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.
There’s one argument which is always present between wargamers – what is more important in wargaming – hobby or sport? We consider chess a real sport, and basic principles of wargames are almost the same. This argument is extremely relevant for Russian wargamers and Warhammer 40k. Today we’ll discuss the way to solve it.
It would be silly to deny the fact that any wargame with collectible minifigures is supposed to be a kind of hobby. However, there’s a large group of players who deny this part. They value pure gameplay. And like in any other sport – you have some restriction if you want to win. Sportsman doesn’t have time to collect an army squad by squad, meticulously painting every bullet. Many of them just buy somebody else’s armies or give their own models to paint studios. Such approach doesn’t include affection to models, giving them names and learning their history. Your models are your sports equipment. And the main feature of any sports equipment is its functions. The only value is model’s playability.
Such approach has its own pros and cons. One the one hand – you really develop your strategic thinking. You are not distracted by stories and you are focused on the gameplay. You know all your and opponent’s rules by heart and know how to use them. This can be called professionalism.
On the other hand, such player risks to lose a decent part of the game. People who create background for wargames earn their money for a reason. There’s much attention paid on the history of different worlds, races and conflicts. Sure, everyone knows background at a basic level. But not everyone can feel that this particular character is now taking revenge to his arch enemy. You need some time to get into the story to realize it. Sure, it doesn’t change much in reality. But the gaming experience is different.
Besides. There’s really sad tendency to treat your own army with awful negligence. If it’s only a bunch of stats and numbers for you- so should you care about how it looks? So, there are a lot of competitive armies painted in two colors above the black primer. Or armies from differently painted models from different sets. Or even armies, molded from clay and corks. Good thing is that at modern tournaments they tend to ban such armies. It’s totally right. No matter how you treat your miniatures – it’s an example of disrespect to your opponent, who might have been spent some nights awake, painting his miniatures.
However, hobby approach also has different sides. For example – if you take painting seriously, your army will grow veeery slowly. If you don’t let yourself play with unpainted models, you will miss a lot of events while painting your dream army. And when you finally do, you may realize that the rules edition has changed and half of your army needs to be redone.
Speaking about playability. The good thing about hobby approach is that you are not limited by only powerful models. You are interested in the whole army. A sportsman takes only units which play best, that’s why half of the others are ignored. From the other hand – why should you play if you don’t have a chance to win? And why should you reduce your chances?
This brings us to the main question here, between funplayers and sportsmen – what’s the most important part of the game? A sportsman will say – the victory. A funplayer will say – the process. And both of them are right. Chess don’t include such question, since there’s no background behind the figures. They don’t have their universe and personal traits. If you ignore this part of the game, you make your Warhammer Infinity or Malifaux just a brightly painted chess with some random elements.
So, this argument is pointless from the beginning. There’s a typical psychological distinction in its basis. Some people like the process, some – the result. And you can do nothing about it. The question is – how these two groups can live together in one wargame and enjoy it. If you come to a game with an army, collected according to your vision of the background and face the opponent with 36 similar models, which were taken only because they are the best, none of you will enjoy such game.
The main point is to assume that the other group of players has the same rights to exist as you do. There will be always sportsmen and funplayers. However, there are still a lot of people, who hate the others think that their approach is the only one which needs to exists. If you think about the others, you can decide what you expect of the game before you come there. So, there will be different events for different approach. This opens a completely new dimension in any wargame – the balance problem is solved, since on fun level there’s a nice balance everywhere, and on sports level weak armies don’t play at all. There’s no hatred – you just don’t play with those whose approach differs from yours. And then nothing will spoil your gaming experience. Such kind of tolerance.
What is fun is very subjective. But I agree that the dichotomy between competitive play and other aspects such as painting or background fluff is overblown and most people appreciate the various aspects to different degrees.
It's a false narrative that one falls into one category or another, although I am sure there are cases of such individuals. And that is certainly their choice. Personally, I like the background and creating fluff, I like to paint and covert and when I play I like to win.
People enjoy things for different reasons. What bugs me is the people who don't acknowledge how/why they're playing the game. If you're a crush-everyone power-gamer...just say so. Admit that you get enjoyment out of beating your opponent in the fastest, most efficient way possible. If you like spending a 20:1 ratio of time researching mathhammer/meta vs. playing the actual game...say so.
