Playing to win is always an interesting topic for discussion between myself and gaming buddies.

My gaming buddies cover the scope of wargaming but also card gaming and video gaming.

Games are all about challenging ourselves, learning how to better ourselves, and practising for the real world. I believe that playing to win makes a "game" fun.

There is nothing I like less than someone throwing a game or giving up. How you conduct yourself in a game speaks volumes about your character as a person as well.

This topic has NOTHING to do with being a good sport or outright cheating. Please attempt to understand that important differentiation.

Here is a great article by Malcolm Gladwell that is in essence about playing to win.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell?printable=true

I especially find the part about the Traveller Trillion Credit Squadron Tournament interesting and directly pertinent to gaming which I will cut and paste in this section for others to read, but would encourage people to read the whole thing. For further reading on the topic you can try Sirlins: "Playing to win" http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Win-Becoming-David-Sirlin/dp/1411666798
Or you could go to the source and read "The Art of War" Sun Tzu

The article section:

<Start Snippet>
In 1981, a computer scientist from Stanford University named Doug Lenat entered the Traveller Trillion Credit Squadron tournament, in San Mateo, California. It was a war game. The contestants had been given several volumes of rules, well beforehand, and had been asked to design their own fleet of warships with a mythical budget of a trillion dollars. The fleets then squared off against one another in the course of a weekend. “Imagine this enormous auditorium area with tables, and at each table people are paired off,” Lenat said. “The winners go on and advance. The losers get eliminated, and the field gets smaller and smaller, and the audience gets larger and larger.”

Lenat had developed an artificial-intelligence program that he called Eurisko, and he decided to feed his program the rules of the tournament. Lenat did not give Eurisko any advice or steer the program in any particular strategic direction. He was not a war-gamer. He simply let Eurisko figure things out for itself. For about a month, for ten hours every night on a hundred computers at Xerox PARC, in Palo Alto, Eurisko ground away at the problem, until it came out with an answer. Most teams fielded some version of a traditional naval fleet—an array of ships of various sizes, each well defended against enemy attack. Eurisko thought differently. “The program came up with a strategy of spending the trillion on an astronomical number of small ships like P.T. boats, with powerful weapons but absolutely no defense and no mobility,” Lenat said. “They just sat there. Basically, if they were hit once they would sink. And what happened is that the enemy would take its shots, and every one of those shots would sink our ships. But it didn’t matter, because we had so many.” Lenat won the tournament in a runaway.

The next year, Lenat entered once more, only this time the rules had changed. Fleets could no longer just sit there. Now one of the criteria of success in battle was fleet “agility.” Eurisko went back to work. “What Eurisko did was say that if any of our ships got damaged it would sink itself—and that would raise fleet agility back up again,” Lenat said. Eurisko won again.

Eurisko was an underdog. The other gamers were people steeped in military strategy and history. They were the sort who could tell you how Wellington had outfoxed Napoleon at Waterloo, or what exactly happened at Antietam. They had been raised on Dungeons and Dragons. They were insiders. Eurisko, on the other hand, knew nothing but the rule book. It had no common sense. As Lenat points out, a human being understands the meaning of the sentences “Johnny robbed a bank. He is now serving twenty years in prison,” but Eurisko could not, because as a computer it was perfectly literal; it could not fill in the missing step—“Johnny was caught, tried, and convicted.” Eurisko was an outsider. But it was precisely that outsiderness that led to Eurisko’s victory: not knowing the conventions of the game turned out to be an advantage.

“Eurisko was exposing the fact that any finite set of rules is going to be a very incomplete approximation of reality,” Lenat explained. “What the other entrants were doing was filling in the holes in the rules with real-world, realistic answers. But Eurisko didn’t have that kind of preconception, partly because it didn’t know enough about the world.” So it found solutions that were, as Lenat freely admits, “socially horrifying”: send a thousand defenseless and immobile ships into battle; sink your own ships the moment they get damaged.

“In the beginning, everyone laughed at our fleet,” Lenat said. “It was really embarrassing. People felt sorry for us. But somewhere around the third round they stopped laughing, and some time around the fourth round they started complaining to the judges. When we won again, some people got very angry, and the tournament directors basically said that it was not really in the spirit of the tournament to have these weird computer-designed fleets winning. They said that if we entered again they would stop having the tournament. I decided the best thing to do was to graciously bow out.”

It isn’t surprising that the tournament directors found Eurisko’s strategies beyond the pale. It’s wrong to sink your own ships, they believed. And they were right. But let’s remember who made that rule: Goliath. And let’s remember why Goliath made that rule: when the world has to play on Goliath’s terms, Goliath wins.

<End Snippet>

So how does this apply to your gaming group and personally on the table top? How has this mentality helped you get better?


(edit for engrish)

I think one should be able to bring whatever list and strategy they want to a game or tournament as long as its legal.....this crap about tournament judges making people alter their lists cuz they are too strong...is just dumb....and people complaining about cheese builds...GW are the big dogs at the top that made the game...they can "fix" it anytime they want. Peoples lists shouldnt be restricted as far as people telling them unoficially what they can/cant bring....or what they do/dont want to see....GW should stop being lazy greedy money goobers.

In Magic the Gathering if a card or combo is way way way too powerful...it might get banned. Tournies or leagues dont tell you how to build your deck or what you can have in it...or what they think is unfair....cuz the Magic the Gathering people are on top of their gak....they monitor what goes on at tournaments...if something is "unfair" its banned plain and simple...

GW should do the same...IF Daemons, VC, or DE are too overpowered in general...they should stop being lazy and balance things out....so people can bring whatever list they want....without people crying about cheese, lame, and telling you what list you can play.

rules should be set in place and monitored....so they can bring whatever list/deck they want as long as its legal

By their own admission GW designers are not designing a set of rules for balanced and competitive play, so if tourney organizers want a game more along those lines they would probably need to alter GW's rules to do so (or play a different game).

As to other games it depends, some games are conscientiously designed for it, others release specialized versus/tournament platforms, other do not balance for it and tend towards certain stratagies and approaches being outright better then the other choices, so those options dominate.

Variety and Balance very rarely come together well.

Jack

Just to nip this in the bud before we get started:

If anyone comes in here and says that they don't play to win, stop lying. If you don't play to win, then you either pay to draw or to lose, and I doubt anyone here actually does either of those without a very specific set of circumstances (ie. teaching a new player, placating a partner, etc.).

brad3104 wrote:and people complaining about cheese builds...GW are the big dogs at the top that made the game...they can "fix" it anytime they want.

Not exactly true. GW's inability to make a balanced game stems from three areas:

1. Ignorance - They don't know there are problems or honestly can't see them.
2. Apathy - The ones they know about don't concern them.
3. Business Model - Their chief aim is to sell miniatures for a game they happen to write, not write a game for some miniatures they happen to make, and this is something they appear to be quite good at. If a quirk or the rules or something unintended results in an increase of sales, then that's a good thing. If a similar occurrence has an adverse effect upon sales, they'll fix it later on when they get around to re-doing the rules.

And none of these three involve any malice. The only whirring and gnashing of teeth comes from the players who want to complain that people are 'abusing' a ruleset, a ruleset written by people who don't know and/or don't care if it’s balanced. I say go with it - if it's legal, bring it. If it's a bad unit and you still like it, bring it anyway. People shouldn't complain when someone finds a killer combo in a terribly written set of rules and, worse, they shouldn't act surprised when these combos are found.

@HBMC i dont play to win , i rather play a game where its a tie because thats for me = where the excitement is at.
(evenly matched opponent )

I build my list on models i like , and of course have to be a legit list , then the rest of course i still try my best, and expect my opponent to too.

In other word the path towards the end is the fun part , the win or lose is nothing but a result.


And for the people that do everything to win , sure they win, but they already lost before they started.

Regardless of army list, playing to win does unfortunately have a huge impact on my games.

Not me, of course. I'm too casual type to play to win. I'm somewhat tired of people I play with trying to Win at all costs.

It's seriously just a game. Feel absolutely free to take 9 obliterators and a lash prince, but don't throw Feth-Bombs at me cause your dice rolled bad.

At one point, after a match, my opponent challenged me to a "who is the best Fantasy player match". To shut him up, I took Dwarves. He covered the entire board with trees (not area terrain of course, and I do mean the entire area)) I ask him about terrain set up. He states "I'm hosting, I can set up". I told him either he set up fairly or we call off the game. After beating him, he responds.

"It's not fair, your army is too good."

Too good? too good? stop B#$%^ing and deal with a loss! Dear Lord..

In some ways i have the same views as Luna. HMBC you cant say everyone plays to win...thats not right. Everyone has their own reason for playing a certain game. I'm sure theres alot of people that play Warhammer....mostly because they like the fluff and painting...and also like to take their army out for a spin here and there...to have some fun....while trying to be competitve...but not really playing for a win...by playing perfect.

For example...I play basketball. Do i play to win? nope not really. I play 50% for the exercise 25% to have something to do with my friends and 25% to do well...maybe win....ud be surprised how much fun something can be...if you just relax.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Just to nip this in the bud before we get started:

If anyone comes in here and says that they don't play to win, stop lying. If you don't play to win, then you either pay to draw or to lose, and I doubt anyone here actually does either of those without a very specific set of circumstances (ie. teaching a new player, placating a partner, etc.).

How you choose to attempt to do so and how narrowly you are focused on that aspect of the play experience is the thing though.

I personally try to build armies that contain models I like first and foremost or represent certain archetypes. I then try to formulate some strategy and/or list to use them that seems fluffy and in keeping with the spirit of the 40K universe and the army in question.

I'd much rather focus on a cool scenario/campaign and cool terrain then worry about crunching numbers and playing theorymachine. The game is a vehicle to tell an evolving story in a fictional universe/setting for me not a sport designed to crush my opponent for the sake of winning or proving myself. Do my little toys try to survive/win the fight? Sure. After all we are simulating a battle and my role is to utilize my pieces in a way that simulates this, But an equally compelling story can be told if I happen to end up playing the role of the slaughtered who fight to the last against the enemy. My toy soldiers in their roles as fictional beings in a fictional universe "lost", I didn't Lose anything really, I got to witness a cool story and see it play out. The games in which my opponent is equally drawn into bringing the 40K universe to life and telling a good tale in a sense are the ones I still remember years later...

H.B.M.C. wrote:And none of these three involve any malice. The only whirring and gnashing of teeth comes from the players who want to complain that people are 'abusing' a ruleset, a ruleset written by people who don't know and/or don't care if it’s balanced. I say go with it - if it's legal, bring it. If it's a bad unit and you still like it, bring it anyway. People shouldn't complain when someone finds a killer combo in a terribly written set of rules and, worse, they shouldn't act surprised when these combos are found.

I agree. I've gotten past the point of caring about Nob Bikers or Deathstorm drop pods, or whatever. The odds of my winning the game are so fething remote, it's not worth it to get a reputation for being fussy about opponents' lists. That's not to say I don't try to win once the game is underway, but I'm aware of the fact it's a remote possibility at best. My list building skills are pathetic, I have an unreasonable fondness for the shittiest units in the game, and I refuse to field certain things, such as non-converted vehicles (every single one I own is either modified or scratchbuilt).

So yes, the objective of any one game is to win it, for me and for everyone else, but winning games isn't the reason I bother to show up. Looking at my record, it should be obvious.

interesting topic - constantly getting pounded is pretty demoralising, and can reduce the fun of the game. Most people play a game to win (although the fun is in the trying to win). I play a mate who is really very good (doesnt play broken lists, cos he changes it every game - mixes it up), and he is very hard to beat.

