"How Important is Winning?" Topic

I enjoy Historical gaming and over several decades I have often enjoyed the games I've lost the most, or at least I feel I've learned the most.
Some of our members are horrified of losing. They will quit a game that they feel isn't balanced. Often in a large multi-player game a subordinate commander can win even if his side is defeated overall. But these guys can't stand that.
We have one member who is terrified of being killed. In micro armor battles each player is represented on the table by a figure to show their command perspective, to penalize front line officers who act carelessly, and to allow officers to rally broken units, etc. This player would abandon his men in every scenario and seek cover in the rear or off board if it was allowed. One time he abandoned his men in what turned out to be a suicide attack and went off board. I (ref) said if he didn't return and redirect his men, they would continue with their last orders. His command was decimated. It actually adds an interesting element to the game, but I thought the point of Historical Wargaming was that you can fight a battle, and lose, but you don't really die.

I've known a few players like that. Several who would walk away from a game when it was "obvious" to them that they could not win and continuing was a waste of time. Funniest time was when one of my allied commanders did that (hey, thanks mate) and after he lost we turned the game around and won. One was even so stressed out at the prospect of losing that he tried to upend the table and throw everyone's minis on the floor (or was that the guy that we had just wiped out with a massive air strike? I forget, but it was a moment of high drama as he-who-shall-remain-nameless was restrained by his co-commanders before any damage could be caused!!). But, bottom line, none of the players who exhibited these kinds of traits found it easy to find others against which to play and AFAIK they dropped out of the hobby.

For me, not much. I'd probably prefer to win than to lose, but the games the thing. I like a good time with good people, and if I win, so much the better.

Same here Calico Bill. Wargaming has nothing to do with winning for me. Its all about the 'story' of the game, having a great time with my mates and seeing nice figures and terrain.

There is nothing better than a hard fought win but nothing worse than a easy walk over. A hard fought battle gives pleasure whether win or lose. The win helps but is not essential.

x42

I wouldn't give a hoot in Hell for someone who lost and laughed.

Ok, so I watched "Patton" last night.

No, I like to win a fair bit more than I like to lose, but I really enjoy playing games with friends.

I have walked away from games that were lost. I remember a game that had gone horribly wrong for me; I had both of my flanks turned and my center in risk of being surrounded. The possibility of meeting the victory conditions of the scenario were non-existent, and the probability of being completely wiped out were really, really big! So I started a fighting withdrawal with my center line units, until the last of them left the tabletop. Nobody thought bad about that; actually, that withdrawal led to some of the most nail-biting moments of the whole game!

My point is that what it is annoying is not that you walk away from a game, but how you do it.

(nods to Fat Wally and x42brown) Thats the attitude I try to cultivate.

Winning is nice but a good game against a good (in every sense) opponent where we are both able to walk away happily is better.

Winning is good, but it's not everything. Sometimes it's the little victories that are plenty of fun. I've lost a game, but managed to beat up a particular enemy unit.
The fighting withdrawl can be real entertaining. And a challenge.
A 'balanced' game is not that important. Sometimes not even desirable. Such an encounter between Germans and Yugoslavs in 1941, or Soviets and Finns is not very realistic. Sometimes the goal is not a straight forward victory, but to see how long one can hold out. How much damage can you inflict on the big bully.

I find the least enjoyable games are played against those who 'have to win'. I remember playing a guy at the local club who was about to lose his best elite unit to one of my militia units, he stopped the game for around twenty minutes while he checked and rechecked the rules to see if he could find a loophole to get out of the situation and when he couldn't find one ended the game and went home. Needless to say I try to avoid games with him now…

Mick

What Fat Wally said. I like to play wargames as a form of cooperative storytelling.

That way you can have as much fun losing as winning.

Not very important for me. Not anymore anyway. As a younger man I was likely to argue the point on rules or try to win at nearly all costs. Not now. I am after a fun, pretty game.

