Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

rigeld2 wrote:

And you can't "win" in MMORPGs because there's no end. If your goal is to play with housing, then play with housing.

This isn't really true, you can win multiple times over in MMORPGs, from a PVP battle to a successful raid. I can assure you as someone who's played mmos for years until quite recently, there is a great deal of winning or losing from raiding high end, it's quite the rush to successfully orchestrate a 20-strong raid and it work, kill the big bads, take their shiny stuff and earn the envy of your peers.

It's the same as tabletop RP in that regard, your game is potentially infinite, but the story arcs can be wins or losses.

When I played we didn't consider them "wins" because its repeatable. They're goals to meet, but not "wins".

Unless you were in one of the top 3 guilds where you were racing for a server/game first. That'd be a win I guess.

Guys we are getting off the topic here...

rigeld2 wrote:
When I played we didn't consider them "wins" because its repeatable. They're goals to meet, but not "wins".

Unless you were in one of the top 3 guilds where you were racing for a server/game first. That'd be a win I guess.

If you've gone at an instance a few times and wiped and been locked out and finally, your guild gets it together, finally you're all organic, everyone working hard, coordinated and ready and you actually take down the end mob and get that cheering over the ventrilo, sense of unity and sweet loot, yes, that's a win.

If you're playing 40k, you don't just play till you win, you win a game and then look forward to the next game you can try to win. Just as organic and just as potentially infinite. Just like expansions, new editions and new codices force you to reequip and change your tactics. Same thing.

rigeld2 wrote:
They're goals to meet, but not "wins".

That's evasive and also false. You complete an instance, you've 'won' it. You complete a mission and get the reward, you've 'won' it. Achieving a goal is a type of winning. You win a game of 40k, you don't 'win' 40k overall in doing so, you win multiple games of 40k at a tournament, you win the tournament, you can't 'win' 40k though.



**sorry Kilkrazy, dropped**

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Guys we are getting off the topic here...

In most ways...yes, in some ways - no.

Generally speaking the cycle goes a bit like this:

Person A is potentially inclined to like some obscure activity (in this particular case...miniature wargaming).

Person B is "hardcore" (for miniature wargaming - that generally means tournament playing).

Persons C through Z also know Person B but not person A and they are casual gamers (might play more often and spend more than Person B but are more interested in other aspects than winning).

Person B tracks down Person A in some manner - they tend to be pretty good at finding them, not sure why - but anecdotally they do.

Person A gets interested in the game and plays a few games with Person B who teaches them the rules.

Person A meets a couple of the people in Persons C through Z at a local game event (either held at a club, store, VFW or perhaps a GarageCon tournament that Person B holds).

Person A mentions to Person D that he likes the game - but Person B seems a bit ate up about it. Person D replies, true enough - that is why on Thursday nights we all game at Person I's house but we don't tell Person B since he thinks we don't take our casual games seriously enough.

And that is how a new stranger is brought into the fold.

How does that stick to the topic? Well, as I have mentioned - I do think that competitive play is important for building games in general - but specifically these types of games. I do not think that competitive players make up a large portion of the gaming population or even a large portion of the sales of games or their related materials. What they are though is always on the prowl for someone else that they can beat. While you might just walk past Bob in accounting - when Steve the Übermensch tournament gamer walks by...he notices the PC Gamer magazine sticking out from under his briefcase. He then grabs a hold of that bone and won't let loose until Bob agrees to play a game of Warhammer with him.

That adds new blood to the hobby - now whether or not winning is important or not...well, that is irrelevant and it has been opposing points of view between casual gamers and tournament gamers since the middle ages I would guess (long before I started gaming and I've been gaming for nearly that long). An answer won't come here, and won't come anywhere else - but it is also the reason why so many casual gamers move away from gaming in stores and even a lot of clubs to gaming in smaller more relaxed groups at home (which is why I don't put much emphasis on game stores as a source of new gaming blood either).

My friend and I played a few rounds of Pike & Shotte yesterday evening to teach a new group member the rules. We played a few turns and stopped, no one won, but I had much more fun playing P&S for just a few turns than the full game of 40k I had played earlier in the day. Just anecdotal.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Guys we are getting off the topic here...