I take my enjoyment from improving, and being a challenging opponent!

(ps - great snippet!).
I agree with the cool scenario and terrain improving the game too - i love cityfight, and use lots of capturing buildings and capturing objectives - makes it a bit differnt from simply gettting written off the board every game!

I see it like this:

The point of the game is to have fun.
The objective of the game is to win.

People should always be playing to win, but shouldn't get all pissed when they don't. I play Space Wolves and Lose Quite a bit, But that doesn't stop me having fun with the game.

This reminds me strongly of my experience in a game called Aetherverse. It let you design your own units, and the metagame slowly shifted towards more and more powerful troops. It reached one point where the only way to beat the powerful troops was to make powerful troops, and then 2 new army types emerged. One was made up of really weak units, 10 points each vs 200 point monstrosities, and the other was a very min/maxed unit that was about 40 points that had the same firepower of a 200 point unit, but only 2" range, and auto-die-to-anything survivability, offset by the ability to teleport deep strike.

I play to have fun. Sure, winning a game is fun, but so is loosing so long as it's competative and not a squash. I remember one of my favourite games of 5th Ed being when I had virtually tabled an opponent, but when the game ended niether of us had any scoring units left and so we had to call it a draw. He knew he couldn't win after turn three so he threw all his fire power at my troops, and I tried to stop the little Guardsmen from dying too horribly.

Fun stuff.

I think we almost always play to win, because, well, that's the aim of the game. If the only thing on your mind is winning, though, then I reckon you've just broken the most important rule, and I'll usually try and avoid playing you again. It's about fun, folks, for both sides. If the only way you get any pleasure out of the game is fielding an unpainted army designed to crush all opponents and make sure they have no hope...then you might wanna stick with video games.

I absolutely cannot stand losing.

It's a terrible character flaw I know, but I do anything to stay on top and win. I probably picked the worst army in WFB to not accomplish losing, Greenskins, as they will kill each other sooner or later, sooner probably than later.

But people enjoy my nerd raging rants. They get comedy and action.

I don't have to win, but I refuse to lose.

You should try to play on tournaments in Poland, guys
Generally polish gamers community is set on winning rather than having great fun. And if there are some prizes for top 3 places then surely you can expect things like 2x Demon Prince with Lash of Submission in most CSM rosters And situation with Fantasy Battle is even worse...
Of course those guys are very upset when i start to laugh at them and pity their powergaming efforts

Well let me just explain the 3 type of people

a) play to win , dont care who they face , win is a win.

b) play for the thrill , if the opponent is like a mirror,
then woot! FUN

c) they dont care about anything, period.

I don't particularly care if I win - it's a bonus if I do, but I play to put my painted minis on the table. I was never the most competitive person out there (that's my douchebag little brother). It's more about the story of the game than the trophies for me.

Several of my clubmates ONLY play to win - and are exceptionally bad losers. Throwing dice across the room (or miniatures) language that would make a wharfie blush (from 14 year olds). If they can't win (all scoring units gone), then they give up - the possibility of drawing the game just doesn't sit with them. Even if they still have units more than capable of contesting units.

I'd rather be a gracious loser than an ungracious winner.

chromedog wrote:I'd rather be a gracious loser than an ungracious winner.

QFT x9001

Honestly, I could care less if I win or lose. Now that doesn't mean I won't bring a good list. I very much enjoy list building and trying to come up with cool and challenging army lists and enjoy a good, competitive game that challenges me to make good tactical decisions and earn a win. However, if I win or lose, I don't really care. If I learned something new about how the list performed or what I did wrong to cause me to lose, I like to analyze it to improve my tactics or keep in mind what worked well and use it again.

All of that never comes in the way of me enjoying creating a story on the tabletop and having fun. I don't see the point of sitting across the table from someone for an hour or two just to beat them to a pulp without regard to the fact they may not be having a good time. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could care less and just want to beat anyone with their super hard list, and it's really sad. We're pushing toy soldiers across a table and rolling dice. I think some people should probably do some self reflection if it's very important for them to beat someone else with their toy soldiers at the expense of having a good time.

Well I usally play for fun so who wins is never really important,but my friend whatever we may be playing(wargames,video games,etc.)is a bad winner.He will get up in my face,shouts swear words,does disturbing hip thrusts and genrally just is a total *^$@*!$#$ for the rest of the afternoon.

LunaHound wrote:HBMC i dont play to win

So at no point do you try to win any game you play? If your answer to this is yes, you are a unique human being... or a communist.

Alternativley, see the quote from Gwar below. He got the point across quite well (better than I did):

Gwar! wrote:The point of the game is to have fun.
The objective of the game is to win.

People should always be playing to win, but shouldn't get all pissed when they don't. I play Space Wolves and Lose Quite a bit, But that doesn't stop me having fun with the game.

That's probably a better way of putting it than I did.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

LunaHound wrote:HBMC i dont play to win

So at no point do you try to win any game you play? If your answer to this is yes, you are a unique human being... or a communist.

Alternativley, see the quote from Gwar below. He got the point across quite well (better than I did):

Gwar! wrote:The point of the game is to have fun.
The objective of the game is to win.

People should always be playing to win, but shouldn't get all pissed when they don't. I play Space Wolves and Lose Quite a bit, But that doesn't stop me having fun with the game.

That's probably a better way of putting it than I did.

Damnit HBMC You're meant to say "Gwar! is 100% Right" ;(

But yes, I agree. It's impossible not to play "to win" because the whole objective of the game is to win. If you don't play to win (i.e Playing to lose)you are effectively denying your opponent the right to a fun game.

It all comes down to this simple distinction:

How you answer the question "Why do you play?". I've found that, when gaming, even if I don't have a chance in the world to win, I'll still give my opposition a run for their money, or do my damnedest to do so. Prime example, in my case: I enjoy FPS games for consoles, they're simple, don't require too much thought, and they're a good diversion for a few hours, and I especially enjoy pitting myself against my friends.

However, there's a bit of a snag...

I have mild cerebral palsy in the right half of my body. This makes actually manipulating a controller a bit of a task at times, and responding with lightning reflexes without re-mapping the controls and then having to relearn how to play the game as a result. Physical handicap or no, I'll get in a few games with my friends, some rounds I'll go on an ungodly spree and come in first or second, others will end up with my hand not wanting to cooperate, and I'll end up in dead last, with no kills. It doesn't bother me. I play this game because I enjoy it, and I enjoy the various aspects of it outside of the game itself. I play video games because I find them to be a nice way to spend a bit of free time and blow off some steam.

It's a game. If you feel the need to take up a hobby for the purpose of "winning" you need to look at your priorities.

You try to win in order to better yourself. It's a motivator for personal improvement, and nothing to be ashamed of or looked down on unless it's coupled with unsportsmanlike behavior.

With that out of the way, the crux of the argument for the original post is that games (and other things like war) have rules - some deliberate and some unspoken. When playing to win, you are very likely to trample through many of the unspoken rules if you either do not agree with them or are not aware of them. This is a fault of the game and not the players (yes even in the war scenarios).

So the article is really more about bad games, and how motivated players will expose them as such.

Well, the OP's article raises an interesting point, which is that most games really are about winning, but they're about winning a certain way, or be accomplishing a certain goal. In the Fleet sim described, the goal wasn't to create the best theoretically possible fleet, it was to create the best practical fleet. Hundreds of small PT boats might win an engagment, but will be of little use in patrols, bombardments, riding out storms on the high seas, etc. In addition, attrition and casualties have an impact, both in terms of home front morale and the loss of talent. There were no rules for that in the game set, and so a player that had no concern for the unwritten but generally accepted rules would have a huge advantage: they can use the rules as rules and exploit it.

From what I've read, that was in many ways what Rogue Trader and to a lesser extent 2nd edition 40k was like. There were so many options that the only real thing holding back bizarre yet powerful combos were the taboos placed on them.

Modern 40k (and BTW, we really need a term for 40k since 3rd edition) has tighter codices, a force org chart, and now mission based incentive to include troops. They replaced the old, unwritten rules of "you're army should look like a representative force from the 40k universe" to now requiring that any legal, list conform at least slightly to the background. I now don't feel pressured to not include four librarians in my marine army, I just can't do it.

What does any of this have to do with playing to win? Well, playing to win usually involves trying to win, which means doing things that maybe aren't allowed under the unwritten rules. Not all taboos are as strong, and when the incentive is high (like mixing slaanesh and nurgle in an army) it becomes easier to violate those taboos.

I think in general there are many levels of playing to win:
Cheater: this guy will simply cheat to win.

WAAC: This guy will not cheat, but will do anything legally possible to win. Chipmunking, stalling, arguing rules, and constantly checking LOS are all legal, yet really annoying ways to play.

Big Dog: This guy won't be a jerk, but wants to win and won't be afraid to pull out an obscure rule or a wicked army combination to do it. It's hard to really hate the guy, because he's playing fair, but playing hard. Don't expect much in the way of being able to go back and shoot forgotten units (unless the Big Dog thinks being owed a courtesy is valuable to him).

Little Dog: This where most of us are. We want to win, when tensions rise we'll play a little tighter, but most of the time we're pretty loose and fun. We'll allow a take back or a forgotten reserve and generally give the benefit of the doubt on things like LOS, blast coverage, cover, etc.

The Nice Guy: This person wants to win, but wants to have fun more than anything. He'll buy you a coke while you're taking your moves, won't question rules, and in general seems willing to go with the flow. Be wary: this persona often conceals a brilliant tactical mind. Extra caution: Nice guys aren't chumps, and if you try to pull something on the wrong one, he'll remember it forever. Many Nice Guys, particularly those that used to be Big Dogs, can adopt that persona again when required.

The Chump: it's insulting, but it's the player that really is just there to move models and roll dice. They either have little knowledge of how to play hard, or choose not to. While a fun opponent in an scenario based mission, he's really not build for any sort of competitive gaming. The best of them will accept a handicap and try to give an opponent a run for their money. The worst will whine when they get stomped again and again.

Anyway, the most successful competitive gamers aren't the WAAC jerks, they're the big dogs that play hard, play fair, but still treat their opponents with respect and dignity.

"It's ooonly a game soooo put up a real good fight, we're gonna be snookering you, snookering you tonight!" God I loved that show It's a given that people play to win in any game, it's just human nature and playing to lose is boring for everyone.

GW games are imbalanced, much like MMORPG's they suffer massivley from power creep and FOTM gaming. Attempts to balance introduce new power swings and around we go again. No-ones perfect and if they have any sense they are not trying to be, a nerf/buff cycle promotes new armies which means more money.

This means that quite a few lists will auto-win against other lists assuming reasonabley skilled generals. So the real competition is in the metagame of working out what the overpowered options are, which ones trump each other and building a list that can trump as many as possible. Then going out and not fething it up.

Personally I cannot afford in time or money to keep up so I buy models I like and tweak them to the metagame as much as I can within the resctrictions of what I have. Ideally though I play in a local club with themed lists in a storyline campaign that has a games master (RPG style), that is the most fun with 40k for me GW should just bring the GM back into the fold like rogue trader days *sigh*

Polonius wrote:Well, the OP's article raises an interesting point, which is that most games really are about winning, but they're about winning a certain way, or be accomplishing a certain goal. In the Fleet sim described, the goal wasn't to create the best theoretically possible fleet, it was to create the best practical fleet. Hundreds of small PT boats might win an engagment, but will be of little use in patrols, bombardments, riding out storms on the high seas, etc.

