Letting someone win

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Hi Playground,

Under what circumstances, if ever, would you "tank" to let another player win a competitive game of some sort?

I personally think that it's disrespectful to the other player to intentionally make mistakes, and if they catch you doing it the outcome can be much more disheartening than getting soundly beaten.

That said, I can see the temptation. I'm an avid board and card gamer, and I know for a fact that my friends are more likely to "get into" a game if they win - or are at least competitive - their first go around. Getting curbstomped due to your own ignorance is much less exciting than stumbling into a victory. But again, me playing like a dumbass doesn't exactly ramp up their enthusiasm.

A middle ground I've found is to introduce games in a "learning game" fashion, where I help new players pick optimal strategies. But this is also frustrating, since if I help too much I'm basically playing myself, and the new players know it. Also my strategy lectures can get kind of boring; who'da thunk it?

Another problem: If I get on an early win streak due to my inherent advantage of fully knowing the game, my friends pick on me, and keep picking on me when that knowledge advantage dissappears. If I tanked early, I'd actually win more later. But still I refuse.

Secondary question: Any advice on how to rope players in and avoid a "take him down" kind of rep without duplicity?

[Bit Fiend]

As most competitive games I ever play are fighting games, it's an easy call.

I won't intentionally lose but I will fight in a weird fashion. I'll try to pull off moves I'd never contemplate against a serious opponent. So if I win, I win with style, it's still a challenge for me, and an epic and fun fight for my opponent.

EDIT: Another one would be CIV where I'd usually go for the cultural victory condition when playing with less experienced opponents. It's stylish but needs tremendous balls to pull off as it can seriously backfire if someone sees what you're doing too early... :smallamused:

[factotum]

I don't need to intentionally let the other guy win in 99% of circumstances, so it doesn't usually arise...

[Sith_Happens]

I recently discovered just how useful handicap settings are after never touching one for a decade and a half. It's a lot easier and works better than "going easy" on someone, which just doesn't feel right when I try to do it.

Of course, for most non-video games that's not an option, so...

[Brother Oni]

It depends on what you mean by competitive. In an actual tournament situation, I wouldn't throw the match unless I had no chance of proceeding even if I won (M:tG tourny rules can be confusing).

For something more physical like martial arts, it's disrespectful to your opponent, to the people who trained you, not to mention all the time and effort put into training. They deserve to have the best you've got thrown at them.

In more casual environment, I'm not really fussed. Like Bit Fiend, I'll just try to win by odd methods if I know I'm clearly better than my opponents.
Given my main casual opponents are my children, it's not hard to do weird and strange things and still win (I spent an entire round of Worms walking up to my daughter's worms and prodding them off cliffs and into mines - she still enjoyed the game).

[Aotrs Commander]

I should preface this by saying the only thing I play that is even distanly competative is table-top wargames. I don't play sports or online multiplayer, very rarely board games.

I don't play competatively. Like, period. (So no competitions, no tornaments, and not even games in that sort of mindset.) Win or lose doesn't bother me, so long as it's a good game. I play with the aim of winning, certainly, but a good game is faaar more important than who wins, at the end of the day.

(I take all my "must win" urges out on the computer AI in the games I play, where I tend to have the difficulty low and have no sympathy steamrolling over it. I enjoy playing that way.)

So, yeah, sometimes. (As I most frequently right the scenarios - and thus I tend to see each game as another thread in the pan-narrative that weaves through all my RPGs and wargames - I sometimes take a Dungeon Master-y approach to wargames too. After all, at the very end of the day, the DM's job is to set up some nice little pieces for the PCs to knock down (with a varying degree of difficulty), so sometimes I apply the same attidude. S'not about winning, it's about playing the game.

(Now if someone demanded that I stop holding back (which would idnicate that I was likely playing either my own starship rules, or they were a beginner in Manouvre Group or something (since those are two games I play most and I'm barely more than a learner of the latter myself), well, then I might humour them. But even then, a massecre is not fun to play on either side, in my opinion.) However, as the sort of scenarios we play - and the rules we play - are not at all designed with a competative mindset, it's not likely.)

