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.

I do both all the time.

You set out to lose when you start playing a game?

You set down your models and go "Golly gee, can't wait to draw this one!".

No.

You don't.

No one does.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You set out to lose when you start playing a game?

You set down your models and go "Golly gee, can't wait to draw this one!".

No.

You don't.

No one does.

I do all the time. I play games to enjoy the game and winning is irrelevant to me. My wife can be a sore loser and when trying out a new game, if she loses, I know we'll never, ever play that game again. I don't care about winning at all. I'm in it for the experience of playing a game. So I'm happy to lose if it means I get to play the game more. But it isn't like I'm purposely throwing the game. It's more that winning isn't really my goal and providing a good, challenging, and enjoyable play experience is. I haven't won a game against her in years. She thinks I'm terrible at them.

My daughter though, she inherited my wife's temperament and takes the whole sore loser thing to 11. She's also a pretty sore winner too. Playing games with her is great - she's quick, capable, and tactical - up until the point where the winner becomes too obvious. Naturally, I feel it is my responsibility as a father to knock her down a few pegs and give her as many chances to lose gracefully as possible. You must learn how to lose before you can be a good winner.

Other than that, though, winning is never factored into my goals. I mean, it is the goal of the game, not my personal goal. This article was basically about how you aren't competing against others, you are competing against yourself. I'm not doing that either. I'm not trying to compete at all. Playing games isn't a sport to me. It's a fascination. And I can be equally fascinated losing as winning.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No one plays to lose.

No one plays to draw.

Reductio ad absurdum adds nothing.

Most people, when playing the actual game, are playing in an attempt for their side to win. Otherwise there's no game - it's one person 'demonstrating' to another.

But how far are you prepared to go in order to get the win? Will they rules-lawyer or exploit obvious rules loopholes to get advantages? Will they slow-play? Will they take ONLY the most optimal units regardless of background? Will they only take those ultra-powerful lists, even when playing a new player? Do they care if the other player has fun? Do they want a balanced match to 'test their skill' or just want an easy victory? All those are open questions, and some might be more or less acceptable depending on the setting.

So, most people play the game in an attempt to try and win, but 'Playing to win', as a phrase, is used by a number of people in the competitive crowd who will do loads of the above (or, ALL of the above) in every situation, to the level where it becomes an excuse for bad sportsmanship and behaviour. That's what the article talks about. He even says that in the first few lines of the article.

He's specifically talking about how 'Playing to win' has become an excuse for gamesmanship. Not the concept of playing a game and attempting to win it.

I love winning. It feels really really good. That said, I'm happiest when I win and whomever I beat also enjoyed it. I also enjoy an epic defeat where victory was perhaps a finger's width away but for [Insert Dice/Tactics/Gods for blame]. So if my opponent wants to get that extra fraction of an inch, or take back a move, or whatever, I'm cool with it because it legitimizes my win if I'm not a douche about it. I also enjoy playing 'antagonist' armies for the reason that if I'm wiped out then my little monsters probably had it coming.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You set out to lose when you start playing a game?

You set down your models and go "Golly gee, can't wait to draw this one!".

No.

You don't.

No one does.

I have. I've ended up getting cornered by annoying opponents and I get ambushed. I obviously came for a game. There's no-one else there. So, I agree to the game, bad-play through it, and get it over as quickly as possible. I do not mind competitive players, but some people in the hobby combine competitive with socially awkward and it's a bad result. The result is a opponent who plays like they're doing a serious technical job. Try to talk to them, and you get grunts or short answers. Jokes/banter meets with dead uncomprehending stares.

So Mr. Serious gets his all important self esteem boost, I reduce the time i need to deal with him. I learn to pre-ready excuses for the next time the situation pops up. Everyone wins.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You set out to lose when you start playing a game?

You set down your models and go "Golly gee, can't wait to draw this one!".

No.

You don't.

No one does.

You really can't imagine other states of mind? Really?

I often aim for a close game (or a draw) to keep it exciting in a narrative sense. I will set out to lose a game that might make an exciting last stand, or if I am playing against someone who cares about winning more than other concerns. The tactics I use are very different than they would be if I was aiming for a straight win. However, I mostly play at home with family and friends or at the FLGS with likeminded friends. The whole point of the game is to have fun. It's not monopoly.