*Traveller player pipes in* The issue wasn't that there were lots of Battleriders (What you are calling PT boats). Fleets of battleriders carried into battle by a bigger ship to get more of the big guns are part of the traveller canon

Granted, most TCS tourneys now have a pilot number limit and a jump/maneuver rating min now because of that

I'm a competitor. I strive to defeat my opponent, and expect the same of him.

It's most fun to win a difficult game. Next is losing a difficult game. Way down there is a game that isn't a competition (either way), and way below even that is argueing about the game.

BeefyG wrote:

I especially find the part about the Traveller Trillion Credit Squadron Tournament interesting and directly pertinent to gaming which I will cut and paste in this section for others to read, but would encourage people to read the whole thing. For further reading on the topic you can try Sirlins: "Playing to win" http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Win-Becoming-David-Sirlin/dp/1411666798
Or you could go to the source and read "The Art of War" Sun Tzu

From that link I got this quote:

Next is the tough section that's hard for people to swallow. The #1 thing holding back most players is purely mental. You must shed all the rules and limitations that exist in your head about how to play, and instead start using all legal moves available to you to win. You must also give up the ridiculous notion that other players should abide by the made-up rules in your head.

This is what I lot of people have trouble with. I know I do.

I agree Blackmoor, sometimes I think you somewhat hold yourself back with some of your lists. I do it with some of my lists.

I play to win, I wont deny it but I want a challenging win and prefer to play quality players like Blackmoor.

Also from Sirlin's article. Emphasis mine in how it relates to particular wargames.

The Whole Point
Imagine a majestic mountain nirvana of gaming. At its peak are fulfillment, "fun", and even transcendence. Most people could care less about this mountain peak, because they have other life issues that are more important to them, and other peaks to pursue. There are few, though, who are not at this peak, but who would be very happy there. These are the people I'm talking to. Some of them don't need any help; they're on the journey. Most, though, only believe they are on that journey but actually are not. They got stuck in a chasm at the mountain's base, a land of scrubdom. Here they are imprisoned in their own mental constructs of made up game rules. If they could only cross this chasm, they would discover either a very boring plateau (for a degenerate game) or the heavenly enchanted mountain peak (for a "deep" game). In the former case, crossing the chasm would teach them to find a different mountain with more fulfilling rewards. In the latter case, well, they'd just be happier. All "playing to win" was supposed to be is the process of shedding the mental constructs that trap players in the chasm who would be happier at the mountain peak.

Along the lines of thinking from OP's and Sirlin's article is that playing to win necessarily means ruffling the feathers of many people who are NOT playing to win, but are forced to play you. Since any wargame necessarily takes a very long time to setup and play to completion, I've really found it exhausting to 'play to win' in these circumstances. It's great when you have a like-minded person across the table, but when you're facing a scrub it's basically like throwing 2-3 hours of your life away - for what?

I've long wished that I could bring a second list to big tournaments for these instances where my opponent looks across the table and immediately starts complaining. I would like to say "Alright well we can both see that this game will suck. Want to play a fun game against this other list instead while we wait for the next round? Mark me a win and lets have some fun". The trick here is that while most non-playing-to-win players in this circumstance would want to play against the weaker list, since they see the stronger list as a waste of time also, they wouldn't want to give away the win in order to do it. Not playing to win, while wanting to win - Sirlin does have plenty to say about that.

In a faster paced setting it's easier to dig through this crap and get to that 'boring plateau' or 'heavenly enchanted mountain peak' of a game.

I was trained as an engineer, and did a lot of Fluff-less, tool-supported / computer-assisted optimizing of armies / forces / whatever. It's a rather soulless way to play, but, OTOH, it is also very effective at winning.


The key is figuring out what you want from any given game.


If all you want to do is win, then great, more power to you. Just don't be upset when people recognize it. *cough*WAAC*cough*

If you want to prove that a ruleset has weaknesses, that's not hard to do, as there will, inevitably, be exploits. Just don't be upset when those holes get closed. *cough*CSM Legions*cough*

HI all.
I tend to vary my mindset to the rule set I am using.
If the rule set is developed for balanced competative play, I can play competativley or narativley.

If the rule set is developed for narrative co-operative play , then playing competativley is a bit pointless IMO.

However the MOST important thing is to make sure your oponent is wanting the same sort of game as you!

Happy Gaming ,
Lanrak.

The best part of Sirlin's article is talking about Street Fighter 2.

I have to say that in my experience, Games Workshop games are really crappy games to try and be competitive at. The best gaming experience for the sake of being competitive I've ever experienced was at Yu-Gi-Oh! Top 8 tables. I ran very unconventional decks (as such my opponent would not know what to expect), but many of the other players ran decks you could find the lists for all over the place, with a few minor tweaks. These were the times I was pushed fully to the limit, weighing every possible option and my opponent doing the same. I miss it. But yeah, GW games, quite frankly, aren't good enough for this level of competition.

I encourage people in my gaming group to do what they want with their lists, with one caveat;

If you're bringing something extreme to a friendly game, have the decency to let your opponent know beforehand, so that the games aren't lopsided.

By lopsided, I mean overloading on one type of thing that is naturally hard to deal with. This could be taking 180 ork boyz, or 8 MCs, or it could be bringing 6 podding iron-clads, or a land-raider rush.

There are few armies that, designed for all-comer games, can cope with an overload of AV14, Walkers, or infantry horde spam.

Rather than call these armies cheesy, or unfair, I think it is reasonable to allow them into the gaming environment, as long as the person who is going to be playing against them has an opportunity to design a list with this in mind.

I think that the real strength behind most of the overpowering tournament armies is not so much that they're just better, but that they tend towards the extreme, where an average army simply doesn't have to tools to cope with the one specific aspect of the game that the extreme army has focused on. And I don't really think that's a problem with the game, it's a problem with the nature of tournaments that require people to bring all-comer lists that are unable to adjust when forced to play the extreme builds.

I really agree that playing to win makes the experience better, so long as both folks are gentlemenly about it. I win pretty few of my games, but many of my favorites have been those hard losses and ties. Usually the only things that bother me about losses are my own stupid mistakes and the fact we don't have time to try again immediately.

Really, this thread makes me miss playing MTG competitively in highschool and college. As stated above, really competitive games are more fun when there isn't a long set up time, and we used to be able to pound through 10-40 games in about 2 hours back in the day. Of course during the games it seemed like hours of thought and stress went into each turn.
We also made a point to discuss the power level we wanted to play a game at. Did we want fun theme decks, or was it time to break out the killer deck we had come up with? Discussing this (even if just "Ok Jim, break out Ridiculous, I think I have an answer for it.) beforehand made things a lot better. I think most 40k players need to get used to this.

In relation to the article above, GW needs that program and computer array for their testing. Put in their alpha codexes, see what it comes up with, make changes, and repeat until the rules are optimized to produce the needed flavor. I don't know how much it would cost to have such a program created, but companies drop many millions on ERP software, so it has to be within the realm of possiblity

Agreed. If what your playing with does a lot of one thing, that thing is bound to happen sooner or later. hence why "side decks" should be obligatory for every game at tournaments, in my mind.

When two players have the same mindset about the game, they'll have a good game. If it's two guys playing fluff-based lists, or two guys playing good all-comers lists, or two guys playing the hardest list they can find - it doesn't matter, they'll both enjoy the game. When one of them wants to play his hardest list and the other guy is more focused on building the Cadian 82nd - at least one of them will be disappointed (the hardest-list guy might be glad for an 'easy' win or might be disappointed that it wasn't a tougher match-up for him).

Almost all the angst goes back to tournies. And that is why I think it's very important for the tourney organizer to publish the rules beforehand. If you know that some "comp" scoring is worth 10% of the points, the Fzorgle guy can't complain that it's 'unfair' how everyone wants to give him low soft scores. Conversely, if there's no soft scores (or at least no comp), the guy with the Cadian 82nd can't complain about getting his army kicked in by Fzorgle or Nob Bikers or 6 Ironclads.

GW supports a hobby. Playing the game is part of the hobby, but not the whole hobby. Some only enjoy the gaming part, some really enjoy the painting, and that's a good thing because it gives variety.

That would be an interesting touch for 40k: 250 points of "reserves" that could be switched out in a tourney. Or 25% of the list value, or something. That would help deal with some of the irksome "rock-paper-scissors" game design, as well as limiting some of the "spam list" issue. There are a lot of units that are only good at one thing, and while cool sometimes, when that one thing doesn't come up much at all, the meta game tends to dictate that they get left at home.

Wehrkind wrote:That would be an interesting touch for 40k: 250 points of "reserves" that could be switched out in a tourney. Or 25% of the list value, or something. That would help deal with some of the irksome "rock-paper-scissors" game design, as well as limiting some of the "spam list" issue. There are a lot of units that are only good at one thing, and while cool sometimes, when that one thing doesn't come up much at all, the meta game tends to dictate that they get left at home.

this idea get's brought up from time to time. I think the problem is simply implementaion. You have to verfiy that the base list is legal, that the sideboard is legal, and that the adjusted list is still legal. Some armies are also far easier to sideboard against, most notably deep strikers by Imperium, MC spam by any race with snipers, etc. It might push the environment a little bit away from spam/gimmick lists, but it might do so at the cost of some really neat builds.

This question reminds me quite a bit about the things my sifu has taught me in my study of competitive martial arts:

"You may not win, but you will not be beaten." - Sifu expects a certain level of success during competition and the training we receive from him allows us to fail in scoring points, but not lose morale. Such a loss encourages spiteful reaction to an otherwise friendly opponent which would be poor sportsmanship, of course. This aphorism can also be interpreted in that it is important to give your all in a fight (or game...) and to strive to do your best even when you are losing.

"The person you are fighting is fighting you back." Simply put, while you are striving to defeat your opponent, he is trying his best to do the same to you. This is to remind you that while you have tactics that you favor, your opponent's may be completely different. Also, your opponent may not have the same training or ideals, in particular regard to sportsmanship, that you have. You must observe your opponent and react appropriately both in and out of conflict.

"Once they're open, slip in and get you some ribs..." Don't hesitate to win a fight. This is especially true if your tactics have produced results that lead to a coup de grace, a killing stroke. When fighting, the goal is not to continue fighting, but to end it. This is not always the case when playing with little plastic men, however. While winning is everyone's intent (whether admitted or not - HBMC got it right), doing so gracefully is more important. It's true that even if he's blindfolded and I've slipped him a mickey my sifu can hand me my backside, but it's equally true that he doesn't do so unless I've earned it. If WAAC was true, his students would just be punching bags and soon he wouldn't have anyone to train.

"Once he's down, check his wallet. Take some money for your time." Well, that one may not always apply, but having your opponent buy drinks when he loses might be the closest translation...

Just thought I'd mention that you can read Playing To Win for free from the authors website:
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

Gwar! wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

LunaHound wrote:HBMC i dont play to win

So at no point do you try to win any game you play? If your answer to this is yes, you are a unique human being... or a communist.

Alternativley, see the quote from Gwar below. He got the point across quite well (better than I did):

Gwar! wrote:The point of the game is to have fun.
The objective of the game is to win.

People should always be playing to win, but shouldn't get all pissed when they don't. I play Space Wolves and Lose Quite a bit, But that doesn't stop me having fun with the game.

That's probably a better way of putting it than I did.

Damnit HBMC You're meant to say "Gwar! is 100% Right" ;(

But yes, I agree. It's impossible not to play "to win" because the whole objective of the game is to win. If you don't play to win (i.e Playing to lose)you are effectively denying your opponent the right to a fun game.

basically i play to remove / annihilate the other guy , that *experience is what i think is fun. even if i lose doing it it doesnt matter.
because of the mission have different objective , i still play to just kill things.