I think we can agree that the overly competitive stuff starts with younger players and occasionally carries on. It's very much part of our culture "OMG, I've got a 4.1 KD ration on Call of Duty, you all suck!" kind of stuff. It often translates into meaningless internet dick measuring, etc...but it is what it is.
Some people get over that stage, while some mature it gracefully and are able to compete hard, but still have a good time (other people throw their armies in the parking lot and flip tables...like children).
Some people just like the hobby aspect and want to paint...and play as a side-effect, or a way of simply showing off their painted stuff - often getting ass whupped in the process. No harm there.
I like fluff and lore, and I like cinematic games (i.e. fully painted, nice terrain, etc.). I prefer odd-ball scenarios and enjoy close-run games most of all. I don't care about winning if I'm having fun getting my ass handed to me. Completely irrelevant. However, as an aging adult I also expect more of my opponent (which luckily is normally my gaming group). I don't play with grey plastic on a kitchen table with soda cans.
The lack of effort/progress in creating a joint narrative/visual experience is what will kill the fun for me most rapidly (unless the player is brand new, or we're play-testing something in progress).
Blacksails wrote: Where's that picture of the kid saying "why not both?" when you need it...
Hate to be that guy here but it's totally a sport, the same way as a videogame. If the U.S. is willing to give e-sport players a visa to live, train, and compete than people should realize competition denotes a sport, not a ball in hand.
A sport is also a game, unless you're a professional athlete. But many people play football, basketball, soccer only because they want to have fun, not because they want to compete.
About 40k I'm only insterested in balanced games, two fluffy lists, two competitive ones or something in between, it doesn't matter. But not games with 100% tac lists, I don't care about winning or losing, I only want a game that is open to any result till turn 4 at least.
Blackie wrote: A sport is also a game, unless you're a professional athlete. But many people play football, basketball, soccer only because they want to have fun, not because they want to compete.
Competing isn't mutually exclusive from having fun. You can have fun while competing.
In my experiences, I have broken it down further into why someone plays miniature wargamining:
- The Modelling Aspect -
Some people really like to collect, build, convert, and paint the models. Sometimes without regard to any practical application in a rule set or how it would perform on the table. It's about the art and the collection first.
- The Game's Setting -
Whether historical or 40K players, some people are drawn into a particular wargame for its setting and the stories and characters associated with it. Something about the placement of these battles and army motivations draw them into their games and modelling choices.
- Competitive and Tournament Play -
This is where the previously mentioned "sports" aspect comes in to play. Some players are interested in playing hard and testing themselves against the strongest armies. They want to travel to the big tournaments and see how they compare as a tabletop general to all the others around.
- Socializing with Other Players -
Sometimes you just want to hang out with your friends over a game. Sometimes amazing friendships can be created from meeting new people who share a love for a game that you do. These players are here for a chance to be with their friends and make memories about their times in miniature wargaming.
In any case, what brings people back are their experiences. Any game or sport can be made to be competitive, there are many science fiction and fantasy settings around, scale models have existed for decades, and you can hang out at a bar as easily as a FLGS. But there is something about the experiences that someone has that keeps bringing them back to the same game over and over.
Myself, I am into the game's setting, the models, and playing with my friends; I can't stand competitive play AT ALL. In the current state of 40K, there are too many rules to keep up with, too many lists that can be abused for power, and I literally cannot afford to keep up with it all, money- and time-wise. Certain players in my area just make the experience a chore and not a game, whether by their attitude (questioning everything my army can do) or by the after game talks (like criticizing my army tactics). The only reason I have played any games of 40K in the past year is because I picked my games and played against certain people. Not to say that there is anything wrong with wanting to play competitively, it's just not for me, and it's certainly not for everyone. And the same goes for playing certain games over others.
The vitriol that I have seen spewed from people over the years for liking certain games or only playing certain ways is saddening. Miniature wargaming is a hobby, and those are supposed to be fun. But just because someone is enjoying something for different reasons than you does not make it okay to criticize, bash, berate, or otherwise be mean to other players.
These are things that I wish I had said at several moments in just this past year:
"No, Mr. Tournament player, I do not want to use a different Chapter Tactics for my Space Marines list, I like this one!"
"No, Mr. Warmachine player, I like taking these units you say are underpowered because the look cool!"
"No, Mr. other Warmachine player(s), I don't care what you think about 40K or GW, I still like it!"