The guy with a fear of "death" on the tabletop, that's a new one on me. Seems quite unusual, must have a very active imagination.

It partly depends on the game/rules/scenario as some are easier to do the 'cooperative enjoyable experience' thing than others. Winning (in those situations where it actually matters) is a nice bonus but I'd rather have fun.

Fun doesn't usually involve playing with win at all costs types.

I hope not at all….. I got beaten badly last night. Very badly :(

Winning is everything!!!!!

But having fun, even in losing, is something just a little bit more!!!!!!!

it feels good but a good fun game is the best.

The guy with a fear of "death" on the tabletop, that's a new one on me. Seems quite unusual, must have a very active imagination.

Maybe he's just roleplaying a chosen character trait of his general ?

If I lose big, it's not much fun for me usually, unless I can make up some sort of "inter-game" where I challenge myself to hold position X for 3 turns or something.

If I win big, it's not much fun for my opponent and it is pretty boring to me.

I want a challenging and close game that keeps me on my toes through the whole fight. Win or lose, these sorts of games are the most fun to play.

Everybody likes to win. I love winning and hate losing, but I'm over the loss in moments…..it after all is just a game.
I have seen people slam their fists on tables and storm out, I have seen people just totally give up and let their troops be destroyed and complain that "there is nothing I can do."
We have a couple of guys who when they realize they are losing will drag out every turn so that by the time their opponents can move they say, "Oh look at the time, game is over"…..That's what I hate, and they are the same guys who argue over having timers so such things cannot happen.

One of my most fun games was an ACW battle where I had to hold a crossroads until reinforcements showed up. I ended up losing my command but had held on just long enough to make a difference in the battle.

I like to play wargames as a form of cooperative storytelling.

Agreed, Derek … though I'd add that most games run better if there is a clear indication of 'victory requirements' and that players then try – in a cooperative way – to achieve them. Cooperative has to include cooperating with the Game Designer as well as just being civil to the other players!

Phil
COW 2012

I (ref) said if he didn't return and redirect his men, they would continue with their last orders.

I used to play D&D with a guy who played a rich dwarf who had the tables memorized, and always brought the "correct" weapon to a fight. Sometinmes (often) he had to go back to his pack mule to retreive it, while the rest of us fought.
I got so fed up with this that after we barely scraped through a melee where he was missing for half of it, I court-martialed him.

So, I suggest that you have the group, including the guys on the opposite side, court-martial him for cowardice if he abandons his men again.
Who knows? It may so enrage him he never plays again, but it will reinforce the role playing aspect.

I always play to win according to the victory conditions but far more important to me is playing the game in the manner that I understand to be "historical." Using the tactics of the period or doctrine gives me a measure of satisfaction. Next is the social aspect and I've been blessed by always having a group, so I wasn't dependent on the club scene where the only one available for a game is Willy the because no one will play against him.

I certainly have mellowed with age, as have most my regular opponents. Winning and losing aren't anywhere near as important anymore. Cooperative games have grown in popularity around us. I find a failure in a game usually happens when one side doesn't understand his options thoroughly enough to make a decent decision.

Losing against my wife, however …

I prefer the possibility of a win. I've been stuck in scenarios where it's clear the GM expected and intended for everything to go according to a script, said script including my forces being unable to do anything effective. In one case, I surprised the GM by abandoning my assigned (and losing) position to assault the enemy. My forces were eventually wiped out, but the result was the complete disruption of the expected script, with the enemy advanced being delayed so much that the GM had to award victory to our side without continuing to the endgame he had planned. But that was a fairly fun action, and he was a good sport about it, and really had pictured a win being possible— just not in the way we achieved it.
In other cases, I've been handed forces that could do nothing effective towards victory no matter what. That was not fun, not because I lost those games but because those games were BORING. I lost because that was the only possibility in the scenario, and the whole thing was set up that way from the start. (And they were not even "historical" games or scenarios where the GM might claim he was replicating real events; they were just lopsided stinker scenarios.)
I've played games where I've lost, and had great fun sticking it out to the bitter end. But in those games I lost on my own decisions and actions, not because it was forced on me. The former is fun; the latter is anything but. In that case, the GM is the one who has done the discourtesy, not the player.

