An elucidation on versus multiplayer "fun" (A.Q.L.T.)

[Lheticus]

When I'm not being competitive but still want to play a game that involves more than one player, and further non-coop, there is a certain kind of "fun" that I wish to derive that has appeared to be next to impossible to attain short of using a private group of friends. Until now, I have been unable to sufficiently explain it, the below is my attempt to do so.

In such a mood, I want...the kind of gaming fun that's found around a stereotyped kitchen table Scrabble, Monopoly, or Life board. There's no metagame this, tier that, optimal-build-whatever. It's just people PLAYING a game to derive clean freaking FUN from it. Yes, in the end there's a "winner" but it's mutually recognized and understood that winning isn't the point of being there--it's to get together with friends/family/like minded people and bloody well have FUN without a mentality of trying to destroy or "pwn" anyone else taking part.

The main obstacle I face in chasing this desire is the portion of the above that says "friends/family/like minded people." My friends and family don't really game that much. Certainly there are occasions where we have, but those are few and far between--not enough to satisfy my desire for this type of fun but enough for me to state beyond a doubt that it does in fact exist. As for "like minded people"...well, there's the REAL problem. With people who don't know me/each other well enough to be friends, the presence of the aforementioned mentality of a thirst to win seems immutable. In this scenario I just want an opportunity to putz around playing a game with like minded (read: nerdy/geeky etc) people, but people for whom that and "gamer" intersect seem to intersect too omnipresently with competitive as well to have a gathering between like minded individuals rather than a private friend circle be a thing.

Well, I seem to have just about said my piece, so please feel free to say yours. Off into the wild blue yonder once more!

[RagingKrikkit]

Team Fortress 2. Yes you do run into the occasional munchkin, but for the better part (especially on community servers), nobody really minds if you want to play a mitten spy (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hOai47QtHnc).

[veti]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: play Munchkin (http://www.worldofmunchkin.com/game/).

[Squark]

First off, as a slight tangent, I'd argue that metagames exist in any stable group of players, it's just in "casual" groups no one is conscious. Assuming the game involves some degree of strategy, you as a human being will naturally begin to recognize patterns in your friend's playstyles over time, and adjust how you play accordingly.

But as to your main point, it seems like what you're really looking for is the right atmosphere in a game. Good game design evokes a certain playstyle. With that, I have to ask- Are you asking for suggestions, or just trying to spark discussion?

[Lheticus]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: play Munchkin (http://www.worldofmunchkin.com/game/).

Munchkin has too much atmospheric emphasis on screwing each other over. I've also heard rules lawyering is a part of the FUN of the game. No thanks.


First off, as a slight tangent, I'd argue that metagames exist in any stable group of players, it's just in "casual" groups no one is conscious. Assuming the game involves some degree of strategy, you as a human being will naturally begin to recognize patterns in your friend's playstyles over time, and adjust how you play accordingly.

But as to your main point, it seems like what you're really looking for is the right atmosphere in a game. Good game design evokes a certain playstyle. With that, I have to ask- Are you asking for suggestions, or just trying to spark discussion?

I really just wanted to spark discussion. And an example of a game that would be really good for what I'm talking about is Fibbage. Its extremely simple premise--make up a plausible wrong answer, and pick the right one--means the presence of a metagame is as close to nil as you can feasibly get while maintaining a large variety of gameplay to keep things fresh and ensure things don't get repetitive or predictable. I WOULD play it, except no XBOX and no one to play with.

As for the "sparking discussion", I was really going into this thread under the assumption that the atmosphere of play I desire is darned near impossible to find outside groups of friends or family--a significant chunk of my OP said as much I believe. So I'm not actively looking for a solution here, just to clear that up. I'm more saying "this is totally not going to be a thing that happens, but wouldn't it be nice if it would?" What I'm talking about is a TRULY "friendly" game. Really the ID of the game doesn't matter if it's understood among the total group that winning doesn't matter, and playing OP shenanigans/other moves that like totally freaking destroy one of more other players is not a thing that is desired. But as I just said, that is not a thing that is going to happen.

Essentially, this is an extremely long winded "why can't we all just get along?" to gamers.

