooting skills, USPSA tests your mental, speed, and accuracy skills, the same with the Steel Challange, etc. In the end it is all good

[Joe D]

Most standards are also time killers.