I think we all like to win…
But for me, as long as I had a few laughs, hang out with my pals, and have a few brews, I really don't care.
"The Uno Kid Rides Again!"

Winning is not everything it is the only thing. Except in Wargaming where is is not important to win. 90% of the historical scenarios I do are one sided but the players compete to better the historical outcome.
VR
James Mattes

Couldn't care less. Friends, food, jokes, pleasant conversation, good wine, beer, seeing friends again-- I've won even before we get to the game. If someone absolutely HAS to win, just tell me, I'll throw the game for you.

If winning were all important to me, I would know exactly what my win/loss ratio was. I have not a clue whether it is above or below .500.

Having said that, I do not play to lose, as that would be an insult to my fellow gamers who ae all good friends.

In real battle, winning or losing is life or death. Not so much in a table top game, where I will be playing the next day or in two weeks.

What John, Otto, and most other folks have said.

It's more about having fun than winning.

Eric

If EP Turner are even playing near each other the black hole of bad dice rolling becomes so large that it almost guarantees a loss by our side (if on the same side) or complete isolation from the rest of our gaming group to let us fight it out to our mutual destruction while they finish the game. I like winning but I have accepted my lot in life and deal with my dice as they roll. Why am I in this hobby again? It ain't for the chicks…

Plaing to win is critcal to both players enjoyment of the game. But whether you win or loose should matter not.

Mike B

I have a sense, right or wrong, that most wargamers have a little bit of a McClellan gene in them. We hate to lose any of our little men in a battle, even though we know that they are only metal miniatures. Interesting, isn't it?

I don't know if Robert E. Lee actually said it, but I recall that in the Gettysburg movie he talks about "the paradox of having to destroy the thing that we love the most (the army) in order to win the battle."

"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it."
–Robert E. Lee

Winning at all costs stops when you become a designer or vendor. As a vendor you want peopel to enjoy a set of rules so they will want to buy them.

As a designer you want all players to enjoy them and feel that they can master your system. if you smash the newbies at every convention demo, then they will shy away from the system.

Even when not playing your own set of rules and wanting to encourage newbies to keep playing , experienced players will show a lot of lead way. One in my group loves DBA and plays in every tournament that he can. If he is playing a newbie, then he will point out a terrible move and let the new guy change it.

Depends.

I agree with what Parzival said. I want a fair chance to achieve whatever my victory conditions are. I don't need to win, but I want a shot at winning. Fortunately, I've only been in a couple GM outcome dictated games. One such game I was tasked with capturing a derelict space cruiser and flying it off the board. I captured it, but my crew couldn't get it started. I found out afterwards, there was no way to get it started. Had I know that ahead of time, I would have walked away.

I'd even play Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae. I don't expect to rout the Persians off the table, but I do need objectives to strive for – something as simple as hold the Persians for 4 turns or some such. But if there is no other objective then to be a Spartan and die, I'll have no part of that.

Now the funny thing here is, my groups claim I run games where I screw the players. I suppose that is true. BUT they all get screwed equally. They all have an equal, if small, chance of winning. So I suppose that is something. (And they keep playing in them.)

As both a game master and a player I do not have much to add other than to share much the same philosophy. Early when I got into the hobby I would have days were I would get frustrated and upset over losing. After a while I realized I was missing the point for war gaming which is to have fun and see to it my mates have a fun time as well. While we all like to win when it comes to the kind of hobby I want to have and share, the story and fun aspect to me is what is important. It is perhaps why I have shied away from tournaments for the last few years. (Dipping my toe back into the tourney gig at the upcoming Historicon) Anyway when it comes to running a game even if the scenario is one sided there has to be victory conditions and objects the underdog can achieve in order to claim a win or at least a draw. Both sides should have an opportunity to have their moment in the sun and be able to say to one another at the end of the game that it was a good time.

