"Win, Lose or Draw: How important is victory in your games?" Topic

Just been at Fall In, where folks were playing all sorts of games for all sorts of reasons, so I thought I'd throw this question out there: how important is it to you that there should be a clear winner by the end of a game?

Some extra background for you: the games I usually play have clear victory conditions that not only allow for win/lose but can also end in a draw. One of my regular gaming buddies regards the draw as the perfect result that gives him the most satisfaction. He is a keen competitor who always makes a proper combat appreciation and comes up with a well thought-out plan – yet he likes a draw because it challenges him to come up with an even better one next time! Plus, of course, as it is "honours even", nobody trudges home depressed by their defeat.

So: how much do y'all care about winning?

Chris

Nobody plays to lose, so we all want to do our best.
However, no one keeps score over the long haul and there are no standings.

One of the reasons we defenestrated our last "club" was the inane insistence on "serious games". Meaning keeping score and keeping track. Who needs that ?

I play for the competition so a winner or loser is important. That said I would much rather lose and be challenged (not totally stomped on…) then win with no challenge.

I like to win but want the game to be good, kinda like Dynaman says. A tight game beats a walkover.

I think at some level everyone likes to win, but I get enjoyment just from playing good games with good people. Like John said, no one is keeping score and, if they are, I'm not playing with them. The best part of gaming is playing with toys. I tend not to do repeat performances with people who think playing with toy soldiers is some kind of serious competition.

Personally, I'd rather lose a close game, than win a landslide. As long as it's a good game, I have fun.

I want a game to play first, I will worry about outcomes once this is accomplished. Over a year since my last rpg, going on three years since my last ttg…

Winning is always at the back of the mind but, like many, I have unit and personage histories, so I'm writing a short AAR report as I go along. Win or lose doesn't totally bother me as long as I can get a decent AAR from it.

Rolling dice, pushing lead (with more plastic mixed in these days now), and having game and hobby-related discussions is what i look for.

Winning or losing doesn't really factor into it for me.

~iPaint

I play for fun. Winning is nice, but not required

I want glorious action, I don't mind failing horribly as long as I was in there fighting…

I play poker for blood…every legal advantage I can obtain by playing the percentages, reading body language, reading the board, knowing what the cards are by the board and the patterns of play of the different styles of players at the table, knowing the players, their styles and reactions…and at the end of a session I am worn out, stressed and feel like a shark…kill or be killed and eaten…

That is why when I play a wargame, I just play strictly to get a better understanding of history and enjoy spending time with friends in a fun, friendly environment where everyone enjoys the ups and downs and mainly the fellowship.

If I wanted a competition I want it to be worth my while…I will play poker where I can win several hundreds/thousands of dollars in a few hrs…

Wargaming is a pleasant pastime for me and I treat it as such…

Frank

Never cared….honestly don't remember ever winning!

The progression of the game, the nail-biting moments, the laughable failures or exhilarating 'lucky rolls', and the overall 'narrative' of a game as it plays out is what compels me versus a victory.

A good game is a good story unfolding and enjoyed between friends sharing a common love of history and the men, great and small, who forged it. And also of little metal people and styrofoam hills.

A good game is more important than wining, but what I can't stand is a cheater- people who nudge the extra inch, don't call the cocked die if it's a good roll etc…those people I want to beat like a drum.

I play a fair number of scenario driven games, indeed I prefer them to 'head to head lead' and will never play in a tournament.

Some of those games are 'unwinnable' in the traditional sense, it's how well you do. For example, do you make obvious mistakes like over extending yourself or being too cautious? Players treat them as staff college exercise in the tradition of the Prussian General Staff, in fact von Moltke the Elder inspires many of the scenarios I write. You do need the right set of gamers for these games – I'm lucky since I play with a number of "Gentleman Gamers" who appreciate this type of games.

I want to win but I mostly want to have fun war-gaming with like minded people. The only time the result is important is in a campaign game and I haven't played in one of those in decades :)

I play to win. But if you lose, you lose. Fun and friendship are way more important.

When playing Napoleonics I find winning is not as important as how it all feels. Was there atmosphere? Did it flow authentically? Especially when playing Austrians or early Prussians, did one of my units do something glorious before the French beat us?

I always play to win. However, having fun is far more important, as is a challenging game. It is, after all, a game, and if it isn't interesting and fun, then why the heck play it?

I participated in too many real-life wargames and training excercises and simulations. I play wargames for fun, with the emphasis on the GAME and not the WAR part of the word.

But I still play to win.

Funny was just at a convention with a bunch of friends were we got to play two solid days of boardgaming. After working nine days straight it was a great stress relief. I just enjoy being with friends, laughing and having no stress. Of course it was a truly great weekend because for the one and only time that I can remember I managed to win every multiplayer game over those two days. The luck of the angels was with me.

But to be honest I am truly happy to just be playing any game. Still a child at heart.

In true British style, personally its not the winning that matters but the taking part that counts.

I play for the narrative 'story' of a game and having a fun game with mates, not the result.

Everybody plays to win, that's human nature but nothing kills the enjoyment of a good evening's play than an overly competitive gamer. This is supposed to be FUN!

In my case, it depends on my opponent. Against some people I don't mind the result. They are gentlemen and it is a pleasure to game with them, regardless of the outcome. My problem comes when I play against power-gamers, bragging armchair generals and rules-lawyers. In those cases, I really, really, really use every single trick in my arsenal to win, and feel ed off if I lose. Fortunately for me, since I did stop gaming in tournaments and only play with my friends the second kind of gamers are just a bad memory.