<snip>

How does that stick to the topic? Well, as I have mentioned - I do think that competitive play is important for building games in general - but specifically these types of games. I do not think that competitive players make up a large portion of the gaming population or even a large portion of the sales of games or their related materials. What they are though is always on the prowl for someone else that they can beat. While you might just walk past Bob in accounting - when Steve the Übermensch tournament gamer walks by...he notices the PC Gamer magazine sticking out from under his briefcase. He then grabs a hold of that bone and won't let loose until Bob agrees to play a game of Warhammer with him.

That adds new blood to the hobby - now whether or not winning is important or not...well, that is irrelevant and it has been opposing points of view between casual gamers and tournament gamers since the middle ages I would guess (long before I started gaming and I've been gaming for nearly that long). An answer won't come here, and won't come anywhere else - but it is also the reason why so many casual gamers move away from gaming in stores and even a lot of clubs to gaming in smaller more relaxed groups at home (which is why I don't put much emphasis on game stores as a source of new gaming blood either).

This is an interesting analysis. I do think competitive gamers often have a willingness to prosyletize for their game, although it's not generally just for the sake of recruiting newbs we can beat. It's for growing our competitive community, which increases the variety and quality of competition. It's also because, having invested so much time and effort into our hobby, we genuinely believe it's fun and rewarding and think more people should be into it.

While I won't make a point of recruiting Bob at work who has PC Gamer magazine, I will talk up the game to any random onlooker at a tournament or in a game store who seems curious. I've often seen non-gamer or casual parents and kids in stores, or walking into/checking out big events held in hotels (or malls- like The Conflict and Battle for Salvation GTs), and explained the game in simple terms to them. I often explain to parents how it's a competitive but social activity, and how the painting & modeling side helps cultivate patience and artistic/hobby interests in kids.

I'll also keep an eye out for Find a Game posts in my geographic area, and try to steer interested players to stores and communities around them. And I'll arrange to meet folks for a game; in those games I do try to win, but I also make a point of fielding an army chosen more for its appearance (fully painted, of course) than for pure competition, and with a variety of units. That way regardless of who wins, hopefully the new guy will enjoy the experience and have a bit of a showcase of the joy of facing a fully-painted force on a nice table. This is one of the big hooks of the hobby, of course.

Competitions have always been popular in historicals. There are various well-established events such as Sheffield Triples have been going for decades. The WRG ancients rules, which ruled the world from the mid 70s to late 90s, were written first for competition play.

That said, historical players have always been interested in recreations and campaigns too.

I don't know if 40K players number more "teenage minded" competitive players who are in it only for the win and the bragging rights. Something to do with the psychology of the game, perhaps.

I've enjoyed the three 40K tournaments I have attended. They were all small, friendly events with not much of a prize at stake. I don't think big prizes are appropriate for wargames tournaments.

Yes, the 'so they can beat them' bit was a bit of tongue in cheek pointed upstream in the thread.

The core of it was as you followed along. Casual gamers (in any game) tend to be more laid back about their recruitment. Normally they pull from the friends and family sphere of influence (which is significant). Competative gamers are the ohes who are most likely to pull from outside that group...though quite often their new recruits ehd up not being nearly as competative. That is where it is nice to have some cross over between the casual and competative groups of gamers...so that the new blood can move into a more relaxed environment if it suits them better and not get burned out dealing with tournament related issues.

By doing so, you might have a competatife gamer get one completely fresh gamer per year, but then that fresh gamer is able to draw on their friends and family for another two or three. If one of those ends up being competative...they then pull another stranger, who brings in some friends and family...so on, and so forth.

You often see this happen with rulesets. If they are not 'tournament ready' they get a small but strong following of people who quite often all know each other (might have played a demo game at a convention for example). However, tournament games tend to grow outside that realm faster...even if the rules are objectively lacking in other ways. Of course you need to make it to the level where competative gamers are able to sustain themselves in a given area (12 seems to be the magic number that I have been able to narrow in on).