[Squark]

Well, I'm not sure how you can avoid the screwing each other over thing, since that's inevitable in pretty much any interactive competitive game (My cousin spent a lot of time cursing my knack for placing words right where she wanted to during New Years Scrabble). The trick, I think, is to make sure it's all in good faith, and everyone's on the same page. Choice of game helps too (You don't play Diplomacy with friends unless you're very good at leaving what happens at the table at the table, for instance), but you're right, the attitude is the biggest part of it.

Actually, thinking about it, a certain degree of familiarity probably is required to get some of what you want, simply because half the fun of games with family and close friends comes from the intimacy of the situation. I mean, you can get zany action with acquaintances or relative strangers with the right kind of game (We Didn't Playtest This At All and Cards Against Humanity come to mind), but it won't be quite the same. So I guess what you're looking for is an intrinsic quality unique to a game night with close friends/family.

Of course, you might be able to eventually form that if you met with the same group of people for a long period of time, and I think some games that involve self disclosure and spark discussion might speed up the process a bit.

[veti]

There's a whole genre of games designed for "co-operative play but still producing a final winner". They're most commonly called "German-style games", and the poster child is Carcassonne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcassonne_%28board_game%29).

[CarpeGuitarrem]

There's a whole genre of games designed for "co-operative play but still producing a final winner". They're most commonly called "German-style games", and the poster child is Carcassonne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcassonne_%28board_game%29).
Yeah, German-style/Eurogames was exactly what I thought of as I read the initial post. Mind you, it obviously doesn't work as well when some players are gunning to win anyhow, but for me...all of the fun of Euros lies in playing the game itself, no matter where I wind up.

Agricola is one game I'd recommend in that vein, because it's a game about the livelihood of a medieval farming family. It's sorta like a farming sim, but it's more boardgamey.

There's also some interesting games in the "party game" vein that your friends/family might spring for. Dixit is an interesting one that's like Balderdash...but with surrealist art. The lead player secretly plays a card, makes up a prompt that matches the card, and then everyone secretly plays a card from their own hands which matches the prompt. Then you mix them all up, and everyone tries to guess which card was the lead player's card. It's really good fun.

[GloatingSwine]

Well, I'm not sure how you can avoid the screwing each other over thing, since that's inevitable in pretty much any interactive competitive game (My cousin spent a lot of time cursing my knack for placing words right where she wanted to during New Years Scrabble). The trick, I think, is to make sure it's all in good faith, and everyone's on the same page. Choice of game helps too (You don't play Diplomacy with friends unless you're very good at leaving what happens at the table at the table, for instance), but you're right, the attitude is the biggest part of it.


A big part of competitive scrabble is knowing a lot of very short words you can place in all the good spots so that if you can't use them well nobody else can get them without using your good tiles.

[Chen]

Yeah, German-style/Eurogames was exactly what I thought of as I read the initial post. Mind you, it obviously doesn't work as well when some players are gunning to win anyhow, but for me...all of the fun of Euros lies in playing the game itself, no matter where I wind up.

Agricola is one game I'd recommend in that vein, because it's a game about the livelihood of a medieval farming family. It's sorta like a farming sim, but it's more boardgamey.


I'd say this type of thing heavily depends on the playgroup. We play Agricola in as cutthroat a manner as we play Risk. Because my group of friends enjoy that kind of competition when playing a board game. Everyone plays to win and has fun doing so. I don't think the game is really the issue here, but rather the group of people sharing a similar mindset. If you don't want to play cutthroat games, your only real option is finding people who also don't want to do so. For most online games, that will be a very small subset of the people so if you're randomly finding opponents more often than not you're going to get someone who IS interested in competition and you're not going to enjoy it as much.

For games that are inherently competitive, I'd imagine the majority of people are going to be playing to win. Other games are not inherently competitive. Despite having a winner in the end, Cards Against Humanity, for example, is really not about winning. It's extremely subjective to begin with, and the fun comes from the funny/wrong answers you give. That said, there aren't many games that are inherently non-competitive so finding people who are not competitive will also be similarly difficult.

