Here is a PDF of my Adventure MultiGun concept. As with my divisions, you are free to employ and modify as you see fit at your own club or match.
It sure seems like the formatting from Google Docs should copy perfectly into Blogger, am I right? What with it all being the mighty Google. It's probably me, but that doesn't happen and I feel like it's kinda stupid. Any gurus out there feel free to educate me.
OK, on topic. Adventure MultiGun is one of those things that's been swimming around in my head for years. I've said it before, I'm the type of person who is never satisfied with what exists so I set out to make something better, or ... MORE. That's not to say I ever accomplish either of those things. Also, I don't know about the name Adventure MultiGun, but we're going with it for now because I've got nothing else. The word adventure pretty much describes the thing and it makes sense in my mind to call a thing what it is. But, at this point it's nothing more than a concept and the reason for that is that a match would have to be done - probably multiple times - in order to fully work out the kinks. It's assuming way too much of my own skills and knowledge to think I could write 4 pages of text and perfect team based MultiGun. It's a relatively new idea, and it's also logistically very difficult, so I doubt very seriously I have the perfect solution. Next, it's a little bit dreamy. What I mean is, to do it right it would be a once a year extravaganza involving quite a bit of work - in a perfect world type of scenario. It's probably not something the local club could put on each month, although a substantially scaled down version might be doable.
With all that said, I like concepts that are scalable and I think Adventure MultiGun could be one-man or two, an entire match, or just a piece of a match. The whole concept is to take MultiGun and expand it into an objective based adventure rather than a handful of unrelated courses of fire. It is also used to incorporate blind courses of fire where the teams have either limited time to see the field or no time at all. And the third important piece is getting out of the small, square, flat bay and into more realistic environments. Most shooting ranges I encounter are these pristine flat squares and rectangles and those make a lot of sense for certain events and purposes. But then you see things like some of the precision rifle events on large rolling hills or Blue Ridge Mountain 3 Gun with all sorts of props and natural environments to navigate. Or ranges like the Texas Defensive Shooting Academy range with cars and spaces that simulate a city street. These, and the many others like them, strike me as an effort to get away from the static range and into more dynamic and interesting environments. And so I say, take those flat bays and fill them with props and leave them there. What harm are they? I know I would like to be able to show up to the range and have a car to shoot around, or a small building to move through, or whatever else, and I don't see the harm in leaving certain bays cluttered with permanent props.
What I feel is missing from the various attempts to depart from traditional MultiGun is an objective, a mission for the shooters to accomplish. Most MultiGun presently can be broken down into a pretty simple objective; make a solid plan to complete the stage and do it as quickly as possible. While phrasing it like that makes it sound easy, it's not. The stage planning is a critical thinking skill test and vital to a good performance at a typical match. The shooters at the top are the ones with the best plan, and the best execution of that plan. What seems to happen though in any sport is that the odds get tipped in favor of the people with a couple heavily developed and specialized skills. If you have the ability outside of the event to polish those couple skills you will likely find yourself toward the top. However, MultiGun brings in 3 guns, more critical thinking, and more planning than USPSA or IDPA. I feel this leveled the field originally. It allows for a little more frequent shooter error in some places and then provides opportunities to make up for mistakes in others. It allows participants to play to their individual strengths and thereby play their own game. But I always gotta be asking myself; could we have more? Could we take a little more of the gaming out, and still have a fair and more importantly, FUN game?
If you've read my other posts on this topic you'll know that I do not personally like the attempts to turn competitive shooting into tactical training exercises. And I know that when I suggest we take some of the gaming out of a game, you have to wonder if I'm trying to make it more tactical. I suppose there is a spectrum from straight up gaming to totally arbitrary rules that require the use of cover or tactical movement or whatever else. I just want to end up somewhere in the middle. A middle with objective rule sets that are easily enforced and equally applicable to all participants and events. Maybe my middle ground doesn't match your middle ground and I think blind stages are my biggest departure from pure gaming. My assumption is that blind stages will result in a wide deviation in scores. I think the simplest solution is to not make the stages wildly difficult. For instance, some stage designers love hidden targets that are only visible from a very specific point. Those are probably best avoided. You'll also notice that I have target requirements in my rules. But more importantly, I think blind stages would be fun. I also think they should not make up the entire match and with the use of a point scoring system seen in typical MultiGun matches, blind stages can be weighted appropriately.
Years ago, and this is the part where some people might get offended, I had a sort of realization about tactical training. I accept that it's a serious endeavor and believe it to be truly useful. However, like many things of this sort, there is a level of snobbery that goes along with it, mostly I think, among civilians. It gets a little absurd when it turns into a sentiment that goes something like; if you aren't training you just aren't as special as me in all things shooting. Under neath that sentiment is someone who secretly believes he is practically a SEAL. He isn't. Not even close. For people like this my response is simple. Training is pay to win. Anyone with the money can do it, and people with a lot of money can do it a lot. Of course their reply is something like; TRAINING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FEEDING YOUR CHILDREN BECAUSE TYRANNY!!!! Oh, OK. However, that doesn't bother me much. In fact, I say, embrace what it really is. And that is, civilians going to play bad ass operator for a couple days. I have no problem with that. Military stuff is awesome, guns are awesome and Costa is awesome. It's just annoying when people aren't willing to admit it. Since I fully accept what it is and support it in every way, it occurred to me, why not make it an event? And that is what sparked the Adventure MultiGun idea. So, when Mr. Pay to Win shows up to a MultiGun match I'm going to be expecting a pretty good score or the ribbing will never end. Obviously, it's transformed and morphed over time to become what I have written, and the foundational idea of an objective based "event" could easily be modified to be a strictly fun, non-competitive event. It could certainly be more elaborate as a non-competitive event. But that's an idea for another time.