Playing with a handicap is a thing that happens for all sorts of reasons.

I set out to improve my game, not to win. Winning g is meaningless if your opponent doesn't have fun.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You set out to lose when you start playing a game?

You set down your models and go "Golly gee, can't wait to draw this one!".

No.

You don't.

No one does.

You really can't imagine other states of mind? Really?

I often aim for a close game (or a draw) to keep it exciting in a narrative sense. I will set out to lose a game that might make an exciting last stand, or if I am playing against someone who cares about winning more than other concerns. The tactics I use are very different than they would be if I was aiming for a straight win. However, I mostly play at home with family and friends or at the FLGS with likeminded friends. The whole point of the game is to have fun. It's not monopoly.

Arguing a specific in order to try and disprove a general is usually a pretty unstable basis for an argument. Sure, HBMC spoke in absolutes which is a fatal mistake on the internet because some fether will always take great delight in pointing out the one occasion in 1975 when it wasn't the case, but broadly speaking he's correct, and any number of corner cases where it's not applicable you cite won't really disprove that.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You set out to lose when you start playing a game?

You set down your models and go "Golly gee, can't wait to draw this one!".

No.

You don't.

No one does.

You really can't imagine other states of mind? Really?

I often aim for a close game (or a draw) to keep it exciting in a narrative sense. I will set out to lose a game that might make an exciting last stand, or if I am playing against someone who cares about winning more than other concerns. The tactics I use are very different than they would be if I was aiming for a straight win. However, I mostly play at home with family and friends or at the FLGS with likeminded friends. The whole point of the game is to have fun. It's not monopoly.

Arguing a specific in order to try and disprove a general is usually a pretty unstable basis for an argument. Sure, HBMC spoke in absolutes which is a fatal mistake on the internet because some fether will always take great delight in pointing out the one occasion in 1975 when it wasn't the case, but broadly speaking he's correct, and any number of corner cases where it's not applicable you cite won't really disprove that.

No, it's not correct. I'm not talking about one time. There are lots of people who play these games to see what their guys do, not to win. The pull of competition is not universal, at all.

this has somehow got lodged in my aging grey matter

Whilst I'm very much of the play whatever you like is it possible that some of the dissonance (in both PTW and CAAC directions) is born out of people playing the 'wrong' type of games, RPG's and Co-Op games might be better choices for the more narrative leaning player and hard min/max Wargames for the wins the thing crowd

Of course you may well be limited by your local gaming meta running contrary to you tastes but with a bit of digging you might be able to locate some game mates

I mean, I always go for the true Rule Zero of any game: A Game is Supposed to Be Fun.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

Whilst I'm very much of the play whatever you like is it possible that some of the dissonance (in both PTW and CAAC directions) is born out of people playing the 'wrong' type of games, ...

Fair enough. I'd argue that miniature games, with high variance, hidden information, a strong hobby and component cost, and a heavy social aspect are the 'wrong' type of games to play competitively. Winning is not about skill giving that a large majority of the tactical decisions are guessing, the cost of changing your strategy can be extreme, and the communities are too small for a valid competitive environment to flourish.

This is an interesting article, but it buries a really good point about how to analyze your decision making by focusing on the semantics of the term "I play to win."

The real meat of the article is this analogy: "Once variance and hidden information enter the picture, it’s possible to make terrible decisions and still win, and it’s also possible to make good decisions and still lose. Or, as co-host Andrew Brokos of the Thinking Poker podcast once suggested, “the end result of you winning the pot does not change the fact that the way you played the hand was a complete disaster.”"

Essentially, winning or losing a specific game may not prove that you are good (or bad), or that you made good or bad decisions.

However, where I think the author's point founders is that you still do this process based analysis to win more games. And a player may say "I play to win," not to mean that they will take shortcuts to win any given game, but to say "I take the game seriously, and generally give my best."