A recent scenario I was in for play testing Fire Ball Forward had a polyglot bunch of Airborne troops and army engineers trying to hold a bridge from overwhelming on coming German forces including three Tiger tanks. Even with getting hammered through out the game the Americans had specific objects they had to meet in order to win and my team mate and I playing the Americans were at the end able to pull out a draw on the final turn. Up to that final turn we actually were winning by one point despite the drubbing we were getting from the German players. It was a nail bitter all the way and a very satisfying game.

As both a game master and a player I do not have much to add other than to share much the same philosophy. Early when I got into the hobby I would have days were I would get frustrated and upset over losing. After a while I realized I was missing the point for war gaming which is to have fun and see to it my mates have a fun time as well. While we all like to win when it comes to the kind of hobby I want to have and share, the story and fun aspect to me is what is important. It is perhaps why I have shied away from tournaments for the last few years. (Dipping my toe back into the tourney gig at the upcoming Historicon) Anyway when it comes to running a game even if the scenario is one sided there has to be victory conditions and objects the underdog can achieve in order to claim a win or at least a draw. Both sides should have an opportunity to have their moment in the sun and be able to say to one another at the end of the game that it was a good time.

A recent scenario I was in for play testing Fire Ball Forward had a polyglot bunch of Airborne troops and army engineers trying to hold a bridge from overwhelming German forces including three Tiger tanks. Even with getting hammered through out the game the Americans had specific objects they had to meet in order to win and my team mate and I playing the Americans were at the end able to pull out a draw on the final turn. Up to that final turn we actually were winning by one point despite the drubbing we were getting from the German players. It was a nail bitter all the way and a very satisfying game.

As long as I have a good time, I don't care. Just lost a game last night, but I got to game with a guy I haven't gamed with in many months. I enjoyed myself.

"Winning" is not being on the victorious side: it is enjoying the game, which includes the people involved. I don't care how important being "victorious" is: if you despise some or all of the people you play with, you are a loser….

Its actually VERY unsportsmanlike to "give up" in the middle of a game because you see that you can no longer win. Your opponent has spent a lot of time and tactical ingenuity in order to get you into that position and it is your duty to allow him to see his efforts come to fruition.

You can obviously throw up every obstacle you can think of to stop him in some vain effort to pull out an upset. But to simply say "Well, I have no chance any longer so I forfeit" is in really poor form.

We had a guy in our club who did that regularly. It was no fun for the other players to never get to the end-game. On BOTH sides of the fight. He was invited to find another club.

I like to win, but it is also important to lose well, and to give your opponent a fight to the end.

Thanks for all the great remarks.
I have GMed a lot, written rules and designed scenarios. I've taken a lot of heat over the years. I think most of the scenarios I design are balanced and interesting, sometimes things just go horribly wrong. If one player tries to fake out his opponent and fails the game can end quickly. That's a good time for one side to go oops and concede. No shame, just tried something that didn't work.
As for the club member who hated to die, he never got over it, but he loved to paint miniatures and was very fussy. The other club members loved it when he set up scenarios because everything looked so cool. He really never enjoyed playing though.
On the subject of survival, I have often scene players fight to the last man in scenarios where they should have quit. BUT:
Decades ago I played a Micro-Armor scenario designed by John Hill. It is a Panzer Gren suicide mission behind Russian lines. Basically you give the Germans a Platoon of PG and a platoon of Panthers and hide them in the middle of the table. Then you bivouac all the Soviets in the world all around them. The Germans are not supposed to win or even survive, just take out as many Soviets as possible.
Despite those simple Non Victory conditions, I have run this scenario annually for 30+ years and every time when the Germans run low on ammo they make a break for it and get the survivors out. Go figure.