"No, Mr. Age of Sigmar hater, I will keep playing Age of Sigmar because I am having fun with it!"
"No, Mr. new guy to our custom Kill Team campaign, I don't want to play Heralds of Ruin, I like the custom rules we are using as is!"
Everyone is wanting something out of their time in miniature wargaming, or any hobby, for that matter. If someone is having fun with it (and it is perfectly legal and ethical in what they are doing!) then you should not go after them for doing so. I like blackberries and not coconut in my desserts, and my wife likes coconut and not blackberries in hers, and we don't go after each other for that! Let people have fun and enjoy things without trying to control them (so long as it is legal and ethical ).
Blackie wrote: A sport is also a game, unless you're a professional athlete. But many people play football, basketball, soccer only because they want to have fun, not because they want to compete.
Competing isn't mutually exclusive from having fun. You can have fun while competing.
Absolutely correct, anyone can try to compete and have fun. However, I can tell you with absolute certainty that, in our area, several players despise playing in 40K tournaments (or even casual games of Warmahordes) because of the WAAC attitudes of the competitive players. It isn't the competition itself, but these certain players that suck the fun out of competing with their playstyles.
I do a ton of mathhammer as described but i wouldn't consider myself a power gamer.
For instance, I don't take invisibility, or veil of time when rolling my powers. the best "stacked save" i'll go after is Biomancy feel no pain, for the extra 4+, or to put eternal warrior on multi-wound models.
I know I could just run iron hands and it'd be moot. I spend a lot of extra points to NOT do stuff like that.
All of this said, I'm still going to have optimal configurations on the units i do use, and you won't see 4 heavy bolters in a devastator squad slogging up the field.
There's a fundamental difference between being a power gamer and being competitive. You can still be casual and be competitive.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
If you're comparing someone who "Plays for Fun" to a WAAC "Power Gamer", then I would relate them to an Honourable Duel and Fighting Dirty.
Players who play solely to win only achieve satisfaction with the end result, that is winning. For them, everything else is merely the mechanism to achieve this. Why this alone grants them joy can vary for various reasons, but usually bragging rights. Hence to them no trick is too underhanded to use, no unit off limits as long as it's within the boundaries of the rules. This is why these kinds of players tend to gravitate towards "OP armies", as they require the minimum of effort for a maximum payout.
Players who play "for fun" are instead like an Honourable Duelist. They must adhere to their own set of rules to have fun, because it is not the result that matters, rather the path that leads to that result. These players often put restrictions on themselves (most commonly a theme, but it can also be using a "weak" or challenging unit) and enjoy the experience of playing. Winning is still an objective, but it has far less value to the "fun" player as it is merely the conclusion to their journey, while the choices in and before the game are the real prizes. Note that these players can wield armies that are horrifyingly powerful, but the difference is these players create those armies and want to show off their mastery of the game mechanics rather than winning for winning's sake (winning, in this case, is merely a validation of their superior tactical and armybuilding skills).
That said, neither is necessarily bad or good. A person might like winning because that's the only way they've associated enjoyment with, there is no real malice to be had since their right to what defines fun is the same as everyone else's. Similarly, a "fun" player might insist on making everything go a certain way and may actually prolong someone else's humiliation just to see the completion of some arbitrary goal (One of the reasons many power gamers surrender after certain they will lose is not out of spite, but simply they saw that their goal is no longer within reach and wishes to waste no more time in trying anymore).
All too often I see people say that "if winning is not the point of the game, then what is?" and I just shake my head. Yes that is technically the point you are given as a player, but being that narrow minded just means you are not considering your opponent participation in the game. Similarly, shouting "that's not how it's suppose to be!" has a similar effect. Generally, I find people on both sides can be mean to each other, but it only occurs when they don't consider what the other player might find enjoyable. Note that this doesn't mean you should just roll over for someone who wants to win, or patronize someone who wants their theme or skills to work. just recognize what and when they will start finding the game tedious, and avoid those points.
For example I generally have friends who likes to win at all costs, but I like playing themed lists. So I always play the role of the villain, an evil mastermind that is suppose to be defeated. But I make my army as straightforward as possible, so the matches go by pretty smoothly without much interruption. I get my enjoyment for playing a theme, while he gets his enjoyment when he wins, or gets a chance to try again really quickly. I also try to soften the blow whenever I win by either blaming it on the dice (which is true) and lucky situations, as well as let him gloat when he does win.
