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.

In forcing myself to do a blog post every day, I find that I'm delving deeper into my gamer psyche. I posed this question to myself tonight, and I'd really like to get a range of opinions for a future blog post.

So in terms of casual gaming, why do we like to win?

Or

Why is winning preferred even if we get nothing from it?

You can define casual however you like.

Thanks all!

Because "casual", as it is commonly used in this context, is just an excuse to take the moral high ground when someone cares about winning more than you do.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because "casual", as it is commonly used in this context, is just an excuse to take the moral high ground when someone cares about winning more than you do.

I like it!

Because winning is better than losing, no matter what context it's in. Even a silly game of monopoly with friends when the power cuts out is still nice to win.

For me, sometimes winning is an easier way to justify the amount of time and $$$ I put into the hobby. Modeling alone is very satisfying, but when the awesome paint jobs hit the table, I like to win. It makes me feel like I am winning at both sides of the hobby. It sucks to bring nicely painted miniatures to the table and get blown away by unpainted gray models... It seems I have less sore feelings when I get stomped by someone with nicely painted models as it makes me feel that they put in the same effort to beat me. Odd I guess...

It's ingrained into our psyche to win. To beat the other guy, and take his stuff, to protect our own stuff, to impress and intimidate others.

Wanting to win a wargame is just another variation on the theme. Almost everything in life is a competition of one type or another.

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:
For me, sometimes winning is an easier way to justify the amount of time and $$$ I put into the hobby. Modeling alone is very satisfying, but when the awesome paint jobs hit the table, I like to win. It makes me feel like I am winning at both sides of the hobby. It sucks to bring nicely painted miniatures to the table and get blown away by unpainted gray models... It seems I have less sore feelings when I get stomped by someone with nicely painted models as it makes me feel that they put in the same effort to beat me. Odd I guess...

I had never considered that, but I can really relate. If part of the game, to you, takes place off the tabletop then you want it to feel worthwhile. I remember spending a lot of time painting my Man o' War Kovnik and looking forward to him standing next to a Destroyer and laying chaos across the battlefield. But every time I played him, he felt shoehorned into the list and never proved to be worthwhile.

I'm actually going to put him in my display case right now so I feel less guilty about the poor little guy.

No one plays to lose and no one plays to draw. Everyone plays to win. Winning might not be the only reason to do something and certainly 'winning' isn't a requirement of fun. Winning might be lower on your list of priorities after showing off minis or telling a story ("forging a narrative", to use the new GW buzz-phrase). You might not even be all that terribly fussed if you lose. But, you're still going to try to win. Doesn't matter if you're a 'casual' gamer either.


I mean I personally care more about story and cool terrain. Those are the two things I like the most and direct most of my energy towards. But I'm damn-well going to try to win every game I play. My competitive endlessly-list-tweaking streak may have died years ago, but I'm always going to try to win my games.

Nobody likes to lose.

Playing to win gives a purpose to the match. It's not much fun to win if your opponent is just moving his models around in circles without even thinking about what he's doing.

That's the whole point of competition, to try and win.

The only difference between the "casuals" and the "WAAC" (and I hate both terms very much) is that "casuals" take what's cool and makes sense to them in the fluff, and try to win with it. "WAAC" enjoy looking through stats, number crunching, and figuring out the most efficient way to win.

We all want to win, it's just how we go about achieving it that even gives people a reason to come up with stupid labels like "WAAC" and "casual" in the first place.

It's human nature to want to win. Every game i play i play to taste victory. My forces are not meant to know defeat (although they have, especially under 6th)

One thing i cannot stand however is those that play to win at the expense of the game being fun. Spam lists and win at all costs lists are unwelcome opponents for me...

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
The only difference between the "casuals" and the "WAAC" (and I hate both terms very much) is that "casuals" take what's cool and makes sense to them in the fluff, and try to win with it. "WAAC" enjoy looking through stats, number crunching, and figuring out the most efficient way to win.