[Joran]

There's a whole genre of games designed for "co-operative play but still producing a final winner". They're most commonly called "German-style games", and the poster child is Carcassonne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcassonne_%28board_game%29).

The problem with Carcassonne is that there is an optimal way to play it and you can screw people over.

Ticket to Ride is a pretty good game, especially with the expansion, where you play to complete routes. People can cut each other off, but it tends not to get too cutthroat.

I will echo CarpeGuitarrem's suggestion of Dixit, although we've had people who used inside references to game the system (one person's girlfriend felt really left out because people kept using game references). Wits and Wagers was a fun game too; people guess an answer then place bets on the answer they think is correct (which doesn't have to be their own).

[Tengu_temp]

Honestly speaking? I think you're too quick to put the "no fun allowed min-maxer who plays only to win" label on people. Especially after they beat you in a game.

[Vitruviansquid]

Trying to escape the metagame is an exercise in futility, like adding two and two repeatedly to try getting a sum that isn't four. Trying to describe a world of games without metagames is like trying to describe wetness without water.

1. Competitive games don't work unless there is some competition involved. If you are playing basketball, and the other team decides they don't want to compete, then what you have is shooting practice, not a basketball game. Likewise, if you are playing a board game, video game, or card game in which one person will emerge the victor, it tends to not work if there is no will to compete because these games are generally designed with the assumption that everyone is trying to win.

2. If there is a will to compete, then you have to be playing at 100% of your capacity, or else you're engaging in "Letting the Other Guy Win," which also tends to break competitive games. Also, just because you are playing to win does not mean you have to be sore winners/losers about it - you could be having a friendly competition.

3. If you are playing at 100% of your capacity and competing, then a meta will arise inevitably. The definition of "metagame" is, after all, just the expectations you have for a game based on your history of playing it within a set community. For a meta to not exist, you would have to somehow wipe away all your memories of past games, which is simply impossible.

"The Metagame" is not something people purposefully create, it is the name given for a natural phenomenon that occurs whenever people sit down to play games together. So that's the bad news, but the good news is, well-designed competitive games give rise to metas that are fun. Take Starcraft 2. It has a very well-established metagame from a huge number of players playing the same game over a very long period of time (there are balance patches, but they are relatively rare compared to other competitive games today), and the professional scene means that, for a lot of these players, the drive to win is very very intense. However, you can still find the best of the best players practicing with each race, and each race has a number of different strategies that are still powerful. Just because there is a big metagame in Starcraft 2, and just because it is competitive, it does not mean that players are robbed or choice, or the ability to play their own style.

There are also other games that have slightly different rules every time you play. Dominions, Settlers of Catan, and a large number of other modern card/board games have randomised starting conditions that diminish the importance of the meta in how you strategize and attempt to win the game.

Why not just order a pizza and buy a case of beer for a conventional hang-out in which gaming isn't involved? Or, really, shouldn't you just play games but not invite your friend who is a sore winner/loser?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

2. If there is a will to compete, then you have to be playing at 100% of your capacity, or else you're engaging in "Letting the Other Guy Win," which also tends to break competitive games. Also, just because you are playing to win does not mean you have to be sore winners/losers about it - you could be having a friendly competition.

I actually disagree with this part of the argument. Not only is it a false binary, but my own experience speaks to the notion that you can play a game casually but still competitively, in a small way. Mind you, not everyone seems capable of doing that, but that doesn't mean that nobody is capable of it.

[Vitruviansquid]

I actually disagree with this part of the argument. Not only is it a false binary, but my own experience speaks to the notion that you can play a game casually but still competitively, in a small way. Mind you, not everyone seems capable of doing that, but that doesn't mean that nobody is capable of it.

When you play a game "casually" you are not trying to win?

Do you play street basketball, and not steal the ball if an opportunity presents itself? Do you play street basketball and then not take a shot when you're wide open, just so your team wouldn't have so many points? Would you like to play against a guy who does these things, or would you want to kick him out of your game?

Doing these things are generally considered poor sportsmanship because these basketball is a competitive game - games that are made fun because of the resistance you get from other players. It becomes less fun for the other players if you step aside while they have the ball, or if you just give them the ball instead of attacking.