There, rant over.
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
I agree with Elbows and Bunkhouse Buster. There are a myriad of different reasons players play games. A good portion of dissatisfaction from gaming come from both sides wanting different aspects out of a game.
I am at the point that I basically want to have a cool looking, thematic game going on. That's not to say I am not going to try to win once the game gets going. I just don't want to bother with calculating out every unit's distance from another, memorize nearly every stat and generate contingency plans for 2-3 possible actions that I think my opponent will try anymore. Way too much thinking for something I am trying to enjoy.
Hence, I don't like super competitive games as I am only going to try so hard on the table and even less so at the list building stage. At the same time, I want a close game for the experience to be enjoyable as well. I have no problem handicapping myself via the table setup or scenario type if I think it will help be a close game.
I would prefer my opponent inform me before hand if they are super competitive and will give no quarter before or during the game. That way we can agree not to game as we won't likely have fun. Me, because I the game is a forgone conclusion and my opponent as I won't be a challenge. And any player that pulls a bait-and-switch game on me will find me packing my stuff up mid-game without comment. I am not interesting in playing a noob/scrub beating game so my opponent can hur-hur about being the (read in nasally voice) 'ultimate gamer'.
Even more important to me is the aesthetics of the table. I don't consider myself having high standards, but I am not interested in playing an opponent with unpainted miniatures (some situations not withstanding). Half built models is straight out for me. Just as with a super competitive player not wanting to play me, I don't want to bother with a game of unpainted miniatures. Because I will find playing such a game a chore under those conditions. However, I don't belittle anyone that wants to play that way as they want different things out the game than I do. That's why I don't try to convince them to paint their stuff. I am not the boss of them.
I completely understand this limits my player pool. This is fine. No gaming is much better than bad gaming.
The only thing I can't wrap my head around is competitive 40K players. Given the poor rules and expensive models, it seems like a horrible thing to seek out competitive games when better options exist. It feels like competitive black jack or maybe just competitive 21. Sure, there is some strategy in there as well as tactics, but there are better card games for that if that is want you are into.
I can have fun power gaming as long as both players agree that this is the type of game to be played. Stomping things with my stompa, and other silly op things can be fun. Most games I play are unspoken of the casual type and a mismatch in power lvs aren't that enjoyable. However, this can be fixed by just ramping up the power lv of my army the next time I face those players who tend to field unusual heavy stuff in casual games. What I do not enjoy that much is dead serious games of 40k, I do like strategy a lot and are not above tactics such as rhino sniping but its not the type of game that I like to play at the "nope you forgot your movement phase and can't go back" lv of seriousness.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/06 03:16:41
Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: All too often I see people say that "if winning is not the point of the game, then what is?" and I just shake my head. Yes that is technically the point you are given as a player, but being that narrow minded just means you are not considering your opponent participation in the game. Similarly, shouting "that's not how it's suppose to be!" has a similar effect. Generally, I find people on both sides can be mean to each other, but it only occurs when they don't consider what the other player might find enjoyable. Note that this doesn't mean you should just roll over for someone who wants to win, or patronize someone who wants their theme or skills to work. just recognize what and when they will start finding the game tedious, and avoid those points.
The "point" of the game, or any game is to play it. The goal is to have fun based on your personal views of fun.
This is why I am now picky about who my opponents are anymore. Sure, I am getting in much fewer games in, but I am better enjoying the hobby and minimizing the stress and tedium of local tournaments.
It would be silly to deny the fact that any wargame with collectible minifigures is supposed to be a kind of hobby. However, there’s a large group of players who deny this part. They value pure gameplay.
That's not 'denying the hobby'... it's simply a hobby that involves playing games rather than painting miniatures.
'Hobby' is not synonymous with 'assembling models'.
Sportsman doesn’t have time to collect an army squad by squad, meticulously painting every bullet. Many of them just buy somebody else’s armies or give their own models to paint studios. Such approach doesn’t include affection to models, giving them names and learning their history. Your models are your sports equipment. And the main feature of any sports equipment is its functions. The only value is model’s playability.
There may be some competitive players who fit this stereotype... but the majority of competitive 40K players that I've met most certainly don't.
However, hobby approach also has different sides. For example – if you take painting seriously, your army will grow veeery slowly. If you don’t let yourself play with unpainted models, you will miss a lot of events while painting your dream army.