Except those are just the extremes which I don't think are terribly common in reality. I know I like mostly taking armies that I think are cool and have a cool background, but I'm also an engineer and I also enjoy looking at the stats and "number crunching" (most the maths is trivial ) to do things efficiently. Just the same way I chose the car in my driveway because I think it's cool and looks cool, but I then research carefully all the parts in it, tune it carefully and mix and match the parts to make it more powerful and more efficient, bending it to my will

As to why winning is important... because that's a large part of what makes it a game in the first place, the desire to get one up on your opponent through superior skill, strength, knowledge, etc. Without that, it's just moving plastic toy men around on a table

 DiabolicAl wrote:
One thing i cannot stand however is those that play to win at the expense of the game being fun. Spam lists and win at all costs lists are unwelcome opponents for me...

Thank you for proving my point exactly: a casual player is someone who cares as much as or less than me about winning, a WAAC player is someone who cares more than me about winning. There's no magical objective definition of "fun", "casual" and "WAAC" are just labels used to claim the moral high ground and pretend that your personal preferences are some kind of divine wisdom about how games work.

The guy who says "Oh I'm a casual player. I don't play to win" is just as annoying as the guy who takes a spam list and then tries to justify it with the fluff "No but they would take this many [insert spammy unit here]!".

They're lying. Pure and simple. The guy who lost who claims he doesn't play to win wanted to win because everyone tries to win when they play. He's just trying to get some imagined high ground as Peregrine said. The guy who tries to pass off his super-tweaked ultra-competitive army as 'fluffy' is trying to present himself in a false light.

I'd much rather play a WAAC player who said from the outset "I don't give a gak what this army's fluff is. I'm here to crush you." than I would against someone who brings whatever the latest flavour of the month army is and pretends that he's got a rich background behind it.

I think its because everyone likes to have fun.

Winning is the objective of the game (with a few exceptions like Zombiecide where it is surviving ), having an enjoyable time is the aim of the players and they do this by playing the game.

So trying to win is an inevitable result of playing the game.

Where this falls down sometimes is a player will all to often forget that it is about the enjoyment of all players and this is where TFGs, powergamers, cheats etc come in.

You could argue that tournaments are slightly differant as the game is part of an larger overall setting. I think there is some merit to that point but do not accept that it should be any less enjoyable to all players if they approach it as such.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DiabolicAl wrote:
One thing i cannot stand however is those that play to win at the expense of the game being fun. Spam lists and win at all costs lists are unwelcome opponents for me...

Thank you for proving my point exactly: a casual player is someone who cares as much as or less than me about winning, a WAAC player is someone who cares more than me about winning. There's no magical objective definition of "fun", "casual" and "WAAC" are just labels used to claim the moral high ground and pretend that your personal preferences are some kind of divine wisdom about how games work.

Now you see the thing is not only can these people ruin the game for their opponent but i cant really fathom how they have fun themselves. I have already ascertained that i play to win. However if i smash someone into the floor and grind their army into the dirt with smugness written all over my face then i certainly havent made it a good experience for my opponent and they are unlikely to want to play me again. My friend had an experience similar: 6th Edition had just come out. It was his first game in a new edition and he arranged a game at our local club. He made it quite clear that he was trying out his eldar after neglecting them for much of 5th and that he just wanted a nice 'casual' fluffy game just to try out the new rules. The guy turned up with a razorback spam list and promptly pounded him into the dust. sitting in his vehicles. The Eldar didnt even get close, it was a very one sided and very miserable game for my mate. What did he learn? (apart from not to play this utter tool again)

I can honestly say that i would prefer a hard fought game that comes down to a few key decisions and dice rolls than taking an OP list and steam rollering over my opponent completely ruining his experience.

Maybe thats just me.

 notprop wrote:
Winning is the objective of the game (with a few exceptions like Zombiecide where it is surviving ), having an enjoyable time is the aim of the players and they do this by playing the game.

I would argue that even a game where the objective is to 'not lose' still triggers the victory response.