One example i guess i can use to explain myself.

Some people say the purpose of creatng delicious food is to eat it . ( like winning i guess? its the result )
but for some people for example chefs , they have fun creating the food even if they dont ever get to eat it ( the fun experience )
thats how it is for me , gaming atleast.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:"side decks" should be obligatory for every game at tournaments, in my mind.

Personally, I don't like this for minis games with variable point values. For Magic, it's card for card substitutions, so you can quickly count the sideboard. But for 40k, you'd have to validate points and options and such.

I say: "dance with what you brung", and accept that not all lists will be favorable matchups. In minis games, f both players retune, you should get back to the starting points.
____

Wehrkind wrote:That would help deal with some of the irksome "rock-paper-scissors" game design, as well as limiting some of the "spam list" issue. There are a lot of units that are only good at one thing, and while cool sometimes, when that one thing doesn't come up much at all, the meta game tends to dictate that they get left at home.

Actually, sideboards make things worse, because now, players feel free to take the hosers that they wouldn't normally take simply because they're dead weight in most games. It forces the game to be more degenerate.

In a RPS environment, with any substantial sideboard, just take a transformational sideboard, to switch from playing rock (to beat scissors) *or* scissors (to beat paper), and there aren't any "bad" matchups.
____

LunaHound wrote: basically i play to remove / annihilate the other guy , that *experience is what i think is fun. even if i lose doing it it doesnt matter.
because of the mission have different objective , i still play to just kill things.

Oh, I do that a lot.

For example, Pirates game is supposed to be about collecting treasure, but I like to sink enemy ships!

I will play to win but if the outcome is so overbalanced in my favour I will pull back, start making mistakes. Its fun to beat someone, not neccesarily fun to utterly crush them.

Polonius wrote:
Big Dog: This guy won't be a jerk, but wants to win and won't be afraid to pull out an obscure rule or a wicked army combination to do it. It's hard to really hate the guy, because he's playing fair, but playing hard. Don't expect much in the way of being able to go back and shoot forgotten units (unless the Big Dog thinks being owed a courtesy is valuable to him).

I must admit, that probably describes me 80% of the time. If I'm playing a game at my place with a good friend, I become the 'little dog', but if I'm playing against someone I don't know down at the local shop, or at a tournie, I'm a 'Big Dog' all the way.

But that's because if I go to the trouble of crafting an army/deck list, I make it the most competitive one I possibly can. I think doing anything less would be a disservice to the game, to my opponent, and to myself. After all, why do things by half measures? Why enter into a game, if not to play to win? If me and some friends are having a beer, and just whiling away an evening, I'll be more than happy to let them go back and do something that they forgot to do in the last phase, but against a complete stranger on a campaign weekend at GW HQ, probably not. Why? To be honest, because I wouldn't expect the same back if I screwed up. The game has rules, they're there to be followed, and if you go to a tournament, or competitive game not knowing them, then that's really your own fault. It's a bit harsh, but there you go.

Really interesting discussion so far! I was scared that people were losing the point back a bit, but some insightful posts brought it back.

So if playing to win forces you to evaluate your own intent and be mindful of your opponent, better "more fun" games can be the only outcome.

Once you know yourself a bit better, understanding "The chasm" you might be stuck in...or worse yet scrubdom...you can do something about it and move onto higher and more fulfilling peaks. You can only change something once you become fully aware of it.

What consensus do you come up with in your gaming groups about certain games with the above points in mind?

Does anyone have any stories of "enlightenment" in their gaming groups leading to dramatic change?

So if playing to win forces you to evaluate your own intent and be mindful of your opponent, better "more fun" games can be the only outcome.

Not necessarily. In my schools Magic TG community we have one really really good player and a bunch of better than average players. That changed recently when some of us started dropping larger sums of money into our decks. So instead of everyone playing with semi competitive decks all of a sudden four players got decks that horribly outclassed all of the other decks and those players started winning pretty much everygame they played. So, the really good player (His name is Steve) went out and spent about 60 dollars on an incredibly competetive deck which he designed himself. (A reliable first turn Akroma Angel of Wrath for those that are interesed.) And pretty much blew everyone else out of the water every single game. The only ones we won were the ones where everyone ganged him first and he got a series of bad draws. So the magic scene dried up. We still play but it's not nearly as fun or with as many people as before. The metagame simply got out of hand and that killed the fun for most players as they didn't have access to the funds or cards needed to beat Steve on a continued basis.

PS: We play casual FYI, the only limit on cards is no unglued etc.

Ratbarf wrote:

So if playing to win forces you to evaluate your own intent and be mindful of your opponent, better "more fun" games can be the only outcome.

Not necessarily. In my schools Magic TG community we have one really really good player and a bunch of better than average players. That changed recently when some of us started dropping larger sums of money into our decks. So instead of everyone playing with semi competitive decks all of a sudden four players got decks that horribly outclassed all of the other decks and those players started winning pretty much everygame they played. So, the really good player (His name is Steve) went out and spent about 60 dollars on an incredibly competetive deck which he designed himself. (A reliable first turn Akroma Angel of Wrath for those that are interesed.) And pretty much blew everyone else out of the water every single game. The only ones we won were the ones where everyone ganged him first and he got a series of bad draws. So the magic scene dried up. We still play but it's not nearly as fun or with as many people as before. The metagame simply got out of hand and that killed the fun for most players as they didn't have access to the funds or cards needed to beat Steve on a continued basis.

PS: We play casual FYI, the only limit on cards is no unglued etc.

Well that's your own fault. What you should have done is not play the guy with the tournament deck and keep playing casually.

brad3104 wrote:

For example...I play basketball. Do i play to win? nope not really. I play 50% for the exercise 25% to have something to do with my friends and 25% to do well...maybe win....ud be surprised how much fun something can be...if you just relax.

That's why I wargame. It's about 90% of the physical exercise I'll ever get...

Wait, what?

malfred wrote:

brad3104 wrote:

For example...I play basketball. Do i play to win? nope not really. I play 50% for the exercise 25% to have something to do with my friends and 25% to do well...maybe win....ud be surprised how much fun something can be...if you just relax.

That's why I wargame. It's about 90% of the physical exercise I'll ever get...

Wait, what?

I Heartily endorse this mans Product and/or Service!

But yes, comparing Basketball to Playing with Little Plastic Men/Women/Griblies is like saying Usain Bolt is the same level of athlete as Mr "I-Can-Eat-94-Pies-In-4-Minutes"

Well that's your own fault. What you should have done is not play the guy with the tournament deck and keep playing casually.

He wasn't using a tournament deck. None of us were, or if we were it was more by accident than intention.

I've read that article before, and thoroughly despise it. In my experience (wargaming since 1986) the vast majority of the societal problems with most wargamers stem from the mentality that "you must win to have fun/not have wasted your time/etc". This boils down to "you must win" for most people. However, what it also produces is hostility between players within a group - if any members of a group are either unable or unwilling to adjust to the local metagame (such as with the MtG example described above) they're essentially going to be doomed to losing every game. While winning isn't a necessity to enjoyment of a pastime, the lack of hope engendered by the situation of "never being able to win" means that people will eventually drop the game entirely (again, as described above).

And, frankly, any attitude that drives people out of the hobby is bad.

Look, I play to win. I WANT to win every game I play. I understand that I won't do so, and as such, my enjoyment of the game is completely divorced (or at least, to the limit of my ability) from whether or not I DO win. The spirit and story of the game are more important, as is the shared communal experience. If I don't want to play a person, why don't I go play Dawn of War, for example? I don't know why, but the Brits seem to have a greater handle on this then we Yanks do - I've yet to meet one who was focused entirely on winning the game. I'm sure they're out there, but I've yet to meet one. Frankly, I'd prefer to play one of them than any given American, and precisely for this reason.

LunaHound wrote:
basically i play to remove / annihilate the other guy , that *experience is what i think is fun. even if i lose doing it it doesnt matter.
because of the mission have different objective , i still play to just kill things.


One example i guess i can use to explain myself.

Some people say the purpose of creatng delicious food is to eat it . ( like winning i guess? its the result )
but for some people for example chefs , they have fun creating the food even if they dont ever get to eat it ( the fun experience )
thats how it is for me , gaming atleast.

I agree with this. I play to kill stuff which is something I don't do in the real world. I don't necessarily play to win but I don't lose and it's easy to tie in 5th ed 40k. I often play to annoy and generally piss opponents off by doing random things like standing around for 4 turns or running past their lines just to see if I can make it and not lose in the process I only do that sort of stuff in 40k though because you can't mess around in fantasy or warmachine and have a decent game

A lot of these viewpoints also depend on context.

If your at a tournament, don't complain that your opponent brought a list he thought was going to win the tournament.

If your playing Apocalypse or in a campaign, don't complain when someone brings a weak but background rich army.

I feel that the nature of wargames do lend a bit to the idea of story-driven games, and that there are at times more reasons to play than winning.
For me, its how the army looks on the field. I have often taken two weaker units rather than one strong one, simply because the army composition looked better on the battlefield. when writing an army list, I break out the minis I'm going to use, to make sure the army has a balanced visual look.

I don't play tournaments anymore, but when I did, I did NOT use this particular method of army building. I'm not a WAAC player by any means, but a tournament is exactly that. there's a reason the biggest trophy is for best general. If you want your background to be the winner, enter a writing contest. The same goes for painting.

To me, complaining about army comp at a tournament is like complaining about color selection for a model entered into the golden daemon. (hey! no fair! Liliana Troy used split-complementary colors on her single miniature! that's not in the spirit of painting!) I Don't enter golden daemon for the thrill of competing, I want a trophy. I enjoy the experience, but I still want the damn trophy.

The same applies to apocalypse and campaigns. Game-breaking combos, beardiness, and over-all WAAC mentalities can destroy these types of games. To me, when your playing apocalypse, your generating gamer nirvana. All the players involved are scripting a story. if it gets too lop-sided too fast, you have to correct it, or the players don't have a good time.
No one bats an eye when the slaughtered side gets a few extra thousand points to bring in from reserve on turn two, because his only super-heavy went nuclear and wiped out half his army. you fix the problem because that style of game calls for it.

I don't do tourneys anymore, but I LOVE players that are hard-core, and we can tear at each others throats like rabid wolves. I also love rich story line games, complete with made-up characters and modified rules. Its just all about the context of why you play, and why your opponent is playing.

Happy cinco de mayo! I'm drinking for my non-drinking mexican co=workers tonight, so I've had some extra taqulia before posting this.

Why not have a tournament with a fixed list. That way no-one has any "unfair" advantage over anybody else. It will just come down to set up and generalship. Is this like chess? Yes and no. If you could put your chess pieces where-ever you wanted before the game started, imagine how that would change the game. Then we would have the invention of the meta-setup. Oh great! A whole new can of worms!

Gwar! wrote:

malfred wrote:

brad3104 wrote:

For example...I play basketball. Do i play to win? nope not really. I play 50% for the exercise 25% to have something to do with my friends and 25% to do well...maybe win....ud be surprised how much fun something can be...if you just relax.

That's why I wargame. It's about 90% of the physical exercise I'll ever get...

Wait, what?

I Heartily endorse this mans Product and/or Service!