I'm a model builder more than a gamer... and my last 40K army was painted to game-ready in a fortnight. I don't think I missed too many events in that time, frankly.
A sportsman takes only units which play best, that’s why half of the others are ignored.
Also not always true. I know of several high-ranked tournament players who quite deliberately take weaker armies to see what they can do with them.
This brings us to the main question here, between funplayers and sportsmen – what’s the most important part of the game? A sportsman will say – the victory. A funplayer will say – the process.
Ultimately, both of them are saying 'the fun'.
It's not up to us to dictate whether other players are having fun the right way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/06 04:22:48
sport spôrt/ noun noun: sport; plural noun: sports
1. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
Chess, video games, table top games are not sports. For something to be a sport it requires physical exertion. They are games. Being a game does not make it less than. It's just a classification like role playing, or miniature war game, or board, or card. Just because something is not a sport does not mean it's less than something that is a sport. But trying to gain some kind of credibility by misclassifying things as sports is ridiculous. It's also why they have to call them "e-sports" or "intellectual sports". For that matter, golf is also not a sport. It's a game. No part of the actual playing of golf involves physical exertion. Dodge ball however. Totally a sport.
THAT being said, I did enjoy reading the initial post but I think it goes about asking it's question with a lot of unnecessary complication.
Each individual should spend their time in whatever way makes them happy. If the game makes you happy play the game. If it's models and paint then model and paint. For most it will likely be some mix of them all to different degrees. Everyone should do what they want. The only requirement should be to do your best not to ruin someone elses enjoyment.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/06 08:35:15
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
sport
spôrt/
noun
noun: sport; plural noun: sports
1.
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
Chess, video games, table top games are not sports. For something to be a sport it requires physical exertion. They are games. Being a game does not make it less than. It's just a classification like role playing, or miniature war game, or board, or card. Just because something is not a sport does not mean it's less than something that is a sport. But trying to gain some kind of credibility by misclassifying things as sports is ridiculous. It's also why they have to call them "e-sports" or "intellectual sports". For that matter, golf is also not a sport. It's a game. No part of the actual playing of golf involves physical exertion. Dodge ball however. Totally a sport.
So the International Olympic Committee recognizing Chess as a sport is wrong?
So the International Olympic Committee recognizing Chess as a sport is wrong?
Correct. It's a word in the English dictionary with a pretty clear definition. Just because a bunch of people decided to ignore what the word means does not change WHAT the word means.
For whatever reason people associate the classification "Sport" as having more "credibility" or "integrity" or something... than "game". That somehow by being recognized as a "sport" it somehow becomes greater than. 1) this perception is wrong. 2) it doesn't make anything that does not fit the definition of the word a sport even if committees of people decide to call it such.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
So the International Olympic Committee recognizing Chess as a sport is wrong?
Correct. It's a word in the English dictionary with a pretty clear definition. Just because a bunch of people decided to ignore what the word means does not change WHAT the word means.
For whatever reason people associate the classification "Sport" as having more "credibility" or "integrity" or something... than "game". That somehow by being recognized as a "sport" it somehow becomes greater than. 1) this perception is wrong. 2) it doesn't make anything that does not fit the definition of the word a sport even if committees of people decide to call it such.
Definitions change. The english language is very fluid and dynamic. Words gain and change meanings all the time. Look at the word 'literally' for example as it gained "figuratively" as a dictionary definition. Definitions change all the time. Nothing is stopping the definition of 'sport' from changing in way to include Chess within its parameters.
The problem with 'friendly non-competitive' games is that there's an extreme difference in power levels between one fluffy lists and others. You could run a mutation cult with lots of cultists, apostles and possessed with gifts of mutation and face off against a fluffy eldar jetbike army. Even non-competitive players want to win from time to time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/06 08:51:14
So the International Olympic Committee recognizing Chess as a sport is wrong?
Correct. It's a word in the English dictionary with a pretty clear definition. Just because a bunch of people decided to ignore what the word means does not change WHAT the word means.
For whatever reason people associate the classification "Sport" as having more "credibility" or "integrity" or something... than "game". That somehow by being recognized as a "sport" it somehow becomes greater than. 1) this perception is wrong. 2) it doesn't make anything that does not fit the definition of the word a sport even if committees of people decide to call it such.