For instance, a favourite in our game group is the board game Robinson Crusoe: Adventure on the Cursed Island. The general concept is to survive as long as possible (it is possible to win, there are objectives to complete and can result in victory), but generally the game is very brutal to the players (e.g. you lose health very quickly, but regaining health is very time-consuming), but even games where we have lost, we have all still felt a sense of achievement in the many small victories along the way (e.g. 'that was a harsh game, but Jim took out that panther that gave us enough fir to build a roof and last another whole turn!'). Admittedly it's a co-op game so we may be talking apples and accordions here.

But as for 'liking to win casual games' it is literally encoded in our DNA to do so, at a primeval level, we would take a risk (say, hunting an animal), and expect a reward (tasty tasty meats), and our brains are hard wired to release the chemicals that make us feel happy when our risk is suitably rewarded, and indeed make us sad when we fail (and go hungry) to reinforce that we must be successful hunters to survive. A good while (and a lot of evolution, and the invention of expanded polystyrene later) and we are doing the same thing, we are taking a risk (putting our toy soldiers on the table) and expect to be rewarded (with no real reward other than the victory itself), we still get the same chemical responses, i.e. we want the happy chemical release, and avoid the sad chemical release, it's just the scenario that is different.

HI all.
I think the OP should have simply put.
'Why do we like to win games?'

Because years of evolution had bred out those that did not strive to succeed!

Co-operative games sees all the players working together to try to succeed.(Within the parameters set by the game.)
Opposed games both players are trying to succeed .(Within the parameters set by the game, eg trying to win.)

I am not sure how you define a 'casual' game.
IMO casual and compulsive is more of a definition of the players attitude.

I know most narrative driven games tend to be devoid of 'points values' or 'army size'.But are agreed upon between players or set by an experianced Umpire/GM.

And games that are developed for balanced competative play tend to use point values and force /army composition to arrive at a level of balance that does not detract from the game play.


A game which is designed for narrative driven play, and then had the trappings of 'competition' thrust upon it haphazardly to appeal to a wider audience .
Is probably the worst kind of game .
For the amount of detriment and division it causes to the game play and player base.
And if the rules are poorly defined and over complicated, you end up with a real stinker!

 DiabolicAl wrote:
Now you see the thing is not only can these people ruin the game for their opponent but i cant really fathom how they have fun themselves.

Because two powerful lists played by competitive players results in a balanced and interesting game.

My friend had an experience similar: 6th Edition had just come out. It was his first game in a new edition and he arranged a game at our local club. He made it quite clear that he was trying out his eldar after neglecting them for much of 5th and that he just wanted a nice 'casual' fluffy game just to try out the new rules. The guy turned up with a razorback spam list and promptly pounded him into the dust. sitting in his vehicles. The Eldar didnt even get close, it was a very one sided and very miserable game for my mate. What did he learn? (apart from not to play this utter tool again)

Hey, that's funny, because I had a very similar experience: 6th edition had just come out. It was my first game in a new edition and I arranged a game at our local club. I made it quite clear that I was trying out my SW after neglecting them for much of 5th, and that I wanted a nice 'casual' fluffy game with my mechanized assault company just to try out the new rules. The guy turned up with a really weak Eldar list and got tabled without ever even shooting my troops out of their vehicles. The Eldar didn't even get close, it was a very one sided and very miserable game for me. What did I learn (apart from not to play this utter tool again)?

Why do we blame the player who brought a fun and fluffy Razorback list and call them an "utter tool" or WAAC TFG, but idolize the player who ruined their opponent's game by bringing a weak list and conceding defeat before the game even started?

Lanrak wrote:
HI all.
I think the OP should have simply put.
'Why do we like to win games?'

I think you're missing the point a bit. The OP's specific question is important because there's a very loud and obnoxious group of self-titled "casual gamers" who will give you long rants about how "WAAC" players ruin everything (take your pick of "spamming", "netlisting", etc), and you should play to have fun instead of to win. And yet these people who supposedly hate the idea of playing to win will consistently try to win the game, attempt to make good decisions about which play to make, etc. It's massive and extremely annoying hypocrisy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DiabolicAl wrote:
Now you see the thing is not only can these people ruin the game for their opponent but i cant really fathom how they have fun themselves.