Playing casually is not and has never been the same thing as not playing to win, it's merely playing to win without practicing that much, or going online to read strategies, or having a prize (psychic or physical) when winning.

[Lheticus]

I'd say this type of thing heavily depends on the playgroup. We play Agricola in as cutthroat a manner as we play Risk. Because my group of friends enjoy that kind of competition when playing a board game. Everyone plays to win and has fun doing so. I don't think the game is really the issue here, but rather the group of people sharing a similar mindset. If you don't want to play cutthroat games, your only real option is finding people who also don't want to do so. For most online games, that will be a very small subset of the people so if you're randomly finding opponents more often than not you're going to get someone who IS interested in competition and you're not going to enjoy it as much.

For games that are inherently competitive, I'd imagine the majority of people are going to be playing to win. Other games are not inherently competitive. Despite having a winner in the end, Cards Against Humanity, for example, is really not about winning. It's extremely subjective to begin with, and the fun comes from the funny/wrong answers you give. That said, there aren't many games that are inherently non-competitive so finding people who are not competitive will also be similarly difficult.

Yep. That's why this is such a problem.


Honestly speaking? I think you're too quick to put the "no fun allowed min-maxer who plays only to win" label on people. Especially after they beat you in a game.

I don't label people as that. What I do is draw the line at a far more shallow end of the player pool than the "no fun allowed min-maxer who plays only to win" hangs out at. I don't just want SOME freedom of expression in how I play in this mood, I want ALL the freedom of expression.


When you play a game "casually" you are not trying to win?

Do you play street basketball, and not steal the ball if an opportunity presents itself? Do you play street basketball and then not take a shot when you're wide open, just so your team wouldn't have so many points? Would you like to play against a guy who does these things, or would you want to kick him out of your game?

Doing these things are generally considered poor sportsmanship because these basketball is a competitive game - games that are made fun because of the resistance you get from other players. It becomes less fun for the other players if you step aside while they have the ball, or if you just give them the ball instead of attacking.

Playing casually is not and has never been the same thing as not playing to win, it's merely playing to win without practicing that much, or going online to read strategies, or having a prize (psychic or physical) when winning.

The key phrase here is "because these basketball is a competitive game - games that are made fun because of the resistance you get from other players." Competitive games are not what I seek when in this mindset.

[huttj509]

The problem with Carcassonne is that there is an optimal way to play it and you can screw people over.

Ticket to Ride is a pretty good game, especially with the expansion, where you play to complete routes. People can cut each other off, but it tends not to get too cutthroat.

I will echo CarpeGuitarrem's suggestion of Dixit, although we've had people who used inside references to game the system (one person's girlfriend felt really left out because people kept using game references). Wits and Wagers was a fun game too; people guess an answer then place bets on the answer they think is correct (which doesn't have to be their own).

We had the same thing for Dixit. One guy used some long complicated Warhammer reference that I managed to get right by pretty much sheer luck and getting half the references, so he used that as a "see, it wasn't too obscure" excuse.

If you don't have someone being a jerk, Dixit's great though. Also scales well to younger players.

[GolemsVoice]

How about Arkham/Eldritch Horror? You have to play well to win, but it's not against other players.

[Winthur]

Do you play street basketball, and not steal the ball if an opportunity presents itself? Do you play street basketball and then not take a shot when you're wide open, just so your team wouldn't have so many points? Would you like to play against a guy who does these things, or would you want to kick him out of your game?

I honestly thought that a casual game is just one that you play occassionally, in-n-out, not bothering to really master it much beyond the rules. Playing casual basketball seems like anything that involves just going over to your mates for a few hoops before dinner, not necessarily going "easy" about it. In addition, you might not get anal about the rules - to use a different example, for instance, forgo the touch-move rule in chess or allow to take back moves.

Some people play Counter-Strike as a distraction after work, some people stream the game for a couple thousand people, and some people earn quite lucrative monetary rewards from playing the game professionally.

[Joran]

When you play a game "casually" you are not trying to win?

Do you play street basketball, and not steal the ball if an opportunity presents itself? Do you play street basketball and then not take a shot when you're wide open, just so your team wouldn't have so many points? Would you like to play against a guy who does these things, or would you want to kick him out of your game?