As a once and soon to be again GM, this has talked me into designing playability rather than historical accuracy into my scenarios.

I may eventually want to run Antietam with a "handicapped McClellan" set up, but other than that it has GOT to be playable (and winnable) by everybody involved.

A most excellent thread.

I play to play, winning or losing are just the results of the good time with other folks in the game.

I use to play with a guy who wanted everyone to make the best move possible. This would drive his team mates crazy. He would say hey you don't want to do that, because my cavalry commander will hit you in the flank. We finally got him to quit doing that so much.

He wasn't trying to play a gentleman's game he just wanted to play against the best. I could sort of see his point he wanted the side he was playing against to make the best move possible because if he won it would be more satisfying than beating up on someone who just made a stupid move.

My take is that I want the guy I am playing against to do everything he can to beat me. Because I am going to do the same thing. I want the guys on my side to play hard and do whatever it takes, within the rules, to win.

I hate having someone on my side who is "just happy to be here" and doesn't pay attention or thinks it's funny that he is being flanked or won't cooperate with his teammates. I don't have the patience for that.

I don't mind losing. I don't have to win (but I will try like heck to win.) If I lose and it seemed logical historically then I'm good. But if your not trying to win whats the point?

I like to to win, but better the game plays out in a way that reminds me of what I've read in the history books. I prefer to lose a game that feels right than win a game that feels wrong.

Good thread.

As I've only recently got heavily interested in the hobby again, this post has reminded me why I left the hobby previously – beards. guys who tailor everything to completely destroy you with no regard for balance, historical authenticity or fun.

I remember this one guy who literally pointed in your face and laughed/swore and belittled you if you happened to roll badly/move into an unfortunate position.

For me it's always been about a good time with friends – win or lose…

A few points:

Sometimes you can lose the battle and still win the game.

How you win is as important as how you lose.

Sometimes you need to take one for the team.

Sometimes when it's your game, your figures and your scenario and one side is going to get annihilated but it is history and that is what happened.

Then you might want to take the side that doesn't stand a chance. Take that side play and expect to lose, but fight like the devil, give a good game and be happy that your friends had a good time, think well of themselves and be assured they will continue to attend your games because they had a positive experience. For me it is about the process and the history, rather than winning.

What annoys me:

1. I use to game with some folks who wanted to stop playing at 5:00pm no matter what the scenario length or the situation is. So if someone was defending and had to hold out to win the game they would just slow down the game turns and end up wining even if the scenario still had six turns for the attacker to win.

2. Players who gloat and rub it in when they are winning. If I am winning I usually just keep quite. If I am winning really big time I am usually embarrassed by it and actually apologize.

3. A player who isn't trying because he thinks he is losing. But he doesn't know the other sides victory conditions. He is often in fact winning and doesn't know it. Never give up.

4. Gamers with no sense of humor. Often times and it happens to all of us. We start losing so bad it is actually funny. Bad die roll after bad die roll. You have to have a good sense of humor.

5. Guys who can't just admit they lost. I hate that. Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you. Be a man and own it.

6. Drama Queens. Guys that just walked out on the game because they are losing or just don't like the scenario or god knows what unimportant little thing.

7. It is never my fault I lost. It was my team mates or the die rolling or the scenario was design poorly and on and on. Just say hey I got my butt kicked but I had a great time.

One more thing:

Feed back is important. If I am hosting the game, I go to each player after the game, win or lose, and asked did you have a good time and if not why and say I will try to do better next time.

Sometimes it depends on who I am playing against. If I am playing friends or good opponents, win or lose doesn't matter that much to me. But if I'm playing against an obnoxious numbskull, I really want to beat them badly. But not bad enough to upend a table! To me, the challenge is more important than the victory. If I have a choice, I'll usually take the force that has the lost cause, or most challenging victory conditions. The loss is still disappointing, but the win is that much sweeter.