Now, this isn't to say I don't play games that we term a "grudge match" wherein no holds are asked or given, but it's not something I feel I have to do as a matter or principle.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

As most competitive games I ever play are fighting games, it's an easy call.

I won't intentionally lose but I will fight in a weird fashion. I'll try to pull off moves I'd never contemplate against a serious opponent. So if I win, I win with style, it's still a challenge for me, and an epic and fun fight for my opponent.

EDIT: Another one would be CIV where I'd usually go for the cultural victory condition when playing with less experienced opponents. It's stylish but needs tremendous balls to pull off as it can seriously backfire if someone sees what you're doing too early... :smallamused:
That's...actually...a really clever way to handle it. You play to full capability, but with a weird strategy. I like this. It means that you don't have to artificially handicap yourself (which can be hard to properly gauge), and it means you get to explore another facet of the game.

[Winter_Wolf]

I only ever throw the game in video games, and then only in fighting games and racing games. Because solidly thrashing the other player too many times in a row causes them to quit, and to be unhappy for the remainder of the evening. At least among my friends.

I know I've played a game way too much when I can set my character to "one hit wonder" and still have to throw the game so the other person wins. And it's actually happened. And then your spouse's cousin goes and erases all the saved data files from your PS2 cartridge because he wants to be thrown out of the window of a sixth storey flat, head first. :smallmad:

[Triaxx]

I just can't do it. If I lose, it's because the other person is better than me, (which is frequent), but I spent years with no one to play against but the AI and so I ALWAYS play to win.

So if you beat me, good for you, if I beat you, you might want to find a different game or genre to play, because I'm terrible.

[Ishikar]

I find that "letting" someone win is a relative thing. I'm one of the middle-ground players as far as table-top gaming goes in my local store and I've got armies for every game that's actively played (and a sad realization that I can never add up my cost of models for the sake of my willful self-delusion) so I often get tapped to demonstrate or play teaching games with people.

If it's a declared teaching game then I'll usually play a simpler list (ex. a straight starter box for Malifaux) and then I'll make sure that the mission itself isn't something that I'm going to dominate with the respective lists. I also don't specifically act to deny my opponent their tricks/advantages. If it's their honest to god very first game with a system then I'll let them win otherwise I'll try to win but not blow them out of the water.

In games where it's not a teaching game then the line becomes a LOT more blurry, especially since I'm so used to being the underdog and I'm not too good at recognizing when I'm landsliding someone before it's too late (at which point seal clubbing accusations start). I make a point not to be rude for the sake of enjoyment but if you make a mistake I will punish you for it. If my opponent is getting frustrated or upset then I'll back off a bit if it's not a tournament (all bets are off then) because I've had moments where I really lose my temper to "whelp, I can do crap all to you" games (warmachine I'm looking at you).

As for video and card games, we usually rotate around when I play those with people so it's not really as much of an issue. We also do funny things like drunken rock band/soul calibur, or soul calibur with love song background music (mostly pop but it can be amazingly funny if times match up right).

[The_Jackal]

Only they first time I'm showing them the game. Then I make a point of it.

[Bit Fiend]

That's...actually...a really clever way to handle it. You play to full capability, but with a weird strategy. I like this. It means that you don't have to artificially handicap yourself (which can be hard to properly gauge), and it means you get to explore another facet of the game.

Thank you, but it's still a double edged sword nontheless. For instance, if in SFII I use Vega (Claw) and do nothing but special moves and the occasional slide I can still completely dominate an opponent who doesn't yet grasp the concept of anti-air. It may teach them anti-air eventually, but will definitely tech them the hard way. And you will never recover from the rep, when your opponent notices you're crushing him while you're just fooling around.

[Karoht]

When winning via use of the same tactic gets boring, I stop using that tactic because it has become boring, and I vocalize it as such.

IE-Fireballs with Ryu
When I used to play Street Fighter with my brother, something like this would come up. I'd spam fireballs, he would be losing and getting frustrated. I would announce (without being a jerk about it) that the tactic was no longer fun, and stop using it for a while. Sure, a fireball might come up once in a while, but not spam, regardless of how successful it was at the time.