Typically when somebody states "I play to win" it's basically code word for I'm a total douchenozzle and going to relish in terrible sportsmanship. People can be competitive and want a tight well run game by the rules, but that's typically not the type of person who uses the I play to win statement. The I play to win guy is usually the person trying to hammer their opponent for every perceived infraction of the rules while constantly taking very large liberties with their own gameplay. The guy who climbs all over their opponent about the time that their turn takes yet bring a horde army and slow boat plays his own turn, the guy who eagle eye's his opponents movement to make sure they aren't even a single millimeter over but plays his own measuring fast and loose or moves his models front to back. The person that typically cites I play to win means I enforce the rules in every instance possible against my opponent but not myself.

People can certainly play a game by the rules and have fun and engage in friendly banter, the problem is that the I play to win types is that they actively suck the fun out of games because they are hostile and use the rules to berate their opponent as opposed to using it in a fair equal manner for both players. If you are going to obsess on the rules you had best worry about mistakes in your own house first.

In an ideal match up where the rules and armies are balanced out for both players it's still a 50/50 chance, one person will be the winner and one will be the loser. That's effectively a coin toss and it's really crazy to get so serious and worked up towards the results on something that you have an equal chance of failing at. To further compound things because the game relies on chance of dice to resolve things you can play a game flawlessly and still lose no matter how skilled you are. It doesn't matter how good a list is or how brilliantly you push your tiny men around the table if the dice gods are against you; you will lose. It's a game one person wins, one person loses, drop all the pretense & BS and try enjoying it instead as it'll enhance everyone's experience. The "I play to win" attitude all too often feeds into creating "that guy" and is used to justify all manner of bad sportsmanship which in end just creates a negative play experience for everybody. Don't be that guy.

I play to win, but not agaisnt my oponnent but agaisnt myself, as the article describes. I like to correct my mistakes, to play better than the last time, and to use to the most efficient way the tools I chose to use (In the context of warhammer, for example, I won't make a bad list for the sake of being bad. I make the list I want with a theme and a tactical strategy in mind, and then I'll adjust that list and play it to the best of my capabilities)

Winning for me is not the important thing in a game. Actually, I rarely win. I enjoy much more a defeat where I have felt that I improved, where I didn't did mistakes that I did before, than a crushing and easy victory.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You set out to lose when you start playing a game?

You set down your models and go "Golly gee, can't wait to draw this one!".

No.

You don't.

No one does.

Oh absolutely. But for some, winning becomes the be all and end all of the entire exercise.

Me? I’ll take a list I’m comfy with, or I find is interesting. From there, I’ll do my utmost to pull a win out the bag. So long as the game isn’t entirely one sided, whether in my favour or not, chances are I’ll have enjoyed it. If I was to go to a tournament, I’d tighten up my list a bit, of course I would. But even if I get thrashed in all my games, provided my opponent isn’t smug about it, no harm done.

Sqorgar wrote:I do all the time. I play games to enjoy the game and winning is irrelevant to me. My wife can be a sore loser and when trying out a new game, if she loses, I know we'll never, ever play that game again. I don't care about winning at all. I'm in it for the experience of playing a game. So I'm happy to lose if it means I get to play the game more. But it isn't like I'm purposely throwing the game. It's more that winning isn't really my goal and providing a good, challenging, and enjoyable play experience is. I haven't won a game against her in years. She thinks I'm terrible at them.

In this case you just have a different win condition

To understand Mr. French’s point, I guess you have to think of why a person would specifically say “I play to win” when asked about why they are playing. This phrase typically isn’t used simply to mean that one aims to win a given instance of some game. Rather, it tends to mean that the reason one plays at all is first and foremost to be considered the winner.

Mario wrote:
In this case you just have a different win condition

No, I have a different goal. Win conditions are specified by the game rules. I won't be winning at the game. I'll be winning at life.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I do all the time. I play games to enjoy the game and winning is irrelevant to me. My wife can be a sore loser and when trying out a new game, if she loses, I know we'll never, ever play that game again. I don't care about winning at all. I'm in it for the experience of playing a game. So I'm happy to lose if it means I get to play the game more. But it isn't like I'm purposely throwing the game. It's more that winning isn't really my goal and providing a good, challenging, and enjoyable play experience is. I haven't won a game against her in years. She thinks I'm terrible at them.

