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.

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.