Because two powerful lists played by competitive players results in a balanced and interesting game.

My friend had an experience similar: 6th Edition had just come out. It was his first game in a new edition and he arranged a game at our local club. He made it quite clear that he was trying out his eldar after neglecting them for much of 5th and that he just wanted a nice 'casual' fluffy game just to try out the new rules. The guy turned up with a razorback spam list and promptly pounded him into the dust. sitting in his vehicles. The Eldar didnt even get close, it was a very one sided and very miserable game for my mate. What did he learn? (apart from not to play this utter tool again)

Hey, that's funny, because I had a very similar experience: 6th edition had just come out. It was my first game in a new edition and I arranged a game at our local club. I made it quite clear that I was trying out my SW after neglecting them for much of 5th, and that I wanted a nice 'casual' fluffy game with my mechanized assault company just to try out the new rules. The guy turned up with a really weak Eldar list and got tabled without ever even shooting my troops out of their vehicles. The Eldar didn't even get close, it was a very one sided and very miserable game for me. What did I learn (apart from not to play this utter tool again)?

Why do we blame the player who brought a fun and fluffy Razorback list and call them an "utter tool" or WAAC TFG, but idolize the player who ruined their opponent's game by bringing a weak list and conceding defeat before the game even started?


Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or not. First up i dont believe my mate took a 'weak' list (although you'd have to ask him to be sure) i believe that what he took was a BALANCED list you know the kind of list that has a variety of units and unit styles so that you can experiment a little with the rules. Obviously he would have played to win as is his nature and to his credit he not only finished the game but made a good go of it. If i had turned up with my army and been faced with 6 razorbacks with 3 units of longfangs and tactical squads sitting inside sitting on the back table edge with quite clearly no intention of making an honest game (bearing in mind that the 'friendly' nature of the game had been pre arranged) of it i would have promptly walked without deploying and crossed that particular opponent off my list of people i like to game with. If playing in a tournament then all bets are off of course

Should you still feel that wanting to have an enjoyable game whilst still playing with an overriding desire to win is 'weakness' then frankly i feel sorry for you but im sure you'll find much better gaming experiences playing all the similar people like you that measure up to what your idea of a gamer should be

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The guy who says "Oh I'm a casual player. I don't play to win" is just as annoying as the guy who takes a spam list and then tries to justify it with the fluff "No but they would take this many [insert spammy unit here]!".

They're lying. Pure and simple. The guy who lost who claims he doesn't play to win wanted to win because everyone tries to win when they play. He's just trying to get some imagined high ground as Peregrine said. The guy who tries to pass off his super-tweaked ultra-competitive army as 'fluffy' is trying to present himself in a false light.

I'd much rather play a WAAC player who said from the outset "I don't give a gak what this army's fluff is. I'm here to crush you." than I would against someone who brings whatever the latest flavour of the month army is and pretends that he's got a rich background behind it.

In all fairness, some of the spammy/fotm lists can be quite fluffy. IG air cavalry, for example, can go hand-in-hand with a lot of regiments (Elysions, for example).

Of course, we wouldn't have to worry about people building intentionally weaker lists if the game was actually decently balanced, but I digress.

As far as I'm concerned, play to win, or don't play at all. If I go against an opponent who is sandbagging, or uses the excuse "I wasn't trying to win," I now have an excuse never to play another game with them again. Go ahead and play an optimized or unoptimized list, whatever you want, but at the end of the day, don't play dumb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DiabolicAl wrote:

Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or not.

Of course he is. But his point is entirely valid.

First up i dont believe my mate took a 'weak' list (although you'd have to ask him to be sure) i believe that what he took was a BALANCED list you know the kind of list that has a variety of units and unit styles so that you can experiment a little with the rules.

For the record a BALANCED list is not something that throws a bunch of random crap together. A BALANCED list would be something that has answers for all of its major threats, and can fulfill all major functions (capture objectives, neutralize enemy units, etc.).