My daughter though, she inherited my wife's temperament and takes the whole sore loser thing to 11. She's also a pretty sore winner too. Playing games with her is great - she's quick, capable, and tactical - up until the point where the winner becomes too obvious. Naturally, I feel it is my responsibility as a father to knock her down a few pegs and give her as many chances to lose gracefully as possible. You must learn how to lose before you can be a good winner.

So you're not actually playing the game then. You are, as Ian said below you, demonstrating the game in a way that ensures you can continue to demonstrate the game to the same people, people who will only continue playing if you let them win.

You're not playing 40K (or whatever). You're going through the motions with a big "This is still fun... right?" smile on your face. You may be enjoying spending time with your wife/daughter - and there's 100% nothing wrong with that at all - but at the end of the day you're not really playing the game. You're playing a version of the game you've made up yourself to keep them happy (are they aware that you're letting them win/not providing any real competition?). If you didn't have to do that to keep them interested, then you'd be playing to win 100% of the time. Doesn't mean you'd be an ass about it, busting out Smash Captain/Guard/Knight lists to every single game, but it means you'd be trying to win from the get go every single time you sat down to play.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Other than that, though, winning is never factored into my goals. I mean, it is the goal of the game, not my personal goal. This article was basically about how you aren't competing against others, you are competing against yourself. I'm not doing that either. I'm not trying to compete at all. Playing games isn't a sport to me. It's a fascination. And I can be equally fascinated losing as winning.

I just call bull gak on that.

Unless you're demonstrating the game, or doing what you're doing (throwing a game to avoid a tantrum), when you sit down against someone you are going to try to win. That's how games with two sides work. That's how they've always worked. Even cooperative games have an element and winning and losing in them (Zombicide does not pit you against other people, as the game's mechanics drive the 'other side', but you try to win with that, and you can lose). Single-player video games are the same. You don't sit down thinking "Man I hope I draw this level!".

It doesn't happen. It's not something we as a species are wired to do.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You really can't imagine other states of mind? Really?

When two people, whether they know each other or not, sit down to play a game that has two sides, and a win condition and a lose condition, neither person, if their intent is to play that game to its completion, sits down going "Yup! Gonna throw this one! WOOO!". Unless they're doing so in a way that helps them cheat (losing a game to give them a better bracket of opponents later on in a competition).

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I often aim for a close game (or a draw) to keep it exciting in a narrative sense. I will set out to lose a game that might make an exciting last stand, or if I am playing against someone who cares about winning more than other concerns.

So you intentionally throw games. Congratulations, you aren't playing the game.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The tactics I use are very different than they would be if I was aiming for a straight win. However, I mostly play at home with family and friends or at the FLGS with likeminded friends. The whole point of the game is to have fun. It's not monopoly.

The purpose of the game is to have fun. The point of the game is to achieve victory by completing the game's objectives. It doesn't matter whether it's competitive, cooperative, or just you by yourself. If the game has win/lose conditions you will never* intentionally set out to lose unless you are deliberately throwing the game for another purpose (demonstrating the game, trying not to annoy someone, etc.). And if you are throwing a game on purpose, for whatever reason, I submit that you are simply not playing the game as it was intended/written.

I admit that I am being very black & white about this.

*There are instances where lose/drawing can be advantageous when it comes to odd sport scoring/qualifying systems, or situations where, due to points and whatnot all you need is a draw in order to succeed. Even so, you don't try to lose, and you would try to win.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh absolutely. But for some, winning becomes the be all and end all of the entire exercise.

Oh absolutely.

What many people here don't seem to understand is that I really despise competitive gaming. Just reading the reports out of Nova made me cringe. Really, all the winners were the game Knight/Guard/BA lists? The BA lists were Scout Tax + Smash Captains? People were taking entire formations of just 3 Custodes HQs, even though that makes my fluff-sense scream out in rage at the stupidity and illogicality of it.

I'm not saying that winning is the be-all and end-all, but it is the goal of the game, and whether you're a whiny FAAC or a insufferable WAAC, you're still going to try to win the game you are playing unless you are intentionally throwing the game for demonstration/emotional/cheating reasons.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Me? I’ll take a list I’m comfy with, or I find is interesting. From there, I’ll do my utmost to pull a win out the bag. So long as the game isn’t entirely one sided, whether in my favour or not, chances are I’ll have enjoyed it. If I was to go to a tournament, I’d tighten up my list a bit, of course I would. But even if I get thrashed in all my games, provided my opponent isn’t smug about it, no harm done.