But yes, comparing Basketball to Playing with Little Plastic Men/Women/Griblies is like saying Usain Bolt is the same level of athlete as Mr "I-Can-Eat-94-Pies-In-4-Minutes"

Clearly you missed my point. My point was for lots of people basketball is something other than winning and losing....lots of the people at the park i go to...just play friendly games for exercise and fun...not really concerned with the winning part of it.

I wasnt comparing playing minis to playing basketball...i was giving an example...the subject matter makes no difference. My point was theres always other reasons to do something other than for a win. Like i said...lots of people play warhammer for other reasons than winning. Fluff, painting, converting, role play the list goes on. The reason you do anything is up to you. I know its hard for people concerned only with winning to think outside the box and realize theres so much more. But thats ok.

Swordguy wrote:I've read that article before, and thoroughly despise it.

In my experience (wargaming since 1986) the vast majority of the societal problems with most wargamers stem from the mentality that "you must win to have fun/not have wasted your time/etc". This boils down to "you must win" for most people.

Look, I play to win.

I've read Sirlin before, too, and I know where he's coming from, though I disagree that mastery of Street Fighter is some sort of nirvana that we should be striving for...

Having been there, where gaming is only measured in your win record, I completely agree that this fosters some bad habits and attitudes, particularly among those of us who have a competitive streak in us.

Nowadays, I more often play to win, rather than always playing to win. I think I have more fun this way, and think others, do too.

Swordguy wrote:"you must win to have fun/not have wasted your time/etc". This boils down to "you must win" for most people. However, what it also produces is hostility between players within a group - if any members of a group are either unable or unwilling to adjust to the local metagame (such as with the MtG example described above) they're essentially going to be doomed to losing every game.

Blame that on the people that gloat , trash talk, or make a big deal out of winning.

I wouldnt mind playing games with 'fluffy' armies, or anything thats fun... even if i know im not going to win.
I dont particularly like people who play ONLY to win, and gear lists soley to win. Its a game, have fun.

I'd have loads of fun playing guard troop spam lists with like, 150 minis on the table, against say, some chaos marines on a last stand, or something like that. Even if my flamer-spam guard gets stomped, it's still going to be hilarity when a 30 man group of conscripts break the line...

Of course, throwing games isnt fun, i would like SOME competition, but throwing ultimate-win models/moves in a friendly game isnt much fun when there's another option that might keep the game 'closer' in the end.

As a former high level street fighter player, sirlin's article is old and fairly well known.
However, the main criticism that my gaming group gave him is that he defines fun his way and the only way.
In street fighter it makes sense. It's pay to play, winner stays, loser pays.

However, his assertion is only true if you get the MOST fun out of winning.

The magic the gathering designers actually had a better grasp of fun reality, by marking players as one of 3 types:

1. Little Timmy: Likes the cool cards and tries to pull out the big creature.

2. The "style" guy, that trys to win using unusual strategies or combos.

3. The "Spike" guy, that tries to win using any means or methods necessary.

Sirlin asserts that the "Spike" mentality is the ONLY way to fully play a game and have fun...and that's just blatantly not true.

I'll use basketball as an example. Yes, in the NBA you want to play against the tallest guy because you want to test yourself and face the best competition. But you know what? Most of us are out of shape, don't like running that much, and it's absolutely no fun to be dominated that much all the time.

Does the majority of people find spending 3 hours a day doing mandatory practice fun? How about studying the game like you do a class?

That's where sirlin's argument fails horribly.

I really liked the article.

I will say for those of you that despise those types of players, there are a lot of people who get excited by his mountain peak analogy, and have fun by practicing, tweaking their list and trying to make it as good as possible. And then when it is reveling in the brutality Mwahaha.

I think 40k can be a great "chill with your buddies" game, with apoc and just making random lists, but it can also be great when treated the above way. The two polar opposites will always clash but do not assume that one is right and one is wrong. I will also say you see a lot more "the other guy is wrong" from the fluff at all costs rather than the win at all costs, from my experience. I also think a lot of people think TFG=WAAC but some of my best 40k buddies are WAAC mentality but great people to be around, and I have met some serious TFG from the fluffy moral high ground sort of stance.

But to each their own, live and let play warhammer, or something corny like that.

Lots of interesting points, but I don't think giving up reflects on your personality.
I've seen people leave games with the intonation of "You know what, I'm fethed. You win."

That's a fair comment. It's not a reflection on you as a person because it's a game, and the outcome doesn't matter. Real life is rather different to tiny plastic men shooting plastic guns at each other.

I'm a massive Street Fighter fan, as well as an avid wargamer.
When I play people at SF, I make sure they're ok and that I'm not pounding the gak out of them, which I can do really easily.
I'm currently teaching my girlfriend how to play. Understandably I'm not kicking the feth out of her, but I'm attacking steadily, and allowing her room to breathe and time to learn.
If I just owned her, round after round, she'd get fethed off and probably never play again.

And also, if I'm way out in front of an opponent, I'll give them an occasional re-roll, knowing that a good, friendly attitude to gaming will be reciprocated.

Like when my mono-green MTG deck kicks the feth out of my mates blue and white control deck. The first few games I was holding off putting the big boys into play. I lost a few games to him becuase of that, but it was still fun.

How does that reflect on me I wonder?

I love to play 40k because its there. Playing against an opponent who challenges me to think about what I do with my units, whether his/her list is broken or not, is a joy in itself.

That said, I dont mind winning. I just know it doesnt happen too often.

Tek wrote:
How does that reflect on me I wonder?

In my mind, it makes you a poor opponent. There is nothing more insulting than an opponent who either lets you win, or who holds back, in essence, toying with you. If you're actually teaching someone fundamentals, that is one thing (as it sounds like you're doing in your SF games against your girlfriend), but what you described in your magic games against your friend is just poor sportsmanship. Holding back cards that you know will let you win in order to give your opponent a few wins? Do you think so little of them that you don't think they can take a loss? Do hold their abilities in so much contempt that you believe that the only way they can win is if you let them?

I'd rather lose 100 games to someone than have them let me win one. I can learn from my mistakes, and their actions, if they're really playing. If they're letting me win, I'm taking false feedback (wins I don't deserve) into my learning, as well as not seeing real play demonstrated.

LunaHound wrote:

Swordguy wrote:"you must win to have fun/not have wasted your time/etc". This boils down to "you must win" for most people. However, what it also produces is hostility between players within a group - if any members of a group are either unable or unwilling to adjust to the local metagame (such as with the MtG example described above) they're essentially going to be doomed to losing every game.

Blame that on the people that gloat , trash talk, or make a big deal out of winning.

I don't think that quite nails it though. We have games where we talk a LOT of trash, mostly in my basement after a few Hard Cranberry's. But at the same time, we talk about the games we plan to have. If my buddy is comming over and says he has a new wierd list to try, I say ok and bust out something kind of fluffy and silly. If he says "Let's practice for the tournament" it is stinky cheese time. We are playing to win both times, by in the former we will be totally chill about forgetting to shoot, changing our minds mid turn, etc., while the latter it is "So solly... too slow la!" Both of us have a great time.

On the other hand, I have played with new people and been normal, friendly Wehrkind ("are you certain you want to DS there? Don't forget I have a DH Inq with mystics in that rhino for the free shots") and they take losing like their mom just died while sleeping with their brother, and win as though they just won the most grueling ultimate fighting championship EVAR. No trash talking involved.

I think your last bit is what makes all the difference: making a big deal about winning. It is just a game; play with the objective of winning when it is appropriate, play with the objective of teaching when appropriate but always play to have fun. Don't go to a tourney and expect softies, and don't assume that 12 year old at the store is Lord Macharius reincarnated (though you should ask.) Recognize though that the people who play hard and come up with the great combos and tactics make the game richer for everyone, even if watching them alpha strike your favorite unit turn one is disappointing. They may win the game, but you benefit from the learning experience.

@wehrkind:

Yes i understand the type of trash talk between friends and generally know each other long enough to play again in the future.

The type i cant tolerate are the type where they are strangers, and are generally obnoxious , bragging how good they are mid game etc etc.

Luna, I agree; they are little, feeble men, and need someone to promptly knock them down, steal their lunch money, and then take you to the prom.

Redbeard wrote:In my mind, it makes you a poor opponent. There is nothing more insulting than an opponent who either lets you win, or who holds back, in essence, toying with you. If you're actually teaching someone fundamentals, that is one thing (as it sounds like you're doing in your SF games against your girlfriend), but what you described in your magic games against your friend is just poor sportsmanship. Holding back cards that you know will let you win in order to give your opponent a few wins? Do you think so little of them that you don't think they can take a loss? Do hold their abilities in so much contempt that you believe that the only way they can win is if you let them?

The abilities of said opponents might in fact be contemptible enough to bar them from winning in the normal fashion, at which point letting them win simply becomes another kind of victory for you.

Against less able players, contempt is a perfectly justified emotion. I know most of my opponents at 40k and especially MTG laugh at me behind my back, and I hold no particular animosity towards them for doing so, because I suck at both games. Unfortunately, I'm nowhere near good enough to hold anyone else in contempt myself.

I play to win, because winning is the point of a game.

But I don't let it get in the way of the enjoyment of me or my opponent, because I play with a small group of friends it's not really a problem. If we run into a rules issue we normally just roll for it then work it out after the game, although sometimes if it's a really critical call we will sort it then and there.

But when I'm playing with my 4yr old or my neighbours kids I don't play to win at all, I play to lose because nothing sucks the fun out of learning a game than being thrashed every time you play.

Well unless they start bragging and then I'll give them a little fright to keep them honest.

With Street Fighter, there is only the game. There is not a 'hobby' associated with it. There is social interaction, but not a hobby.

GW supports a hobby. Playing the game is part of the hobby, but not the whole hobby. Different people enjoy different parts of the hobby.

Personally, I don't mind losing to a hard list and a good player. Hopefully, I learn from it. Sometimes, there's a RPS situation that occurs, or horribly good/bad luck, and you just have to accept it.

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Against less able players, contempt is a perfectly justified emotion. I know most of my opponents at 40k and especially MTG laugh at me behind my back, and I hold no particular animosity towards them for doing so, because I suck at both games. Unfortunately, I'm nowhere near good enough to hold anyone else in contempt myself.

There's a difference between sniggering at someone as they roll 15 ones, and holding them in contempt. Holding someone in contempt means that you consider yourself superior on a personal level, and scorn that person on a regular basis. If someone is prepared to hold someone else in contempt over what is essentially plastic figurines and dice rolling, then I think you're well within your rights to hold them in contempt back.

As General Melchett said:- 'You know, if there's one thing I've learnt from being in the Army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a Major, who got pooh-poohed, made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh. He pooh-poohed it! Fatal error! 'Cos it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment. Morale totally destroyed... by pooh-pooh!'

A lot of truth in that statement I feel.

Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
- General George Patton Jr

May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.
- General George Patton Jr


"You must do your damdest and win."
-General George S. Patton

"We've got no place in this outfit for good losers. We want tough hombres who will go in there and win!" - Admiral Jonas Ingram, 1926

I feel this sums it up better.

Ratbarf wrote:Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
- General George Patton Jr

May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.
- General George Patton Jr


"You must do your damdest and win."
-General George S. Patton

"We've got no place in this outfit for good losers. We want tough hombres who will go in there and win!" - Admiral Jonas Ingram, 1926

I feel this sums it up better.

There's a difference between war and a game. I've been in both, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to deal with someone who thinks that they're in any way comparable.

^Very true...

Wars , where people's future , their very lives and humanity and their spark of their existence are about to be extinguished . Which they'll try ANYTHING to preserve their existence and others , THATS JUSTIFIED.