If i had turned up with my army and been faced with 6 razorbacks with 3 units of longfangs and tactical squads sitting inside sitting on the back table edge with quite clearly no intention of making an honest game

What's 'dishonest' about playing what's in your codex? His loadout sounded entirely legal.

(bearing in mind that the 'friendly' nature of the game had been pre arranged)

Most of my friendly games, back when I still played, were against lists that were just as hard, if not harder. Even back when I played Daemonhunters. Those Daemonhunters. A friendly game isn't defined by what the players bring to the table, but by their attitudes. You're passing this guy off as an donkey-cave just because he likes to play competitive armies, and if you ask me, that's real donkey-cave behaviour.

of it i would have promptly walked without deploying and crossed that particular opponent off my list of people i like to game with.

Now, there's nothing wrong with not wanting to play someone because of what they've brought to the table. I had a personal rule that I wouldn't play against Necrons. I've had friends go and say that they won't play against certain lists (to me even). The problem is when you start labeling people as being donkey-caves for using something that you don't like playing against.

 DiabolicAl wrote:
Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or not. First up i dont believe my mate took a 'weak' list (although you'd have to ask him to be sure) i believe that what he took was a BALANCED list you know the kind of list that has a variety of units and unit styles so that you can experiment a little with the rules.

Then he took a weak list. A list with a variety of units and unit styles is a weak list because it has no focus, it tries to do a little of everything and succeeds at nothing. Taking a list like that in a random pickup game is a TFG move because you pretty much guarantee that unless your opponent deliberately takes a similarly bad list they're going to have a bad game as they beat you effortlessly.

If your friend wanted to play a game like that he should have made it clear that he wanted a game with a variety of units on both sides with the intent to experience as many possible rule interactions as possible. It sounds like he failed to do that and just assumed that he'd get what he wanted even without asking for it.

If i had turned up with my army and been faced with 6 razorbacks with 3 units of longfangs and tactical squads sitting inside sitting on the back table edge with quite clearly no intention of making an honest game (bearing in mind that the 'friendly' nature of the game had been pre arranged) of it i would have promptly walked without deploying and crossed that particular opponent off my list of people i like to game with. If playing in a tournament then all bets are off of course

In other words you would have ragequit because your opponent brought a fluffy list with an awesome theme and you didn't like the fact that they didn't read your mind, weaken their list and destroy its fluff, and bring something that compensated for your poor list choices and allowed you a better chance of winning.

And in my opinion a "friendly" game is one in which both players behave well, avoid rules lawyering constantly, laugh at their own bad die rolls, chat about things other than the game in progress, etc. "Friendly" has nothing at all to do with list building choices or what strategies you use to win.

Should you still feel that wanting to have an enjoyable game whilst still playing with an overriding desire to win is 'weakness' then frankly i feel sorry for you but im sure you'll find much better gaming experiences playing all the similar people like you that measure up to what your idea of a gamer should be

I do want to have an enjoyable game. Which is why I don't like players that bring bad lists to pickup games and let me win without an interesting fight. They should stop that selfish behavior and consider my gaming experience as well as their own, and do their part to create a challenging and balanced game for both players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The guy who says "Oh I'm a casual player. I don't play to win" is just as annoying as the guy who takes a spam list and then tries to justify it with the fluff "No but they would take this many [insert spammy unit here]!".

That depends on how much work they've put into the fluff. It might be a competitive "screw the fluff, I'm winning" list full of gray plastic, or it might be a SW Long Fang/Razorback spam list with a beautiful paint job and detailed histories full of glorious battles for each of those veteran Long Fangs.

What I find really annoying is that some people treat "fluffy" as a synonym for "weak", and assume that a list/unit is fluffy if and only if it's bad at winning. And then they insist that their random pile of units with no effort invested in a background story/painting/etc must be "fluffy" because it uses all of those bad units that you rarely see outside on the table.