Even during my most competitive phase, back when I used to run my own mini-tournaments with my friends, my list building was always a case of "Ok, I like this model. Let's see if I can make it work" and I'd base the whole list around trying to get something to work. Sometimes it did. Sometimes it didn't. Sometimes it really worked. Sometimes if failed spectacularly. I kept playing though, and trying to win each game even when I knew it was hopeless. I never threw a game and then claimed "Well, you see, I don't play to win".

SirWeeble wrote:
I have. I've ended up getting cornered by annoying opponents and I get ambushed. I obviously came for a game. There's no-one else there. So, I agree to the game, bad-play through it, and get it over as quickly as possible.

So you intentionally threw the game. That's not playing the game.

SirWeeble wrote:
Everyone wins.

I'd argue that technically no one won. Your opponent didn't win, because you threw the game. And of course you didn't win, because you threw the game. Throwing a game isn't playing the game.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum adds nothing.

It does exactly as it's intended - points out how absurd it is whenever someone says "I don't play to win, I play to [insert absurd reasons that explain why they're not actually playing the game as written/intended]", which many people here have done.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Most people, when playing the actual game, are playing in an attempt for their side to win. Otherwise there's no game - it's one person 'demonstrating' to another.

That's kind of my point. Every example so far of people going "I don't play to win!" has been some variation of "I intentionally threw the game" or "I was showing the game to someone else", and I will maintain until our star turns cold that this is not playing the game. This is playing some invented version of the game.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
But how far are you prepared to go in order to get the win? Will they rules-lawyer or exploit obvious rules loopholes to get advantages? Will they slow-play? Will they take ONLY the most optimal units regardless of background? Will they only take those ultra-powerful lists, even when playing a new player? Do they care if the other player has fun? Do they want a balanced match to 'test their skill' or just want an easy victory? All those are open questions, and some might be more or less acceptable depending on the setting.

Completely understand. And I completely agree. I can't stand win at all costs types (although unlike FAACs, I can respect WAACs, at least a little). There are some people who will do anything to win a game and they're insufferable.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
So, most people play the game in an attempt to try and win, but 'Playing to win', as a phrase, is used by a number of people in the competitive crowd who will do loads of the above (or, ALL of the above) in every situation, to the level where it becomes an excuse for bad sportsmanship and behaviour. That's what the article talks about. He even says that in the first few lines of the article.

He also calls some behaviour as 'evil', which to me is stretching the bounds of credibility.

I completely agree that a "play to win" mentality is what leads to people who can only have fun when they win. I pity those people. But the statement "I play to win" being a lie is itself a lie. Everyone plays to win. That's how we operate as a race.

The types of games I like are the ones Winters SEO puts up on his YouTube channel. Every game he plays with his various opponents is a game where they both are trying to win, because that is the aim of the game. They put thought into their lists, taking units that both make sense but also have some brutal combinations designed to smash their opponent's armies to bits. But there's always a story behind the game, names for the characters, a narrative reason why the fight is happening and themed terrain (my fav thing in the world). That, to me at least, is the healthy medium of the two extremes (WAAC/FAAC).

And they're always playing to win.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So you're not actually playing the game then. You are, as Ian said below you, demonstrating the game in a way that ensures you can continue to demonstrate the game to the same people, people who will only continue playing if you let them win.

You have a weird definition of "playing" then. So, in your mind, nobody who... uh... "demonstrates" a game without the intent to win is actually playing it? I really don't think you'll find much support for that definition.

If you didn't have to do that to keep them interested, then you'd be playing to win 100% of the time.