Definitions change. The english language is very fluid and dynamic. Words gain and change meanings all the time. Look at the word 'literally' for example as it gained "figuratively" as a dictionary definition. Definitions change all the time. Nothing is stopping the definition of 'sport' from changing in way to include Chess within its parameters.
Sure, and when any of the organizations that keep tabs on that decide to update the definition that will be the case then. Right now it's not. Nor has it been for the years that this nonsense has been going on. Right now the definition of sport excludes anything that is not physically exerting. Bowling, Golf, Chess, Miniature games and video games are not sports. If at some point the English language decides to make the definition of Sport the same as Game so that the two words are redundant and completely interchangeable then everything can be called a sport.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
So the International Olympic Committee recognizing Chess as a sport is wrong?
Correct. It's a word in the English dictionary with a pretty clear definition. Just because a bunch of people decided to ignore what the word means does not change WHAT the word means.
For whatever reason people associate the classification "Sport" as having more "credibility" or "integrity" or something... than "game". That somehow by being recognized as a "sport" it somehow becomes greater than. 1) this perception is wrong. 2) it doesn't make anything that does not fit the definition of the word a sport even if committees of people decide to call it such.
Definitions change. The english language is very fluid and dynamic. Words gain and change meanings all the time. Look at the word 'literally' for example as it gained "figuratively" as a dictionary definition. Definitions change all the time. Nothing is stopping the definition of 'sport' from changing in way to include Chess within its parameters.
Sure, and when any of the organizations that keep tabs on that decide to update the definition that will be the case then. Right now it's not. Nor has it been for the years that this nonsense has been going on. Right now the definition of sport excludes anything that is not physically exerting. Bowling, Golf, Chess, Miniature games and video games are not sports. If at some point the English language decides to make the definition of Sport the same as Game so that the two words are redundant and completely interchangeable then everything can be called a sport.
Look I can see why chess is debatable, but Golf and Bowling are clearly sports...
So the International Olympic Committee recognizing Chess as a sport is wrong?
Correct. It's a word in the English dictionary with a pretty clear definition. Just because a bunch of people decided to ignore what the word means does not change WHAT the word means.
For whatever reason people associate the classification "Sport" as having more "credibility" or "integrity" or something... than "game". That somehow by being recognized as a "sport" it somehow becomes greater than. 1) this perception is wrong. 2) it doesn't make anything that does not fit the definition of the word a sport even if committees of people decide to call it such.
Definitions change. The english language is very fluid and dynamic. Words gain and change meanings all the time. Look at the word 'literally' for example as it gained "figuratively" as a dictionary definition. Definitions change all the time. Nothing is stopping the definition of 'sport' from changing in way to include Chess within its parameters.
Sure, and when any of the organizations that keep tabs on that decide to update the definition that will be the case then. Right now it's not. Nor has it been for the years that this nonsense has been going on. Right now the definition of sport excludes anything that is not physically exerting. Bowling, Golf, Chess, Miniature games and video games are not sports. If at some point the English language decides to make the definition of Sport the same as Game so that the two words are redundant and completely interchangeable then everything can be called a sport.
Look I can see why chess is debatable, but Golf and Bowling are clearly sports...
Yeah, It's super physically exerting to stand in one spot and swing a stick at a ball. When you watch videos of people playing golf they totally have sweat just pouring off them like Basketball players.
This guy...
Spoiler:
...looks like this guy...
who is covered in sweat.
Ever see a single image of a bowler who is covered in sweat from busting his ass playing Bowling?
Tennis
Sport
Bowling
Not a sport.
If you can play the game comfortably in a pair of Khakis chances are it's not a sport.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/06 13:45:11
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
No. Now you are adding arbitrary requirements on how physically intensive a sport has to be. No where in your dictionary definition does it say "must beat sweating a tsunami to be a sport". If you think swinging iron over the course of a 9km hike or chucking a 16lb ball one handed doesn't require physical exertion you're a moron.
How about you go play golf or bowling for 8 hours straight and tell me how your muscles feel afterwards?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/06 09:23:02
CrownAxe wrote: No. Now you are adding arbitrary requirements on how physically intensive a sport has to be. No where in your dictionary definition does it say "must beat sweating a tsunami to be a sport". If you think swinging iron over the course of a 9km hike or chucking a 16lb ball one handed doesn't require physical exertion you're a moron.