 Peregrine wrote:

Why do we blame the player who brought a fun and fluffy Razorback list and call them an "utter tool" or WAAC TFG, but idolize the player who ruined their opponent's game by bringing a weak list and conceding defeat before the game even started?

Are you joking?

How is a Razorback list fluffy?

Have you considered that maybe people play for other reasons than grinding the enemy into a pulp every time they play?

To answer the OP's question: we like to win casual games because we're human - we enjoy winning.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Are you joking?

How is a Razorback list fluffy?

Well, Marines need to get around somehow. Considering the structure of marine chapters and companies, it's entirely reasonable for them to send in an armoured company to handle vairous operations. Really, it's just as fluffy, if not moreso, than any other loadout you'd see.

Have you considered that maybe people play for other reasons than grinding the enemy into a pulp every time they play?

Perhaps. But no one has an obligation to neuter their army just to make the person playing them happy.

Why do we blame the player who brought a fun and fluffy Razorback list and call them an "utter tool" or WAAC TFG, but idolize the player who ruined their opponent's game by bringing a weak list and conceding defeat before the game even started?

Hear hear! A one sided game is not fun for either player.
I only buy models I know are good and can make strong lists out of. As a result I can't make a 'fluffy' list which is bad. My whole armies fluff is always based around those units which I know are strong on the table.

My reasoning is that games are better when both players bring the strongest lists they can is this: There is much more research and thought around what is optimal for a given army. As a result, two players bringing the best lists they can are likely to be quite evenly matched whereas two players bringing 'fluffy' or 'weak' lists are likely to have very different ideas of the meaning of 'fluffy' or 'weak'. This results in a situation like above occurring.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
How is a Razorback list fluffy?

A mechanized assault using the speed of a Razorback to deploy the entire force to attack from an unexpected direction and hit the enemy's weakest point, while compensating for lower infantry numbers with the built-in heavy weapons of the transports. In the case of SW, it would be a very fluffy representation of Egil Iron Wolf's Great Company (or a similar chapter/company/character from the player's personal fluff).

And you know what's really funny? Long Fangs with Razorbacks were the stereotypical "everything that's wrong with 5th" unit, but in the codex it clearly states that Long Fang units love the Razorback and take it whenever they can, making this hated unit about as fluffy as possible!

Have you considered that maybe people play for other reasons than grinding the enemy into a pulp every time they play?

Yes, which is why you should always bring a strong list and not ruin your opponent's game by reducing it to grinding you into a pulp.

Fair point there. I did not know that.

That's true. No one does have an obligation to neuter their armies. But equally, if you have brought a strong list, would it not be more fun for you to turn down the game?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
But then if you want the Marines to simply get around, why not put them in Rhinos? If you need firepower for your armoured company, why not bring Predators or Land Raiders?

Why did GW invent the Razorback if these other units are so great and should always be used instead? Because a transport with the ability to contribute to the fight with its own weapons is a very useful thing to have, which is why the Chimera is awesome, why real-world armies developed similar vehicles, etc. Taking a force composed of small units of elite troops in mobile transports/gun platforms is a very sensible idea, and a fluffy concept for an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
That's true. No one does have an obligation to neuter their armies. But equally, if you have brought a strong list, would it not be more fun for you to turn down the game?

Sure, if one player knows that the game is going to be one-sided and not fun they should simply decline to play. I have no problem with two players deciding that their goals for the game are not compatible and finding other opponents that share their expectations. What I do not like the the entitled attitude among certain "casual gamers" who show up to random pickup games with weak lists and then call their opponents TFG if they don't weaken their list to match, while the "casual" player has no obligation to strengthen their list to help make it a closer fight.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
How is a Razorback list fluffy?

Can you explain how it's not? I've never seen anyone try to explain how lists that "spam" transports are violating fluff, and I've never once read anything in any codex that backed that idea up either, so I honestly have no clue why people feel that way. It's literally just "This list isn't fluffy because it's not fluffy!" and I don't understand it at all.

If you read my next post, I retracted the comment when it was explained.