Nope. I used to play Goldeneye with my friends every Friday night for hours, and I was basically unbeatable. I learned pretty quickly that winning all the time is not very much fun. I'd rather lose all the time than win all the time. When you are trying to win, there's only one way to play the game and only one way to have fun. When you aren't trying to win, there's a lot more options to be had. For instance, one of my favorite modes in Goldeneye is one-hit-one-kill with slappers only. It's an incredibly stupid way to play, but it is hilarious and wicked fun, and we never would've discovered it if we were trying to select the best strategies every time we played.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Other than that, though, winning is never factored into my goals. I mean, it is the goal of the game, not my personal goal. This article was basically about how you aren't competing against others, you are competing against yourself. I'm not doing that either. I'm not trying to compete at all. Playing games isn't a sport to me. It's a fascination. And I can be equally fascinated losing as winning.

I just call bull gak on that.

Unless you're demonstrating the game, or doing what you're doing (throwing a game to avoid a tantrum), when you sit down against someone you are going to try to win. That's how games with two sides work. That's how they've always worked. Even cooperative games have an element and winning and losing in them (Zombicide does not pit you against other people, as the game's mechanics drive the 'other side', but you try to win with that, and you can lose). Single-player video games are the same. You don't sit down thinking "Man I hope I draw this level!".

It doesn't happen. It's not something we as a species are wired to do.

I can only speak for myself on this matter, but it's true. I'm a programmer by trade, and I love to tinker. I love to figure out how things work. I especially love to figure out how games work - and I own literally thousands of video games (2,526, as of Assassin's Creed Odyssey, to be exact). I lived in Japan, just because of the games. I worked in the game industry, as a programmer and as a writer, and I've even invented a (small) genre of video games. Where there have been games, so also have I been. Miniature gaming was just the last frontier for me to conquer.

My interest is not in the mastery of a particular set of mechanics, but of mechanics as a whole. I enjoy playing games the same way a watchmaker enjoys watching a clock tick. I like to see the gears turning and all the pieces operating in unison, creating a complex system of interactions and dependencies - some people see beauty in the aesthetic, I see beauty in the systematic. And you won't find a better selection of complexity, ingenuity, and design than games. How many clocks are out there to admire? How many ways can you design a spreadsheet? How many ways can you build a house? But games? Games are infinite.

So I hope that you'll believe me when I say, I really, truly, honestly do not care about winning when I play. I enjoy the clock for being a clock, not because I care what time it is.

 Nurglitch wrote:

auticus wrote:
For sure. When I run campaign days and lay the tables out with a lot of terrain I usually get stink eye from one or two players who think that "screws them over". Largely because terrain is one aspect that the player has no control over. You can't buy terrain with points or make a flat table with points... you are at the whim of the organizer at events, and the tournament-standard is very little terrain.

Something I was expecting for 8th edition of 40k was that players would pay for terrain out of their own points. In retrospect I can see how that wouldn't have worked, given all the issues fitting people's home-made terrain into the commercial structure of terrain as a part of the product line. But it seems like we're part-way there with fortifications, and I feel like it would be neat to see players play with the battlefield as well as their armies.

Problem is that would reward gunlines. a) less points spent on terrain=more guns b) less points spent on terrain=less things to hinder your shooting.

It would have to be almost reverse. Deck points for bringing less terrain...

It really is odd that players who want to tell stories and "see what happens" are drawn to games that pit two players against each other with the goal (whether the players care or not, it's in the mechanics) of defeating the other in some way. if a balanced, tactically deep game isn't interesting to someone, then perhaps they don't like war-games and would be happier with something else. Different people like different games, and that's okay.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No one plays to lose.

No one plays to draw.

And some people don't play to win either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:
It really is odd that players who want to tell stories and "see what happens" are drawn to games that pit two players against each other with the goal (whether the players care or not, it's in the mechanics) of defeating the other in some way. if a balanced, tactically deep game isn't interesting to someone, then perhaps they don't like war-games and would be happier with something else. Different people like different games, and that's okay.

Ah yes idea of creating stories with use of game is suuuuuuuch a weird concept...It's been around only for oh...few decades at least. Rather new concept obviously so guess it's understandable not everybody has heard of it yet.

tneva82 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No one plays to lose.

No one plays to draw.

And some people don't play to win either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:
It really is odd that players who want to tell stories and "see what happens" are drawn to games that pit two players against each other with the goal (whether the players care or not, it's in the mechanics) of defeating the other in some way. if a balanced, tactically deep game isn't interesting to someone, then perhaps they don't like war-games and would be happier with something else. Different people like different games, and that's okay.