Doing these things are generally considered poor sportsmanship because these basketball is a competitive game - games that are made fun because of the resistance you get from other players. It becomes less fun for the other players if you step aside while they have the ball, or if you just give them the ball instead of attacking.


There's a difference between going all out and giving a good effort; there is a middle ground where people are playing to have fun and a challenge but not be competitive.

For instance, in your pickup game analogy, there can be all sorts of etiquette and rules to keep it friendly. Hard screens aren't allowed. Ball hogging is frowned upon, even if you are the best player, because it neglects people on your own team. I doubt many people are going to be diving for loose balls on asphalt. If the score gets lopsided, often times a team will swap a player with the opposing team to keep it even, instead of continuing to destroy the other team. The object is to have fun first and victory second.

The key thing is to find both a game and a crowd that meets your objectives. If your gaming group loves deep games that are cutthroat, pick a game for that. If your group wants something lighter and fun, pick something with more randomness or lighter.

P.S. King of Tokyo is a good example of a competitive game where there's a winner and a loser, but enough inherent randomness and craziness that people will generally not get too competitive with it.

[Sith_Happens]

Are you purely looking for "analog" games and/or games to play with people that are physically in the room with you? Because most video games with random matchmaking don't really put much pressure on you to win. Sure you're technically trying to win, but it's no skin off anyone's back (or at least, anyone's you'll ever meet again) if you don't so you can pretty much just play for playing's sake.

[Lheticus]

Are you purely looking for "analog" games and/or games to play with people that are physically in the room with you? Because most video games with random matchmaking don't really put much pressure on you to win. Sure you're technically trying to win, but it's no skin off anyone's back (or at least, anyone's you'll ever meet again) if you don't so you can pretty much just play for playing's sake.

I wouldn't say "purely." I'd say "primarily." And in random matchmaking people don't care if they curbstomp me. I want a scenario where if a huge difference of skill between me and them is expressed, they can and are willing to go easy on me.

[Sith_Happens]

I want a scenario where if a huge difference of skill between me and them is expressed, they can and are willing to go easy on me.

That depends entirely on who you're playing with, not on the game being played.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

That depends entirely on who you're playing with, not on the game being played.
Yeah, it's definitely a mindset. And, as demonstrated on this thread itself, not everyone understands how it works.

[Vitruviansquid]

I honestly thought that a casual game is just one that you play occassionally, in-n-out, not bothering to really master it much beyond the rules. Playing casual basketball seems like anything that involves just going over to your mates for a few hoops before dinner, not necessarily going "easy" about it. In addition, you might not get anal about the rules - to use a different example, for instance, forgo the touch-move rule in chess or allow to take back moves.

Some people play Counter-Strike as a distraction after work, some people stream the game for a couple thousand people, and some people earn quite lucrative monetary rewards from playing the game professionally.

Yes, you can change the rules when you play casually from Basketball to Kinda-Basketball, or change the rules from Chess to Kinda-Chess, but within the context of Kinda-Basketball and Kinda-Chess, you are still playing as hard as you can. Both sides still have to offer an adequate amount of resistance, or your game is pointless.

I am glad you can agree with me on this.


There's a difference between going all out and giving a good effort; there is a middle ground where people are playing to have fun and a challenge but not be competitive.

For instance, in your pickup game analogy, there can be all sorts of etiquette and rules to keep it friendly. Hard screens aren't allowed. Ball hogging is frowned upon, even if you are the best player, because it neglects people on your own team. I doubt many people are going to be diving for loose balls on asphalt. If the score gets lopsided, often times a team will swap a player with the opposing team to keep it even, instead of continuing to destroy the other team. The object is to have fun first and victory second.

The key thing is to find both a game and a crowd that meets your objectives. If your gaming group loves deep games that are cutthroat, pick a game for that. If your group wants something lighter and fun, pick something with more randomness or lighter.

P.S. King of Tokyo is a good example of a competitive game where there's a winner and a loser, but enough inherent randomness and craziness that people will generally not get too competitive with it.