Fireball, fireball, fireball, well that's boring now, time to make things more interesting. Hurricane kick, Uppercut, jumpkick into a ground combo, etc.

By announcing that it's not fun (which sort of calls the tactic cheesy) and returning the focus to having fun, no one tends to be butthurt about it. It tends to avoid the dogpile, but not always.

[Anteros]

If I honestly think that someone else will have more fun if I let them win, and it's not a competitive setting, I'll do it...although I won't let them know I'm doing it.

Honestly, if we're doing something that I'm that much better at them that I have to let them win, then they're probably trying to take an interest in something I like for my sake. Why wouldn't I want to make sure they have fun?

It can be construed as disrespectful though...which is why you don't let them know you're doing it.

[snoopy13a]

Only when I'm playing space chess against a Wookiee.

[Zevox]

As most competitive games I ever play are fighting games, it's an easy call.

I won't intentionally lose but I will fight in a weird fashion. I'll try to pull off moves I'd never contemplate against a serious opponent. So if I win, I win with style, it's still a challenge for me, and an epic and fun fight for my opponent.
That sounds like a decent way to do it. Personally though, while I also only play fighting games competitively, I also play them almost solely online against random people I don't know, so I never have a reason not to try my hardest. Especially since, after the first month or so a game is out, the only people left playing those games online tend to be at least somewhat good at them.

The exception is a single friend I have who is also into the genre, and we tend to go just a couple of games with our respective mains before starting on using just random characters and goofing off when we get to play each other, so it's not an issue there.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

My competitive games of choice are strategic tabletop games like Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico, Agricola, Power Grid, Dominion, Race for the Galaxy, and others. Various coaches from different sports all taught me that letting up is an insult to your opponent, and I guess that mindset carried over to the board game setting.

That said I feel like I should defend the notion of "no mercy" more. Allow me to make an analogy to Aristotelian virtue: If the goal is to be happy, you'll stumble through short term solutions and fail. If the goal is to be virtuous, you'll end up being happy in the process.

In the same vein, if the goal of a board game is directly to "have fun," then you're too busy walking on eggshells and playing the meta-game of "hide your true intent" to actually enjoy the game. Whereas if everyone's main goal is to win, the group can have fun discovering new strategies naturally and truly working that big head muscle. Can, anyway.

Also, I think it's harder to subtly tank in strategic board games rather than fighting games. There are no spammable strategies, just constantly morphing situations with some good actions to take and some bad actions. This is especially problematic when you're playing with one noob, who you want to coddle, and one experienced player, who can both spot your mistakes and gets screwed by them.

[Sith_Happens]

Only when I'm playing space chess against a Wookiee.

That was Dejarik (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Dejarik), actually, which is not to be confused with either Chess (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Chess) or Holochess (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Holochess).:smalltongue:


I know I've played a game way too much when I can set my character to "one hit wonder" and still have to throw the game so the other person wins.

Heh, I know exactly what you're talking about. I think my roommate is up to a ~25% win rate against me in Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm Generations with the handicap turned all the way towards him and me doing random character select.:smallamused:

I'm kind of in a weird position overall as far as the thread topic goes. Typically what happens is, I condition myself for playing against my cousin who consistently kicks my butt at almost everything, then end up beating the rest of my friends just as badly. At which point I barely even know how to go easy on them because I've gotten so used to giving it everything I have just to stand a chance.

It's probably worst in M:TG, because the difference in deck quality means I'm routing most of my current playgroup before the game even starts.

[Brother Oni]

It's probably worst in M:TG, because the difference in deck quality means I'm routing most of my current playgroup before the game even starts.

This one I don't understand - given that deck construction is of equal importance to playing ability, then you can enforce certain rules on yourself as a personal handicap.