Ah yes idea of creating stories with use of game is suuuuuuuch a weird concept...It's been around only for oh...few decades at least. Rather new concept obviously so guess it's understandable not everybody has heard of it yet.

In other words, you had a failure of reading comprehension. My point was that there is a subset of gamers who play wargames, including but not limited to WH, and then are actively opposed to changes that would make a wargame a better wargame, because from their perspective it would remove flavor and make the game less fun for them. The problem with his mindset is that it then negatively impacts players who do like those things. Different genres do different things. Don't pick up a biography and complain that a Study in Scarlet was a better mystery.

And if you hadn't noticed, GW themselves have moved steadily away from the narrative aspect by reducing or removing options that allow you to build "your guys" and homogenizing the rules. One of the many reasons I was disappointed with KT is that it was the perfect place to allow you to create minis with custom loudouts to reflect their personality and backstory, and that is not something you can do in the game.

I think the removal of wargear options in the gameplay allows for more freedom in modelling options.

For example, when 40k moved from 2nd to 3rd edition, all of a sudden you had all sorts of things you could do to basic Marines to personalise them without it being a problem. Kit out your tactical Squads with chainswords, hand flamers, etc? No problem - that all just counted as a "close combat weapon" and so didn't change their stats. All power weapons are the same? That means I can put axes on my models for thematic reasons without worrying that it'll penalise me, or that those additional 10 points will put me over the limit.

Then the codexes started adding more and more wargear options; suddenly auspexes, seals, artificer armour, wolf tails, etc, all became options with points costs, and all of a sudden my army isn't WYSIWYG any more, and I'm reduced to "this guy here has a Purity Seal, but that one - yes, I know there's one on the model - doesn't really".

After watching the Warhammer TV video on the Community staff's Kill Teams, the idea that you can't "create minis with custom loudouts to reflect their personality and backstory" is nonsense.

Blastaar wrote:
And if you hadn't noticed, GW themselves have moved steadily away from the narrative aspect by reducing or removing options that allow you to build "your guys" and homogenizing the rules. One of the many reasons I was disappointed with KT is that it was the perfect place to allow you to create minis with custom loudouts to reflect their personality and backstory, and that is not something you can do in the game.

So if they give out tons of gear options you then force people for specific build for models to ensure they are WYSIWYG for the best weapons thus leading to homogenized models. Yeah that would obviously be better.

Less options is actually more freedom with modeling options...Just look at the power weapons. Different types dimished instantly when the different types got different rules...Because by modeling A you suddenly altered the way they work so end up handicapping yourself. Suddenly every IG sergeant went for axes and heaven forbid if you preferred swords. Tough luck. Just grab those power axes and forget about using swords.

Players are stuck with the incorrect idea that special rules are neccessity for depth or "own guys" etc. Worst thing to happen for options and "own guys" was introduction of chapter traits etc. Suddenly you couldn't make up "your ultramarines" as every ultramarine army suddenly went for same pattern. So much for "your guys"

Blastaar wrote:
It really is odd that players who want to tell stories and "see what happens" are drawn to games that pit two players against each other with the goal (whether the players care or not, it's in the mechanics) of defeating the other in some way. if a balanced, tactically deep game isn't interesting to someone, then perhaps they don't like war-games and would be happier with something else. Different people like different games, and that's okay.

I think this is giving away the position you're coming to it from.

For me, the game is a soft game, a fun way of seeing who wins but MOSTLY an excuse to push my toy soldiers around. Like a lot of people, I only play with painted armies, on nice terrain, and the look and feel of it is as important to me as the game. But I still want a game, bonus points if it's balanced and deep and tactically interesting but a fun game to start with.

It really is odd that players who want a tactical, competitive test of skill are drawn to games with so much modelling and painting required, where there are so many options it's FAMOUSLY impossible to balance and where there's so much backstory and narrative that goes into how people judge what's 'fair' to do. If a fun, storytelling, narrative game isn't interesting to someone, then perhaps they don't like science-fantasy war-games and would be happier with something else (say, historicals, or M:TG, or chess). Different people like different games, and that's ok.