I think you have confused what I wrote about the importance of trying to win with the importance of winning (which was probably poorly worded to begin with). All of these house rules that you suggest do happen all the time, and in fact, are good ideas. This is because these rules you are talking about exist to even out the resistance between teams (giving a player to the other team) or for common sense safety reasons (which falls out of the domain of this discussion). If I thought winning was so important, I'd have advocated that everyone cheat to begin with, but what's important is that everyone comes up against resistance which can only be offered by playing to win. As you've shown in your example, if your game is being one-sided, the proper etiquette is to change the rules so that the other team can offer more resistance, you don't play at less capacity.

Now if you're playing a game with someone, and you're much more skilled than they are, you are actually in control of who gets to win when you "go easy" on them. Unless you change the rules of the game to Kinda-Street Fighter or Kinda-basketball or Kinda-chess in which you have a handicap, "going easy" involves knowing that if you do A, you'd win, and if you do B, you'd lose, but picking B instead of A. You are, at this point, not playing your competitive game. You are just going through the motions because you are not involved in the same activity your opponent is, which is having resistance and coming up with ways to overcome it. At this point, just play a co-op game, or better yet buy pizza and beer and forget the game altogether.

[Krade]

This whole thing? That's why I really enjoy Co-op PvE style games so much. You don't need to always use the best gear. You don't have to always use the same strategies. If you want, you can compete to see who gets the most points, but at the end of the game, you all win/lose together. That's definitely why I loved the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer so much (ignoring the awful randomized boxes to unlock new weapons and classes). You can choose the map, enemy and difficulty to suit your mood or randomize the map and enemy for a modest score bonus. You can coordinate with friends to use combos impossible for a single player to pull off (though one of those two will get roughly all the points by doing so, not that the points really matter). It was great and I loved every bit of it. Unfortunately, the community is probably dead by now. I haven't even checked it in about a year. Hopefully another, better game gets made some day that gets that same feel to it.

Also, I love the Battlestar Gallactica board game. There's teams, and everyone knows what team they're on (and the possibility of at least one person switching teams in the middle), but no one knows what team anyone else is on without certain things in the game that allow you to look (there aren't many). It usually ends with the humans dying a long, uncomfortable death, but sometimes you can really give those frakking toasters one hell of a fight.

[Aotrs Commander]

Now if you're playing a game with someone, and you're much more skilled than they are, you are actually in control of who gets to win when you "go easy" on them. Unless you change the rules of the game to Kinda-Street Fighter or Kinda-basketball or Kinda-chess in which you have a handicap, "going easy" involves knowing that if you do A, you'd win, and if you do B, you'd lose, but picking B instead of A. You are, at this point, not playing your competitive game. You are just going through the motions because you are not involved in the same activity your opponent is, which is having resistance and coming up with ways to overcome it. At this point, just play a co-op game, or better yet buy pizza and beer and forget the game altogether.

I have to disagree with the last couple of sentences of that paragraph, as it implies that competition is the only point of playing a game against another player. It isn't.

I am about as non-competative as they come: I don't give a flying frag about sports, I don't play multiuplayer computer games at all. But I do play tabletop wargames. The point of that exercise is not to win, the point is to play the game. The end result matters far less than whether the game is itself interesting or fun. In our group of absolutely really not-competative wargamers we cheerfully play non-optimally if dealing with someone below our level, or if we discover something (since we nowadays only ever tend to play our own rules) that would make the game less fun. Yeah, it's nice to have a serious grudge match (i.e. one in which you can play all out) occasionally... But, as we say, the fun more comes from the STORY the game creates, not from whoever actualy ends up winning. (In a good game, who wins is essentially more or less superfluous.)

Case in point: my Dad and our mate have spent the last... umpteeth months playing a modern armour campaign (i.e. one that models real-world strategy and logistics) and several times they've said "well, I've already lost this, but we'll carry on because it's far too much fun not too" or have remarked that they're playing against themselves as much as the opposition.

[Lheticus]

I have to disagree with the last couple of sentences of that paragraph, as it implies that competition is the only point of playing a game against another player. It isn't.