Some examples would be using an obscure theme deck (eg: cephalopods or Goats), using Pauper construction rules or if you really want to challenge yourself, including a playset of Grey Ogres. :smalltongue:

[Slipperychicken]

I personally hate it when someone lets me win, and tries to deceive me into thinking they didn't. Win or lose, I want to be sure it was fair. If I'm not allowed to lose, we might as well just cut to the "Victory" screen. It feels disrespectful, like a personal insult as though my opponent is saying "Well, you're simply too dumb and unskilled to defeat me fairly, so I'll hand the victory to you as charity". It's like cheating, only in reverse.

Accordingly, I do not hold back in games either, barring exceptional circumstances (enemy will commit suicide if I hold back, and I have nothing to gain from victory).

[Sith_Happens]

This one I don't understand - given that deck construction is of equal importance to playing ability, then you can enforce certain rules on yourself as a personal handicap.

Some examples would be using an obscure theme deck (eg: cephalopods or Goats), using Pauper construction rules or if you really want to challenge yourself, including a playset of Grey Ogres. :smalltongue:

Sure, in theory I could do that. But I'd go crazy by the time I'd picked out half the cards. Like I said, it's a mental thing.

[MLai]

There are certain games where your ability to win does not imply any superiority on your part, merely that you're a bigger geek. For example, Collectible Card Games. If you can't play these games with friends without letting them have a chance, then don't bother. Unless said friends absolutely don't care and just wants to see the game played, even if it means seeing how it's like to be slaughtered.

The same can be said for fighting games. If you CBA'ed to random select, have handicap turned on, *AND* not use spam strategies that abuse noob weaknesses (for example, fireball-DP ad infinitum or infinite combos where your friend might as well put down the controller) then again don't bother playing. Or else don't act butthurt if said friend says "I don't like this game" after 5 minutes.

Some games are absolutely no fun if the odds are stacked, either through skill or larger financial investment. For examples of fighting games, games with design philosophies such as Tekken. If you abuse Tekken on a noob friend, don't be surprised when he later turns around and tells ppl how much Tekken sucks and how [insert his favorite fighting game here] is so much better.

[KillianHawkeye]

Funny, I was actually in a situation like this last week when I brought my copy of Super Street Fighter IV to a party with some friends who I quickly discovered were not SF players.

I didn't actually stoop to throwing a match, but I did forcibly reduce my level of play and chose characters that I don't normally use rather than crushing them into the floor with Zangief. I even played a match as Rufus, a character that I hate with a burning passion and swore never to play again.

[snoopy13a]

There are certain games where your ability to win does not imply any superiority on your part, merely that you're a bigger geek. For example, Collectible Card Games. If you can't play these games with friends without letting them have a chance, then don't bother. Unless said friends absolutely don't care and just wants to see the game played, even if it means seeing how it's like to be slaughtered.



That's why I've never gotten into CCGs. Although, if you and your friends wanted a "fair" game, couldn't both players play starter decks?

[huttj509]

That's why I've never gotten into CCGs. Although, if you and your friends wanted a "fair" game, couldn't both players play starter decks?

One of my friends has 6 decks that are relatively balanced against each other for when there's a gathering and people want to play.

Except the black deck, it needs to be toned down to be in line with the others.

[illyrus]

If I'm teaching someone a new game.

If we're friends and there is a large skill gap between us.

If we're testing something.

If I know they've had a bad day.

If its a group game between friends (Risk, Hearts, etc) I might employ a different strategy meant on controlling the outcome with someone else as the winner.

With strangers over the net, the most I'll do is have us both come out ahead if it is possible. Normally I'll just play to win.

[Math_Mage]

I don't see any need for duplicity among friends.

I basically play one game--League of Legends--and I play it obsessively. Because the primary mode is 5v5, I can play with as many as 9 friends at a time, which usually means a wide variety of skill levels in one game. That means the first thing we have to establish is how seriously everyone is gonna take the game, who's doing something off the wall, who's handicapping himself, etc. Often we take in-house games to a less serious or more luck-based mode. If we don't make these considerations, we end up with acrimony because everyone is expecting something different from the game.

Against random online opponents, of course, I tryhard. :smallwink: