"Do you care about winning?" Topic

Tonite I am about to write our next game. It about agressive reconnisance. I realise it will be a scanario where the two players can chose a stance, say very agressive recon, light recon. The defender can do the same for defence. The game then playes out to see what happens. Frankly I have no idea what the victory conditions are and actually don't care. It will be a look see as to what an how you may "cover" about 5km of battlefield. It will be interesting and we will decide who did best and more important if we swap sides who would do better next time.
Do you care who wins or are you like us where the game and only the game is the key? Or do you have to win to have a good eveing? Do you insist on rigid victory conditions so you can decide who won?
For us is just play well win or lose for the interest of the game, If we can even decide iwhat is a win.

Winning is secondary to fun with my pals.
I am MORE than happy losing when there are a lot of laughs about the table.

Victory, especially in re-fights, is subjective. We often play games where one side is almost bound to lose (see my Cerignola at Triples post today – where the French always lose!). Most of the guys here would say that the thing is to fight well – a glorious defeat is remembered as well as a glorious victory.

richarDisney:

Winning is secondary to fun with my pals.
I am MORE than happy losing when there are a lot of laughs about the table.

I couldn't have put it better! I agree completely.

I used to be all about winning, but anymore it is about having a good time with my friends. I have been on the losing end of some games that have been the most fun for me.

I care a bit about making good decisions. I care about winning not at all.
I dislike rigid victory conditions because they can lead to cheesey or ridiculous play.

Caring about winning is a good way to lose …

Seriously, though … I only care when winning or losing is important in driving the historical narrative forward.

I try to allocate roles so that games have the right personalities in the right places – but it can be annoying when players depart from their briefings to try silly things that will fail and thus divert the game from the intended path (when following their orders would be much more likely to deliver their desired outcome) …

Phil

What richarDISNEY said.

Eric

If Eric Turner and I are on the same side our die rolling bad mojo is so great that winning is the last thing we think about.

While I like to win, fun is the true objective.

We enjoy a game that provides a good story. We also like game where we are on one side against eth the, almost like its Role playing.

I strive always to be a gentleman--in gaming and every other facet of life. That is especially so if I'm playing someone I don't know or don't know well. That includes being a "good sport," and accepting victory OR defeat graciously and maturely, playing by the rules, and at least trying to be good company. And I think I enjoy the camaraderie of the gaming table as much as the next guy.

Having said that, you better believe I care about winning. I play to the best of my abilities, and every decision I make, I do so with an eye toward *winning the game* (within the stipulations of the paragraph above). And I want and expect my opponent to do the same. And if you outplay me, I'll heartily congratulate you at the end of it.

kyotebluer than blue said:
"I care about having fun..win lose…it's about the fun."

Truer words have never been spoken!

I play to have fun. Playing with people who have to win takes the fun out of playing.

Playing British in WWII is the only time I feel any real need to win. I'm quite bad at almost any game, so I generally don't play as British forces.

Like I told my kids growing up in the PC world "there is nothing wrong with winning", but it's a game and I would rather lose a competitive game than slaughter someone and win.
I do however hate doing everything right then getting cursed by the dice gods and rolling poorly. Am I the only person ever to lose a meele with my cuirass to a gun crew?

I win every time I play.
Also lose every time – I play solo

It's fun to win (or so I have been told), but I really enjoy just getting together with my friends and throwing some dice and pushing some figures around the table.

I would rather win than lose, but it's more important to have fun with your friends.

cheers

Yes but…
I would rather lose against somene as good as I then win against someone I outclass. Or vice versa. A good friendly contest is what I like. Or a good laugh if the dice are totally bonkers.

I suspect that the people who only care about winning will not respond to this thread! And I know that there are some! I am, however, like Charlie Brown, the winningest loser, EVER! LOL.
But I always have so much fun doing it!

I aim to win…but that's more often wishful thinking. I don't know how to "play" rules to their hilt, my mind doesn't work that way. I adopt a strategy for the game, let the rules follow that strategy and then watch it all unravel.

Each side has its victory in its stance . If it lives up to what it chose at the start then it wins . Winning is always fun losing happens when you play . amongst frinds it makes no difference

I play to win but don't care if I lose. Perhaps that is because that happens more often than not 8>)

Playing the game and having fun is more important than winning or losing.

That said though, I really hate losing when the GM has designed the scenario poorly. Conversely, I feel bad when I win against opponents who really had no chance of winning.

Losing can be fun theoretically, but I wouldn't prefer it to winning and having fun.

Or of you're having fun while losing, what exactly is the the winner going through?

I like it but I don't mind if I lose, which given my win-lose balance is a good thing

I don't like to lose, but I don't care too much about winning. I try to have fun and hope my opponent is also having a good time.
M

Of course I would like to win – but having fun is really the priority.

Fun is the priority but it is nice to win. Having said that it depends on what your definition of winning is. I can handle a loss when a unit of mine doesn something amazing. For example I played a Napoleonic Game peninsular game and i was in control of the Spanish right flank. I threw caution ot the wind and chraged my dragoon brigade at French dragoon brigade. By the end I had half a regiment left but all of the french cavalry where fleeing or dead. Lost the battle but boy did i enjoy that part! A win for me i thought and boy did i enjoy rubbing it in…."what do oyu mean you got killed by Spanish Cavalry?"….

From reading your post I would say its not about winning and losing. The real issue I see is having a good game with an absence of clearly defined objectives where both sides can refuse to engage each other. I have played in a few games like this over the years and they tend to be dismal failures not because of winning or losing but a complete lack of action on both sides.

NO. I care about finding time to finish all my $%^^& models and get them on the board!

If I worried about winning,I'd never play.

Draggon Gunner you are right that a game, let us steal a good idea, "without a story" could degenerate to an non activity.
This scenario that prompted this post will have a story or even a few in an evening. The issue will be that it may not, in the more literal be sence possible to decide who wins. In such a secnario resouces though not unlimited are sufficent, so the game is not a inactive potential stalemate. The is always the case that scenarios have to be tailored to fit. Guys who just want to push a few nice vehicals around, chat and drink beer want a scenario that is undemanding, low uncomplecx force, usually with relatively trivial victory condition. The more dicerning who genuinely want to move into the simulation will have a more complex sit rep with more complex requirements on time, resource, terms of engaement etc. These latter games are where determineing victrory becomes more difficult, as the solutions become complex and asymetric.

Delaying an enemy with limited force does not me maximising a very limited kill potential. but to cause maximum delay even at the cost of no material damage to the enemy. That compromise can get difficult to judge.

I care about winning, and I expect my opponent to do the same, otherwise why the game?

Without the competition, we might as well be sittin' around drinkin'.

Fortunately, not a great deal.

No its playing that makes the fun. Winning just gives you the bragging rights .

Playing to win IMO just encourages ahistorical match ups and gamey force lists .

Don't know – never have !

A real gentlemen is magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat.

It is much more about the journey than the endpoint, particularly if trying to simulate a certain historical event or the application of doctrine. I am however a wargamer, so I do get a certain warm glow of satisfaction of being able to meet my objectives and deny the enemy theirs, particularly in a hard fought contest:)

It helps.

Martin Rapier yes I guess a lot of our games in the end becom studies in application of doctrine.

Winning is OK if my enemy isn't too upset, but I like better to see the scenario and/or rules work when I've written them.

If you had fun, you won!

MY main opponent is my son so for us it is more about time together and bonding. Not that I mind winning.

Not in the least.

I game with my friends and with people I like very much. Time with them is precious.

Life is a series of meetings and partings, People all too late come amongst us and are all too soon called away from us.

So gaming is an excuse to bring my nearest and dearest togther, entertain them, enjoy their company, talk about our common interests, tell tall tales, and bad jokes.

Victory? in a game? What does it mean? Nothing is proved. Nothing is decided, no great truths are established or revealed or overthrown. No idols cast down. It is merely an excuse to have a pleasant time.

I've known this for a long time but it all coalesced for me when in 2050 My best friend Terry Manton came to a game. It was a game he liked especially and Terry and I were great friends and he was a great collaborator in game designs. It wasn't an unusual or extraordinary game. It was a fun game.

Four days later, Terry, who was in excellent shape, took care of himself, exercised, ate right, fell over in the car while he was stopped at a light-- dead. His wife and 10 year old son was in the car. Luckily no one was hurt, but Terry was gone in an instant. He was only 55.

So if you game with your friends, treasure them, keep them close to you, love them, and be kind to them. Someday they will be taken from you, or you from them. If you don't game with your friends then why are you there? Why are you associating with people you do not like?

Wargames are nothing. When you die your survivors will sell off your stuff at a flea-market or throw it out. All of your games and your victories will be as chaff thrown away and forgotten. But to enjoy the company of your friends here, to make new friends, and to see them smile and be happy, laugh and joke. That is indeed pleasure beyond measure.

I often see highly competative players ruining a gmae, being perfectly obnoxious and making everyone miserable by thinking that the hobby has some great meaning and some great importance.

I always think. "What is there not misery enough in this world for you?

Well said the lot of you. I suppose I have never minded losing as long as I could understand why I lost after the game. Be it dice rolls, tactical blunder, or just plain out generalled. On the other hand, winning due to hot dice or the inexperience of my playmates brings me no pleasure either.

I've always enjoyed history in general and having fun with any game/period that I and/or my friends are involved with. The time spent with those friends discussing the game, history etc is what is important

From the sound of things I agree with everyone's comments but if you're trying to figure out who better accomplished their mission goals lets look at a couple of things you said:

It about agressive reconnisance. I realise it will be a scanario where the two players can chose a stance, say very agressive recon, light recon. The defender can do the same for defence.

Ok, if you've got a recon vs. defense you may want to give both sides some competing objectives. Obviously the defenders are trying to defend against an enemy attack. How aggressively could be determined by a die roll or some such. The same thing for the "attacker", however since he is on a "recon" mission as well that may become more important, not just in determining the forces in front of them but perhaps trying to "liberate" enemy documents or some other objective.

Ideally, these should be hidden from the opposing side but could be laid out in such a way that by the end of the game each side could have a good idea on whether or not they had managed to accomplish their mission or not. Again it's not as much about "victory" in the absolute sense but more about "mission". It's also a way to have both sides either win or lose depending upon who well they accomplished their mission.

I mostly play against my wife…I know my place….

depends on the oponenet, if hes a douchb oh nevermind