I am about as non-competative as they come: I don't give a flying frag about sports, I don't play multiuplayer computer games at all. But I do play tabletop wargames. The point of that exercise is not to win, the point is to play the game. The end result matters far less than whether the game is itself interesting or fun. In our group of absolutely really not-competative wargamers we cheerfully play non-optimally if dealing with someone below our level, or if we discover something (since we nowadays only ever tend to play our own rules) that would make the game less fun. Yeah, it's nice to have a serious grudge match (i.e. one in which you can play all out) occasionally... But, as we say, the fun more comes from the STORY the game creates, not from whoever actualy ends up winning. (In a good game, who wins is essentially more or less superfluous.)

Case in point: my Dad and our mate have spent the last... umpteeth months playing a modern armour campaign (i.e. one that models real-world strategy and logistics) and several times they've said "well, I've already lost this, but we'll carry on because it's far too much fun not too" or have remarked that they're playing against themselves as much as the opposition.

MAH BROTHUH! ^_^ ESPECIALLY with the "story that the game creates" part. My problem with getting curbstomped isn't some kind of self esteem thing--it's that getting curbstomped quite simply makes an INCREDIBLY lame story. Heck, maybe I should find something online to do with you!

[Vitruviansquid]

I have to disagree with the last couple of sentences of that paragraph, as it implies that competition is the only point of playing a game against another player. It isn't.

I am about as non-competative as they come: I don't give a flying frag about sports, I don't play multiuplayer computer games at all. But I do play tabletop wargames. The point of that exercise is not to win, the point is to play the game. The end result matters far less than whether the game is itself interesting or fun. In our group of absolutely really not-competative wargamers we cheerfully play non-optimally if dealing with someone below our level, or if we discover something (since we nowadays only ever tend to play our own rules) that would make the game less fun. Yeah, it's nice to have a serious grudge match (i.e. one in which you can play all out) occasionally... But, as we say, the fun more comes from the STORY the game creates, not from whoever actualy ends up winning. (In a good game, who wins is essentially more or less superfluous.)

Case in point: my Dad and our mate have spent the last... umpteeth months playing a modern armour campaign (i.e. one that models real-world strategy and logistics) and several times they've said "well, I've already lost this, but we'll carry on because it's far too much fun not too" or have remarked that they're playing against themselves as much as the opposition.

I'm finding it kind of twilight-zone-weird that people keep saying they disagree with me on this, and then repeat my points. The important part is not winning, but playing to win. It is more important to have resistance, and then attempt to surpass it.

So "The end result matters far less than whether the game is itself interesting or fun" is the same as " is equal to when I typed "If I thought winning was so important, I'd have advocated that everyone cheat to begin with, but what's important is that everyone comes up against resistance which can only be offered by playing to win."

Are we confused about what I mean when I say "play to win?" Okay, what I mean is that you are "playing to win" when you are asked to pick between option A and option B in the game and you pick the choice that makes it more likely for you to win. If you give a player a handicap or you make up house rules, that is compatible with "playing to win," because you are still trying to pick the option that will make it more likely for you to win while confined in the condition of a the game, only by deciding that you can only use one hand, or you have fewer units, or you start with less money, you have decided to play a slightly different ruleset than the one that you began with.

Or is it some of you are assuming that I am advocating a world in which every time you play a game, you must play by its official rules. I am not, and I have hopefully never given that impression upthread. You can, even should, make houserules or handicaps to give both players the ability to have a fun amount of resistance.

[Aotrs Commander]

Are we confused about what I mean when I say "play to win?" Okay, what I mean is that you are "playing to win" when you are asked to pick between option A and option B in the game and you pick the choice that makes it more likely for you to win. If you give a player a handicap or you make up house rules, that is compatible with "playing to win," because you are still trying to pick the option that will make it more likely for you to win while confined in the condition of a the game, only by deciding that you can only use one hand, or you have fewer units, or you start with less money, you have decided to play a slightly different ruleset than the one that you began with.

And I'm saying that we don't do necessarily that. That we don't typically set handicaps or whatnot up, as it is the decisions we make in the game - not the boundary conditions at the start of the game - that are the factor in question.

For example, it is not infrequently the case after a game that one of us will say "well, I realised I could have done Thing A, but that would have meant the game would be over/would spoil the game/etc, so I did Thing B instead."