But to relate that to a game where oh you just feel better if you win or so you wont lose face and you'll do everything you can to win a game?

No offence, but thats beyond pathetic.

I play to win. My strategy is in the list. If I am playing a fluff bunny, I bring a gimp list that fits. If I am playing a power gamer, I bring as much pain in hte list as I can dredge out of my head (usu. not much!). But once I put it on the table I call it as I see it and I don't bar many holds from myself.

People enjoy playing against me, and I NEVER want for a game unless no one brought the same system. And even then, I can still usually work something out. It's been ages since I could not get a game going. Several years.

Me? Happy. Opponents? Happy. Everyone had fun. Where's the issue again?

I'll put it this way, I play to win...but if the win, draw, or loss isn't against a well-matched opponent, or an unmatched opponent with handicap, etc etc., than I will leave the table unhappy no matter what. I like playing hard games, whether I win, draw, or lose them.

Example: Playing a game two days ago, Dawn of War deployment, my Tau v.s. Tyranids, they placed their objective only inches away from my centre line of Fire Warriors (subsequently backed up by Kroot and my Crisis Command squad). The final turn came around, his Tyranids were in close combat with the Kroot and had wiped out one of the two centre Fire Warrior squads.

I held 2/5 objectives that turn, so I fired with the un-assaulted group of Fire Warriors into the Tyranid mob, and jumped my Crisis Command team onto the objective (in centre of the Tyranid swarm), and had enough room to contest the objective. I then ran one of my other squads to claim the last objective.

YAY! I just won...oh wait...I used a players mistake (removing the units near enough to the objective for me to contest it), to claim victory from what clearly would've been his had one more turn gone on. The player was 13, or maybe 14...and I felt absolutely terrible afterwards. Sure, it's the only way he'll learn...and I hope that he will.

It is games like that were I could've cared less about winning, and felt like trash even though I did.

I play to win.

If I dont win the game was a waste of my time.

If I dont win, that MAKES you an A-hole.

Winning the game somehow justifies me.

If YOU win, I have somehow failed at some aspect of my life.

If I dont beat you, somehow, you're playing the game wrong...or my dice were off.

I HATE losing at 40k, it makes me want to slash my wrists and eat babies.

Its ok if I blatantly cheat so long as you dont notice.

If you bend the rules even in the slightest, I will call you on it...then kick your face off.

If I think you might be able to make it to an objective in order to win the game...I'll move it when you arent looking.

I THROW my models into my carrying case after they die. They deserve it, its their fault, I'm a flawless commander.

I once lost a game, then tore my rulebook in half...it made me feel better.

If I'm in a Tournament, and I lose any game...I will stomp out of the tournament right then. Whats the point of finishing?

Wanna play?

Che-Vito wrote:I'll put it this way, I play to win...but if the win, draw, or loss isn't against a well-matched opponent, or an unmatched opponent with handicap, etc etc., than I will leave the table unhappy no matter what. I like playing hard games, whether I win, draw, or lose them.

Example: Playing a game two days ago, Dawn of War deployment, my Tau v.s. Tyranids, they placed their objective only inches away from my centre line of Fire Warriors (subsequently backed up by Kroot and my Crisis Command squad). The final turn came around, his Tyranids were in close combat with the Kroot and had wiped out one of the two centre Fire Warrior squads.

I held 2/5 objectives that turn, so I fired with the un-assaulted group of Fire Warriors into the Tyranid mob, and jumped my Crisis Command team onto the objective (in centre of the Tyranid swarm), and had enough room to contest the objective. I then ran one of my other squads to claim the last objective.

YAY! I just won...oh wait...I used a players mistake (removing the units near enough to the objective for me to contest it), to claim victory from what clearly would've been his had one more turn gone on. The player was 13, or maybe 14...and I felt absolutely terrible afterwards. Sure, it's the only way he'll learn...and I hope that he will.

It is games like that were I could've cared less about winning, and felt like trash even though I did.

That's why I always, every time, no matter whether I'm playing in a tournament or casual game remind my opponent if he's going to be doing something that will prevent him from winning.

I don't say things like "oh if you move them that far I'll be able to move and fire with this unit here, etc. etc. etc." unless I'm actually trying to teach someone a bit of strategy, but if they're going to do things like remove casualties off an objective, I don't want to win through capitalizing on a stupid mistake that IMO has little to do with strategy.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Redbeard wrote:In my mind, it makes you a poor opponent. There is nothing more insulting than an opponent who either lets you win, or who holds back, in essence, toying with you. If you're actually teaching someone fundamentals, that is one thing (as it sounds like you're doing in your SF games against your girlfriend), but what you described in your magic games against your friend is just poor sportsmanship. Holding back cards that you know will let you win in order to give your opponent a few wins? Do you think so little of them that you don't think they can take a loss? Do hold their abilities in so much contempt that you believe that the only way they can win is if you let them?

The abilities of said opponents might in fact be contemptible enough to bar them from winning in the normal fashion, at which point letting them win simply becomes another kind of victory for you.

Against less able players, contempt is a perfectly justified emotion. I know most of my opponents at 40k and especially MTG laugh at me behind my back, and I hold no particular animosity towards them for doing so, because I suck at both games. Unfortunately, I'm nowhere near good enough to hold anyone else in contempt myself.

It's been said before, there's nothing fun about being pounded game after game when you're learning. Very few people will want to continue if every time they play, I beat the feth out of them.
My MTG mate had started playing the day before, I'm a bad opponent for not kicking the gak out of him? I want him to like the game as much as I do, I don't want him to not bother because I own him every time.
While he's learning, I'm taking it easy.

"merr meer, there's nothing more insulting.." Well good job I wasn't insulting you then isn't it? Good sportsmanship is giving your opponent a fighting chance. I'm not talking about toying with an opponent, that's a cruel tactic. I'm talking about levelling theplaying field; it makes the game more challenging for me, and genuinely makes the game more fun.

If I completely batter an opponent, I don't ever see that as fun. The closer to the nail it gets, the more fun we both have.

It depends really. I enjoy challenging games for sure. Its not fun completely creaming someone (tho once or twice depending on who needs the "ADJUSTMENT") I do however think that if your playing against someone who JUST got into the hobby, you need to seriously adjust the way you play. There is no better way to get a new player OUT of this hobby then writing the biggest scariest army possible and then ripping them to shreds in 3 turns. To me that is total BS (not ballistic skill lol) I think in that situation even letting them win slightly is a better idea then winning. It gives them confidence, and better ideas of how the game works.

Deadshane1 wrote:I play to win.

If I dont win the game was a waste of my time.

If I dont win, that MAKES you an A-hole.

Winning the game somehow justifies me.

If YOU win, I have somehow failed at some aspect of my life.

If I dont beat you, somehow, you're playing the game wrong...or my dice were off.

I HATE losing at 40k, it makes me want to slash my wrists and eat babies.

Its ok if I blatantly cheat so long as you dont notice.

If you bend the rules even in the slightest, I will call you on it...then kick your face off.

If I think you might be able to make it to an objective in order to win the game...I'll move it when you arent looking.

I THROW my models into my carrying case after they die. They deserve it, its their fault, I'm a flawless commander.

I once lost a game, then tore my rulebook in half...it made me feel better.

If I'm in a Tournament, and I lose any game...I will stomp out of the tournament right then. Whats the point of finishing?

Wanna play?

Best way to play IMO.

Deadshane1 wrote:I play to win.

If I dont win the game was a waste of my time.

If I dont win, that MAKES you an A-hole.

Winning the game somehow justifies me.

If YOU win, I have somehow failed at some aspect of my life.

If I dont beat you, somehow, you're playing the game wrong...or my dice were off.

I HATE losing at 40k, it makes me want to slash my wrists and eat babies.

Its ok if I blatantly cheat so long as you dont notice.

If you bend the rules even in the slightest, I will call you on it...then kick your face off.

If I think you might be able to make it to an objective in order to win the game...I'll move it when you arent looking.

I THROW my models into my carrying case after they die. They deserve it, its their fault, I'm a flawless commander.

I once lost a game, then tore my rulebook in half...it made me feel better.

If I'm in a Tournament, and I lose any game...I will stomp out of the tournament right then. Whats the point of finishing?

Wanna play?

Nice progression there.

Tek wrote:
It's been said before, there's nothing fun about being pounded game after game when you're learning. Very few people will want to continue if every time they play, I beat the feth out of them.

Maybe I'm just stubborn then. When I started my job (12 years ago now) my co-workers were all playing some networked computer shooter game. I joined in - died, literally, over 100 times an hour for a month straight before I was able to start holding my own. Didn't matter, I was learning with each loss.

My MTG mate had started playing the day before, I'm a bad opponent for not kicking the gak out of him? I want him to like the game as much as I do, I don't want him to not bother because I own him every time.
While he's learning, I'm taking it easy.

There's a difference between taking it easy, and letting someone win. Taking it easy means you make a deck of sub-par cards. You run gray ogres instead of grizzly bears. Letting someone win means that you don't hit them with the lightning bolt that's in your hand when they have two life. You design your deck (or army list) so that it's not killer - that's taking it easy. That's perfectly acceptable, and a sportsmanlike thing to do. But once the game starts, you don't toy with your opponent. You don't let them win, keeping the fact that you could have stopped them hidden in your hand. That's disrespectful.

"merr meer, there's nothing more insulting.." Well good job I wasn't insulting you then isn't it? Good sportsmanship is giving your opponent a fighting chance. I'm not talking about toying with an opponent, that's a cruel tactic. I'm talking about levelling theplaying field; it makes the game more challenging for me, and genuinely makes the game more fun.

If I completely batter an opponent, I don't ever see that as fun. The closer to the nail it gets, the more fun we both have.

I agree with your points here. But you had said that you had the card to win in your hand, and didn't play it. That IS letting your opponent win. That IS toying with them. You take it easy when deciding what to field - what to put in your deck. But once the game is on, if you don't play as well as you can with the tools that you did choose to bring, that's not cool, IMO. And, I don't believe it helps your opponent learn what good decisions are, and what smart tactical play is.

I know some people that are so good at playing this game that they know how to "go easy" on their opponent if they forsee a slaughter in the making. Unfortunately I'm just not that good(I don't really play enough), and by the time I recognize that I will probably be slaughtering my opponent it's too late to put on the brakes to make any real difference.

It reminds me of this one warhammer game once where I was playing my Ogres vs a storm of chaos slayer dwarf list. I had never played them before so my strategy was to try and not engage them in close combat for as long as possible. This stratgey went really well for me as the dwarfs are really slow and I was able to kill off most of his stuff before he reached me. Anyway, at one point I had the opportuntiy to charge my slave Giant into one of the dwarf characters that would have easily flayed my giant. I chose to back away with my giant instead of charging into a most likely instant death situation. One of the bystanders made the comment that I wasn't playing within the spirit of the game because a giant shoudn't run away from a dwarf, etc.etc, and basically accused me of being cheesy. I was fairly insulted by the comment because I thought I was just using good tactics.

He may be correct in theory(the kibutzer in question is a well respected player and is really good at warhammer and 40k), but like I said not being a top tier player, I'm not good enough to recognize a "give the guy a break" situation in all cases.

I think my competitive nature contributes to my inability to see these occasions sometimes as well.

GG

There's a difference between taking it easy, and letting someone win. Taking it easy means you make a deck of sub-par cards. You run gray ogres instead of grizzly bears. Letting someone win means that you don't hit them with the lightning bolt that's in your hand when they have two life. You design your deck (or army list) so that it's not killer - that's taking it easy. That's perfectly acceptable, and a sportsmanlike thing to do. But once the game starts, you don't toy with your opponent. You don't let them win, keeping the fact that you could have stopped them hidden in your hand. That's disrespectful.

I completely agree with this statement.

Deadshane1 wrote:I play to win.

If I dont win the game was a waste of my time.

If I dont win, that MAKES you an A-hole.

Winning the game somehow justifies me.

If YOU win, I have somehow failed at some aspect of my life.

If I dont beat you, somehow, you're playing the game wrong...or my dice were off.

I HATE losing at 40k, it makes me want to slash my wrists and eat babies.

Its ok if I blatantly cheat so long as you dont notice.

If you bend the rules even in the slightest, I will call you on it...then kick your face off.

If I think you might be able to make it to an objective in order to win the game...I'll move it when you arent looking.

I THROW my models into my carrying case after they die. They deserve it, its their fault, I'm a flawless commander.

I once lost a game, then tore my rulebook in half...it made me feel better.

If I'm in a Tournament, and I lose any game...I will stomp out of the tournament right then. Whats the point of finishing?

Wanna play?

For an alternate perspective:

I play to win.

My favorite games are when I lose.

If I don't win, I am fully responsible and will try to learn from it.

If I do win, I will measure the value of the win on what I can learn from it. An easy win teaches me little and therefore has little value.

If I'm in a tournament, I will look forward to the later games where I can be facing like minded players. If I lose early, I will be disheartened that my next opponent will probably only have a vague idea of where we are and what day it is.

My goal is to be the best player at whatever game I am applying myself to; not to boast, but as an incentive to grow personally. This then links my goals to the goals of my fellow players. If no one else shares this goal, I will quickly move on.

Wanna play?

stonefox wrote:Best way to play IMO.

You DO know that was satire...don't you?

Satire from deadshane sure, but we all know people like that. They're also what most people think of when they hear 'play to win'.

I play to win

I don't *need* to win, but I *want* to win

I don't need to win by massacre, by any means necessary

I just a well-fought game with a chance to win within the rules

I used to play Tournaments and focus only on Battle score, even won Best General

I now play Apocalypse and enjoy the banter when there aren't any prizes or trophies on the line

Wanna play, regardless of who ultimately "wins"?

Moz wrote:Satire from deadshane sure, but we all know people like that. They're also what most people think of when they hear 'play to win'.

Actually, it's *exactly* what most people think of when they see the WC post...

Argh! Sirlin is always so frustrating. It's just slightly incomplete...

Scrub is a useful term, but it gets conflated with insecurity, which isn't necessarily the case, but is often what we are referring to.

A scrub is someone with secret rules in his mind. He may or may not care about losing/winning. He may or may not be decent at hobbying. He may or may not give you a tough game. It just denotes someone with secret rules that aren't in the rules. The connotations, unfortunately, are much broader.

The guys we all hate playing are the insecure ones. Guys who can't admit that they are trying to win, but are, so if they beat you its apparently some sort of bizarre coincidence, and if you win its luck or your list is cheasy. They can be scrubs or not, doesn't matter.

There needs to be a one word descriptor for insecure guys that isn't just a flat out insult. I've never been able to coin one, but it would be really useful.

Help me out here? You guys must have players who blame everything on their terrible luck or some other outside force, yet insist that they aren't trying to win. If not, I envy you.

Sirlin's article conflates them with scrubs, who are often the same but not necessarily. I've had fun games with scrubs, heck, I'm a scrub myself in several ways. (Walter's rules: No playing Orks. No using anything another local player uses first.) I've never had fun playing guys who won't admit that they are trying to beat you at the game, and hope you are doing likewise.

This all reminds me of an article I wrote on this topic some time ago:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Phases_of_a_Gamer

Gwar! wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

LunaHound wrote:HBMC i dont play to win

So at no point do you try to win any game you play? If your answer to this is yes, you are a unique human being... or a communist.

Alternativley, see the quote from Gwar below. He got the point across quite well (better than I did):

Gwar! wrote:The point of the game is to have fun.
The objective of the game is to win.

People should always be playing to win, but shouldn't get all pissed when they don't. I play Space Wolves and Lose Quite a bit, But that doesn't stop me having fun with the game.

That's probably a better way of putting it than I did.

Damnit HBMC You're meant to say "Gwar! is 100% Right" ;(

But yes, I agree. It's impossible not to play "to win" because the whole objective of the game is to win. If you don't play to win (i.e Playing to lose)you are effectively denying your opponent the right to a fun game.

I concur

JohnHwangDD wrote:I play to win

Oh my god what is going on people! Is it 2012???

I play to win, after all, it is the idea of the game

however, i dont mind playing a few games for the simple laugh (pure gretchin against death wing)

I think playing to win but still being polite and friendly to your opponent is what I aim for. This can mean allowing take backs, or it can mean following the rules rigidly depending on your tastes- I often allow people to do things they blatantly forgot, but am not forgiving with rules "mistakes" which confer a large advantage. I try to always remain polite, however. As a horde player, an element of playing to win that can make me agitated and I suspect less fun to play against is when an opponent is a very slow player. It drives me mental if a space marine player with 50 models is taking as long with his turns as I do with my 160+ orks. So I become pretty sharp about it.

I can certainly have fun while losing, but only if I felt I had a chance to win. If I screwed up, or the dice screwed me, I can enjoy it as a learning experience. If I get steamrolled and I feel like it wasn't possible to stop it, then I won't enjoy it. I also think I am a scrub, but I'm an uncomplaining one. (Da Boss's rules: Never play with ugly miniatures, never play a list you wouldn't enjoy facing yourself. That actually allows me a lot of leeway- the only list I wouldn't play from the current edition is Nob Bikers.)

RussWakelin wrote:This all reminds me of an article I wrote on this topic some time ago:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Phases_of_a_Gamer

That is a pretty good generalization of wargamers in wargaming Russ. Thanks.

I notice that you don't allow for people to "re-evaluate their game (they choose to play)" along the way or more importantly once they reach their Gamer Utopia.

Whether this means to recognize the game for what it is:

Generally a fun 1-3 hours or so with luck deciding the outcome in the majority of cases where your basic army's are on a "level playing field" of sorts.

Or whether you realise that the game is too far from balanced to allow you to bring variety to your games (which you want to drive your interest in the hobby as well) while still giving you a chance to compete and therefore need to move on to something else to keep your common interest with your gaming group.

As with anything in life gaming is dynamic and the subtle differences in personality and experiences between gamers, even when close friends, can lead to members of the group expanding their horizons in terms of what they are looking for in games.

As a direct couple of questions to Russ and the rest of the D6G if they are interested in the topic:

What would you define as "Playing to Win" in terms of tabletop gaming?

How has this effected your gaming experiences and the games that you each choose to play with each other?

Swordguy wrote:

stonefox wrote:Best way to play IMO.

You DO know that was satire...don't you?

hehehehehe comming from the guy who wrote it originally?


no doubt it.

The concept of a "game" does not have to do anything with "winning" or "losing." The emphasis on "winning" and "losing" with corresponding "positive" and "negative" connotations is, in my opinion, a failure of society in general. A "game" can be purely for fun. A "game" can have objectives far beyond any stated within the rules. For example,

1) You and three of your buddies go on a nice Sunday for 18 holes of golf. You and your buddies jest about the shots that go into the sand traps and cheer about the triumphs of well played shots. But in the end you and your buddies don't mark down the number of shots, thus no one really "wins" or "loses." Everybody gains the enjoyment of socializing, sport, and beer.

2) You might have "won" the "game", in the technical sense, based on gaining the objectives set forth by the rules. But, your opponent may, in his or her mind, have "won" by achieving a personal objective, i.e. , making the "game" not enjoyable for you through obnoxious, unsporting play, etc. Some people may call this person "TFG" or a "sore loser," but in the end; the personal objective was gained, whether ethical or not.

Well, my point is to stress that sometimes competitiveness ruins the "fun" of the "game." I know people and have played people who take competitiveness and the "win at all costs" attitude a bit too far and the "game" becomes not "fun." Unfortunately, these people do not have a good reputation in local gaming communities.

So, do I play to win? Yes - but not at all costs (being a jerk or losing a friend over a war game is not worth a "win")

Do I play for fun? Yes - see example #1 and also in my war games, too.

Do I play for personal objectives? Yes and No-In general, in the end, I do not really care if I win, lose, or draw. I have no tally from the ten or so years of playing. But, I'm human and sometimes it's hard not to take a situation personal.

In my opinion, the best opponent is the one who is balanced between examples #1 and #2. The person who is competitive, but doesn't take it to the personal level, and yet is still willing to jest and cheer for in the end it's only a game.

I agree with EyeofTzeentch. It is after all just a game, win or lose it's done for the purpose of everyone having fun. However, I don't think we should shrink at the sight or provide outright hostility to someone who does decide to bring an extremely competitive list/plays the game "to win".

I think it challenges others into building/ creating tougher lists and better tactics. While the majority of people like to use and collect "soft" armies (often with fluffy units or relatively bad ones), I do think we should all strive to get better at the game through building better lists and harder armies.

I honestly think that if GW saw that there gamers were getting more competitive and building certain types of troops, IF they wanted to stay a profitable business they would create BETTER models with BETTER rules to sell more of. For example, if GW realizes that the only model from their Chaos Space Marine line that sold reasonably well was the oblitz (while the others sat rusting on shelves), then they probably would update the rules so that the other models get better rules (and get taken more often).

Maybe Stelek got it right!

Nice, resort to name-calling before running away.

Yeah, you're doing a *great* job "representing" there and showing how "cool" you and your "Crew" are.

You come in here with a totally WAAC post that plays up your worst stereotypes, get all pissy when someone points this out, and then start calling them names.

And you wonder why you've got detractors?

Interesting derailment from the original story. My understanding of the original story was that if you are the underdog/outmatched/less skill, then you should find an unconventional way of approaching the "battle."

Much more interesting topic then jawing about "I play to win/fun/whatever."

I think the idea has rapidly matured in 40K tournament play - it's why you see the overloading of lists in particular areas. Biker nobs, lots of BW's, eldar air force, nidzilla (refs to 4th edition) - load your list in one particular way and you're probably going to have a competitive edge in one form or fashion.

Do you think that 40k tournament play has really matured in the use of unconventional or out-of-box approaches to battle or has 40k tournament play turned into the guys that the computer beat in the original post, i.e. is 40k tournament play just itching for someone to think outside-of-the-box of chaos lash, nob bikers, landraider spam, etc? Or is the game of 40k just too limiting and in the end there are just a certain set of lists that will always out shine all others, i.e. has the optimum been reached for 5th edition?

Gwar! wrote:I see it like this:

The point of the game is to have fun.
The objective of the game is to win.

People should always be playing to win, but shouldn't get all pissed when they don't. I play Space Wolves and Lose Quite a bit, But that doesn't stop me having fun with the game.

This is one of the best ways I have ever heard anyone state my view on games. I don't intend to always build the greatest, most efficient army list. Sometimes I take a unit because I like the concept, I made a sweet conversion or I want to try some bizarre longshot strategy. Even if those guys get steamrolled, I can have a good time. Once everyone is on the board, I am going to play to win as best I can, but when it comes to army composition or my plan, I might try something just because I think it's cool or interesting. I'm still intending to win, but I'm trying to do it in a way that I find interesting. I'm not necessarily trying to provide you with world class competition when I play you.