How about you go play golf or bowling for 8 hours straight and tell me how your muscles feel afterwards?
You are not playing golf when you are walking around the course to get to your ball any more than you are playing basketball when you walk from your bench to your starting position. There are things called golf carts and people drive them all up and down the course specifically because you are not playing golf unless you are standing over your ball and giving it a good solid swing with an iron 1-3 times per hole and putting it gently the rest of the time.
Bowling is the same deal. You are not chucking the 16lb ball. It's not a shot put. You are not throwing for distance. You are literally rolling it. The vast majority of the force exerted on your "throw" is from centrifugal force because your arm is acting like a pendulum. That's using physics to get the most bang from your buck with the least amount of effort possible. The skill in Bowling is about small twists in your wrist, your aim, and your stance when you release the ball.
No. It is not physically exerting. In either case.
I have had people argue that you have to haul around your clubs in golf and it makes you real tired. Bull gak. Hauling your golf bag is not the game. It's what your doing because you cannot afford a cart or a caddie.
Tell you what, go grab a pencil and write for 8 hours strait. Tell me how the muscles in your hand feel afterward. Is writing a sport now because repeated motions over the course of a solid work day are a strain on muscles?
No. It's not. They are games. Again, that doesn't make them any less. It's just what they are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/06 09:36:26
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: All too often I see people say that "if winning is not the point of the game, then what is?" and I just shake my head. Yes that is technically the point you are given as a player, but being that narrow minded just means you are not considering your opponent participation in the game. Similarly, shouting "that's not how it's suppose to be!" has a similar effect. Generally, I find people on both sides can be mean to each other, but it only occurs when they don't consider what the other player might find enjoyable. Note that this doesn't mean you should just roll over for someone who wants to win, or patronize someone who wants their theme or skills to work. just recognize what and when they will start finding the game tedious, and avoid those points.
Aye, there's some people who only have fun if they win. Others have fun if it's a hard fight, or if they can "forge the narrative" with their army, or bring finely painted models for the opponent to gawk at (before removing thm from play). I really like what a certain old gamer on another board used to say about it: "The objective of the game is to win, the purpose of the game is to have fun. The two should not be confused."
But even if I don't play the most powerful army (SoB) I can still usually have fun against the more competitive guys in our group due to a few reasons. The worst MathHammer guy we have has softened over the years and now tries to make games harder for himself when he knows the opposition isn't able to face him head on - he'll still bring the stuff but he might decide that his HQ must absolutely survive or do a specific deed, which means he has to risk a few easy points in order to reach his extra goal. And Mr. Money who easily buys a new OP army is a good sportsman for the most part so you don't feel bad for playing him even when you lose.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: All too often I see people say that "if winning is not the point of the game, then what is?" and I just shake my head. Yes that is technically the point you are given as a player, but being that narrow minded just means you are not considering your opponent participation in the game. Similarly, shouting "that's not how it's suppose to be!" has a similar effect. Generally, I find people on both sides can be mean to each other, but it only occurs when they don't consider what the other player might find enjoyable. Note that this doesn't mean you should just roll over for someone who wants to win, or patronize someone who wants their theme or skills to work. just recognize what and when they will start finding the game tedious, and avoid those points.
Aye, there's some people who only have fun if they win. Others have fun if it's a hard fight, or if they can "forge the narrative" with their army, or bring finely painted models for the opponent to gawk at (before removing thm from play). I really like what a certain old gamer on another board used to say about it: "The objective of the game is to win, the purpose of the game is to have fun. The two should not be confused."
But even if I don't play the most powerful army (SoB) I can still usually have fun against the more competitive guys in our group due to a few reasons. The worst MathHammer guy we have has softened over the years and now tries to make games harder for himself when he knows the opposition isn't able to face him head on - he'll still bring the stuff but he might decide that his HQ must absolutely survive or do a specific deed, which means he has to risk a few easy points in order to reach his extra goal. And Mr. Money who easily buys a new OP army is a good sportsman for the most part so you don't feel bad for playing him even when you lose.
I always have the most fun when it's a tough fight. I do try to win and when I do it's nice. But easy wins are not nearly as fun. When I do have easy wins I try to talk to my opponent and give them some pointers on their tactical missteps. I want them to give me a better run for my money next time. If I win or loose by the skin of my teeth it was probably a GREAT time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/06 09:50:45
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
).