So, to your above definition, we DON'T always "play to win," because we WILL sometimes pick option B if it seems more entertaining - that will give a better "story" - and even if it means might - or will - lose.




MAH BROTHUH! ^_^ ESPECIALLY with the "story that the game creates" part. My problem with getting curbstomped isn't some kind of self esteem thing--it's that getting curbstomped quite simply makes an INCREDIBLY lame story.

Indeed, a one-sided game is just not interesting.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The "playing to win" concept gets a little complicated because it essentially boils down to "does winning matter to you?", and that's not a yes/no question. Winning can matter not at all to one person, it can matter massively to a second person, and it can matter a bit, but not totally for a third person. Winning can be a priority but not the primary priority, which means that it's not being relentlessly and exclusively pursued.

[Knaight]

In such a mood, I want...the kind of gaming fun that's found around a stereotyped kitchen table Scrabble, Monopoly, or Life board. There's no metagame this, tier that, optimal-build-whatever. It's just people PLAYING a game to derive clean freaking FUN from it. Yes, in the end there's a "winner" but it's mutually recognized and understood that winning isn't the point of being there--it's to get together with friends/family/like minded people and bloody well have FUN without a mentality of trying to destroy or "pwn" anyone else taking part.

The mentality is pretty game independent. Scrabble in particular is the sort of thing which you can play in a pretty cut throat fashion with a clear focus on winning; as for Monopoly and Life I can't say I've ever seen those turn out fun, just all sorts of tedious. There also very much is a metagame at all times, whether it is ignored or not.

Basically, what you need are people who aren't too particular about the game being played, don't know it very well, and are just using it for socialization. This can happen even in games thought of as very competitive (e.g. Starcraft, Chess), and it can not happen even in games that are generally not thought of that way (Balderdash, Pictionary).

[Chen]

For example, it is not infrequently the case after a game that one of us will say "well, I realised I could have done Thing A, but that would have meant the game would be over/would spoil the game/etc, so I did Thing B instead."


Yeah this is definitely not playing to win. There's nothing wrong with that, assuming the group your playing with feels similarly. This type of behavior can certainly upset some people, but knowing that before playing is what is key.

[Aotrs Commander]

Yeah this is definitely not playing to win. There's nothing wrong with that, assuming the group your playing with feels similarly. This type of behavior can certainly upset some people, but knowing that before playing is what is key.

This is why I don't play anything competatively. Winning really doesn't matter to me - at ALL - so long as the game is entertaining. Yeah, it's nice to occasionally have a game where you are running with all cylinders - but as my Dad points out, those sort of games you don't want to play all the time because they are seriously HARD. (He and his mate could at best, manage one of their aforementioned campaign games once every two weeks because the thinking involved is so demanding and would sometimes literally would leave them with a headache.) But that aside, I'm just flat-out not interested in, well, competing with anyone. It doesn't do anything for me.

(I have occasionally ruminted that what we do might argueably even be closer to a puzzle to be solved, rather than a "game" to be "won;" it's certainly how I approach my computer gaming, where, without concern of other players, I will cheerfully use whatever tools are available for me to use or abuse (if at any point something becomes frustrating).

At the base level, I fundementally find that I get no particular satisfaction from Doing A Hard Thing, and certainly not from Doing A Hard Thing for the sake of Doing A Hard Thing. (Usually, in computer gaming, this translates to merely "good, now I can get back to doing a fun thing.")

[Lheticus]

Yeah this is definitely not playing to win. There's nothing wrong with that, assuming the group your playing with feels similarly. This type of behavior can certainly upset some people, but knowing that before playing is what is key.

OMG I see what you did there with the subject line! XD XD XD XD XD

https://deison177.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/xd.png

(Winthur awarded 9,001 YES points)

[Chen]

OMG I see what you did there with the subject line! XD XD XD XD XD

https://deison177.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/xd.png

(Chen awarded 9,001 YES points)

Hmm much as I'd like to take credit I just quoted someone else. They must have changed the subject line.

[Lethologica]

Hmm much as I'd like to take credit I just quoted someone else. They must have changed the subject line.
Blame Winthur.