Sort of like in Magic, I might build a deck on a interesting card, concept or combo, even if it isn't a top tier deck. Part of the fun is trying to innovate, test and play around with my ideas. Obviously the deck is still designed to win, but I can definitely have a blast even if it fails hard.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "matured."

What I meant was that the idea of using unconventional forces has progressed to the point in 40K that it seems most players who rank highly in large tournaments are using the "find the computer generated" force. How many posts do you see on dakka that go something along the lines of "don't use a battleforce army, you need to overload in one area" ie all mech, nob bikers, LR spam, and whatever comes out of the new IG dex?

I think what we're going to continue to see with 5th edition is that the most recent dex is going to have a new set of rule breaking combos/special rules that are exploitable in a unique fashion. Foe example, talking with Mondo last week, he told me that he's itching to try out some stuff on my nob bikers. I'm sure that with him being a good player and the new dex, he should be able to run them into the ground with ease.

So no, I don't think the optimum has been reached. One of the things when the ork dex came out (along with 5th) was that all of a sudden you could no longer run lists optimized to kill MEQ and still expect to walk over horde lists. With new dexes coming out I think we're reaching more towards the idea that no matter what you run, if it's skewed to far to one side, there's going to be another list that is skewed to the other side that is your counter. If you're lucky you don't run into during a tourney. but if you do, you face an uphill battle.

I generally agree with you, budro.

Maybe I was a bit hasty with my second question, because I am well aware that there are 'dexes that have not been updated to the new edition, however; 'dexes are always being updated /or not updated at all, so an equilibrium is never really acheived.

Generally speaking, I think the concept of bringing a competitive list to a tournament and hoping that the stars are correctly aligned so one doesn't face the one list that has the competitive edge doesn't really show one's ability at tactics or generalship. One with a rudimentary understanding of the game with a competitive list can win without any ability or skill. This concept probably erked the war gamers in the original post, because a computer doesn't have ability or skill, unless it's programmed with such an A.I., it just follows a set of directions and iterates on those directions.

I have played competitive lists in the past (mech eldar, chaos lash, etc.) and have have won a good amount with those lists, I just don't find them challenging enough to keep me interested in the game. That's why I rarely play with "competitive" lists. If I know my friend is bringing a "competitive" list, I will bring alike. But most people I play don't bring such lists, so I bring alike. The games are less skewed and more fun for both players.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nice, resort to name-calling before running away.

Yeah, you're doing a *great* job "representing" there and showing how "cool" you and your "Crew" are.

You come in here with a totally WAAC post that plays up your worst stereotypes, get all pissy when someone points this out, and then start calling them names.

And you wonder why you've got detractors?

You're not too good with sarcasm, eh? Next time I try a humorous post I'll make sure to spell it out for the "slow".

Deadshane1 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nice, resort to name-calling before running away.

Yeah, you're doing a *great* job "representing" there and showing how "cool" you and your "Crew" are.

You come in here with a totally WAAC post that plays up your worst stereotypes, get all pissy when someone points this out, and then start calling them names.

And you wonder why you've got detractors?

You're not too good with sarcasm, eh? Next time I try a humorous post I'll make sure to spell it out for the "slow".

Please do, your multisyllabic words confuse me

Gwar! wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nice, resort to name-calling before running away.

Yeah, you're doing a *great* job "representing" there and showing how "cool" you and your "Crew" are.

You come in here with a totally WAAC post that plays up your worst stereotypes, get all pissy when someone points this out, and then start calling them names.

And you wonder why you've got detractors?

You're not too good with sarcasm, eh? Next time I try a humorous post I'll make sure to spell it out for the "slow".

Please do, your multisyllabic words confuse me

No problem.

Deadshane1 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nice, resort to name-calling before running away.

Yeah, you're doing a *great* job "representing" there and showing how "cool" you and your "Crew" are.

You come in here with a totally WAAC post that plays up your worst stereotypes, get all pissy when someone points this out, and then start calling them names.

And you wonder why you've got detractors?

You're not too good with sarcasm, eh?

No, I'm not too good with name-calling and ITG / TFG behavior in general.

Deadshane1 wrote:Next time I try a humorous post I'll make sure to spell it out for the "slow".

Next time, why don't you actually *be* humorous, rather than merely "slow".

Well i always play to win ofcourse its what you would liek to do, but if i loose i dont really mind, you win some you loose some and i like that makes me learn better, and develop new tactics to generate mroe of a problem next time.

However my opponent this evening (my usual) tends to play to win to annoying levels and ruins the game, for example a few lucky earth shaker shots takes most of his force on the first turns which i was really happy about but he was morew annoyed which is understandable, but later in the game he began to question my force, complain about rules, and generally ruin the game because of all the annoying things, he ended up starting an arguemnt about pointless things.

and this was because, in all honesty, he was playing to win, and i think playing to win and not being able to accept losing is bad sportsman ship in any game and can effect the enjoyment of the game, although i must say slaughtering high costing space amrines in a kill points match was very fun to see

I always play to win, that is the objective of the game.
But I don't actually mind much when I don't, because I have fun, which is the point of the game.
I always try and play into the spirit of the army.

I think the army that bext oppitimises this mindset to me, has always been skaven. I always lose with them. But the fun you have when you play to the spirit of the army. The fujn you have when your opponent (usually my bro) is goading you into rolling one more dice for you ratling gun, only to then see it explode. To charge a unit of slaves into a a unit of greatswords, then fire jezzails into combat, only to see them kill none of the enemy, and just kill your slaves. it's so much fun. Skaven to me are the ultimate "play to have fun" army. The fact that whe you fire weapons they're probably going to explode. It's genius.

In 40k I'm currently building a Scythes of the Emperor army. I've limited my armuy selection to be fluffy. So ionly 1 unit of Termies, only 1 dread, no thunderfire, nothing bigger than Rhino chassis etc. It limits me to the point where if I went to a tourney I'd get slaughtered, but my main opponent is my brother, and we just play for the fun of it. If we want a more tactical game we play warmachine/hordes with all it's combos of spells and abilities. I still try to come up wioth lists that I think are cool rather than kickarse slaughterhouse lists.

I personally greatly dislike people who play simply to win. When you ask them after what the theme/story is behind their list, what there characters are called, and they just say "um......I dunno" It kinda kills it for me. There is so much story, why not use it?

Fun + story > winning

meta.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nowadays, I more often play to win, rather than always playing to win. I think I have more fun this way, and think others, do too.

Sig.

Personally, I design army lists primarily to have fun, set up the table solely to have fun, select opponents solely to have fun. Once I start putting models on the table, I am primarily trying to win, whilst allowing my opponent to still enjoy losing. Once the game is over, it goes back to being about fun, so I'll talk about how I won/lost and try to learn a little bit.

The idea of making sure your opponent has a good time is entirely (or at least mostly) seperate from what kind of list one plays. I always try to make sure my opponent is having a good time and I also almost always play a pretty competitive to very competitive list. Up to a point what list I play is context driven. At a weekly game night down at the local store I won't play my tier 1 tourny lists for the most part. One reason not to is because a lot of the guys who play occasionally won't have the first clue how to manage against a tier one list and stand no real chance of winning at all, which leads into reason two, which is that I'm not advancing my game at all playing such a lopsided match. I don't feel bad bringing a tier one list to games night, and I don't really care about opponents complaints, but there just isn't much point.

Mostly I have no truck with people telling other people how to play the game. Whether it's fluff nazi's or power gamers, I just let other people play the game the way they want to. It's up to me to decide who to play and how much to accomodate their gaming style. Based on those choices I'll either expand or contract the number of players who'll actually play me next time. This line of reasoning applies to any non-tournament kind of play - casual games, campaigns, whatever. People need to realize that there's a social group involved though, and that their gaming choices can have an impact on their acceptance by that group.

In a tourney, I'm 100% a supporter of a 'no whining' policy. Tournies are specifically competitive and people should bring their A game and best lists. Fluff players shouldn't play in tournaments if they're going to complain that their sub-par, non-optimised, fluff-bunny list gets crumped by a well though out and well played army. I have zero sympathy for that nonsense.

The game to me starts at the table when rolling scenario and putting the minis down. From that point I will be trying my best to win.

As far as i'm concerned list building is not part of the game, but part of the overall hobby, it ranks alongside modelling and painting - trying to put to gether a nice and interesting army.

I can't work out how serious people are if they play to win with optimised tourney style lists and then say they like the challenge. If you want a proper challenge then bring an interesting 'sub-optimal' army and try and win with that. If he brings an uber tourney list then the challenge for you is even better, and he presumably has the 'fun' he really wanted which was purely about winning rather than challenge (unless of courese you win, but then it didn't matter what list you had if winning was all that mattered to him).

That's a fair comment. It's not a reflection on you as a person because it's a game, and the outcome doesn't matter. Real life is rather different to tiny plastic men shooting plastic guns at each other.

I couldn't agree with you more. Nothing pisses me off more* than people who try to judge me as a person based on whether or not I concede a game of 40k. Knowing when to fold doesn't make me less of a person than you, and I don't see how "fighting to the last" in a stupid dice game makes you any better.

And why does everyone keep asking me if I want to play? What if I say no?




*I seem to say this about everything. Huh...

puree wrote:
I can't work out how serious people are if they play to win with optimised tourney style lists and then say they like the challenge. If you want a proper challenge then bring an interesting 'sub-optimal' army and try and win with that. If he brings an uber tourney list then the challenge for you is even better, and he presumably has the 'fun' he really wanted which was purely about winning rather than challenge (unless of courese you win, but then it didn't matter what list you had if winning was all that mattered to him).

Once again a quote from blackmoor before this trend of thinking strays where it seems to be headed....

Next is the tough section that's hard for people to swallow. The #1 thing holding back most players is purely mental. You must shed all the rules and limitations that exist in your head about how to play, and instead start using all legal moves available to you to win. You must also give up the ridiculous notion that other players should abide by the made-up rules in your head.

Why are we both bringing "sub optimal" lists to a game then? Wouldnt the game be more interesting if we both brought 'optimal' lists?

RussWakelin wrote:This all reminds me of an article I wrote on this topic some time ago:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Phases_of_a_Gamer

It's a decent article, and accurately sums up my feelings about the game in the section about burned-out gamers. I just haven't quit gaming quite yet, but I have no doubt it can be far behind.

Deadshane1 wrote:
Wouldnt the game be more interesting if we both brought 'optimal' lists?

No.

Whats interesting about playing yet another identi-kit list that has been posted, disected and mathmatically analysed to the Nth degree 10000 times on various internet sites.

If you ask me for a game where you want to test out such a list before a tourney you are entering, then sure I'll look at putting up a counter list up for you to have a go against. But for general gaming I want an interesting list that I'm unlikely to see anyone else playing (locally at least).

puree wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
Wouldnt the game be more interesting if we both brought 'optimal' lists?

No.

Whats interesting about playing yet another identi-kit list that has been posted, disected and mathmatically analysed to the Nth degree 10000 times on various internet sites.

If you ask me for a game where you want to test out such a list before a tourney you are entering, then sure I'll look at putting up a counter list up for you to have a go against. But for general gaming I want an interesting list that I'm unlikely to see anyone else playing (locally at least).

I suppose you're right.

Something has always struck me wrong about the superbowl every year. I'd much rather see two of the losing teams playing it out the last game of the season.

Deadshane1 wrote:
Something has always struck me wrong about the superbowl every year. I'd much rather see two of the losing teams playing it out the last game of the season.

Wouldn't make any difference, even the losers seem to bring the same lists as the winners, I mean do you not get bored of seeing the same old 1 QB, 1 C, 2OG 2OT etc.