Like any game, you do your best with what you are given and within the bounds of friendly and gentlemanly play. However, I couldn't care less whether I win or get utterly flogged. As I am usually the host, I generally offer to take the side that is obviously going to lose. I am much more interested in a good game and a reasonable representation of the real battle than winning.

Amen

As others have said, I always play to win, but enjoying the game and doing what I can to make sure my 'opponent' is also having a good time is very important to me. I seem to have played an awful lot of games where victory or defeat seem to come down to the last round, but because both of us have either been laughing ourselves silly because of things like blunders, or having interesting discussions based on some of the things our soldiers have done on the table vs what we know from history, it isn't at all unusual for me to remember the enjoyable parts of the game, and within a week have forgotten who won or lost.

If you create an atmosphere where people are having fun and want to come back, you are doing something right, and in my experience, 'winning' and 'losing' have very little do with it.

Everybody plays to win, for the brief time I am playing they are your troops, your planes, and they are the enemy.To have a fun game is important!

I usually play multiplayer games, and for me I feel more like a spectator than a participant. Sure, I'm moving troops around, but if I'm playing, say, ACW, then at the end of the day either the North or the South won, not Dave's team or John's team. I just like to see nicely painted troops move around a well terrained tabletop in some semblance of mock combat…

I echo fat Wally.

As primarily a modeller ,playing games is just a means to an end and therefore I don't take the gaming side too seriously at all.

Winning for me is just icing on the cake in the same way as winning at Manopoly , but the most important element is to ensure that you enjoy the game and also make sure your opponent is as well irrespective of the outcome.

I'm largely repeating what a lot of wise heads above have already articulated. My primary desire in playing is to get closer to the history of the period. My secondary motive is to share time with interesting people (on both sides of the table). I play to win as a means of honoring my little lead soldiers and sailors, but not at the expense of being a boor about it; I much prefer a "friendly game" for all the stress-related reasons enumerated above.

To answer the question regarding the desirability of achieving a "clear cut victory" ….. hmmm. That's a ticklish question. It's a great target to aim at, but one that can be hard to hit. So much depends upon the size of the game, the time available to play, the rules in use, and most of all the scenario itself. Small games with straightforward victory conditions have the best chance of delivering an clear and unambiguous result (did you take the hill or not?). Certain rule sets set artificial army break points (CL&S, DBXXX, for example). Big games can be a different story. I play a lot of Age of Sail. In large squadron/fleet actions, it is the nature of my rules that a poor tactical decision early in the game can put one side on the skids such that it cannot recover. Once that has become evident, the game is practically never pursued to its ultimate conclusion. At that point, it is somehow unseemly for gentlemanly players to debate how clear cut or decisive the victory might be. Sometimes, we avoid the subject of victory and defeat and confine ourselves to chit-chat about tactical minutiae.

I guess the real issue here is that an obviously crushing victory is only very rarely achieved in a single dramatic turn of play. Usually, advantage slowly accrues and the opponent will concede before things get totally ugly for him – a perfectly rational human reaction. The winner knows he has won, but the ultimate degree of victory can only be inferred. That has been my experience, anyways.

B

I want to win and have fun, but not at the expense of my opponent. I would rather have a close game than completely destroy my opponent. I was playing two games of Bolt Action last week. One ended with neither of us getting an objective, fighting in the middle of the board going nowhere as neither of us got any kills. The second game I was destroying my opponent front the start. His tank failed to damage mine, the return shot destroyed his tank. Several squads on ambush stopped his assault on a key building, my Sherman tore thru a couple of squads with no anti-armor ability. I steamrolled him. Neither of us was having any fun. The first game was much better, even if nothing actually happened…

What an impressively unanimous set of responses! I agree it's first and foremost about the spirit of the game and having fun with like-minded friends. (Where are the hardcore tournament players? Maybe I should have crossposted to Ancients!)

Myself, I usually play multi-player historical scenarios. I think the fact that it is not one-to-one, head-to-head, takes some of the raw competition out of it, which is a good thing.

Having victory conditions is important though, not for ego but for evaluating how well your little metal men have done. Fighting actual historical battles means you can set victory conditions based on the historical situation, and they help you to assess how different plans from the historical one would have worked.

I'm not keen on simple destruction of the enemy (army break points etc) as the way of deciding who wins. It's much better to have a number of terrain features as objectives.

Not only does this provide a way to tell who's winning, it also regularly produces incredibly exciting games. It seems like nearly every time we play, on the last turn there will be at least two or three objectives still being seriously contested; all three results still possible, depending whose charges or counterattacks succeed; and frequently it comes right down to the last dice of the evening. Cue cries of glee or despair, much adrenalin, glorious and memorable actions, and tremendous good fun all round.

So while it's not about winning, the fact that there is a victory to be had gives structure and purpose to the game and enhances the enjoyment we get from the other aspects: the history, the drama, the social side.

Blimey, my short comment has turned into a long essay. I'll shut up now.

Chris

I enjoy a "good" game win or lose when the scenario is right and the atmosphere is friendly around the table. I do like to win as most people but after my initial dissapointment when I loose to a better opponent or because someone used some unexpected tactic on me I can certainly show good sportsmanship and wholeheartedly congratulate the winner. What I do not like however are very unbalanced games where one side hardly has a chance to win.(Played a couple Peninsular games like that where the odds against the French were so high there was no point in refighting the battle)

I prefer the winning to come from proper use of historical tactics primarily. If I or my opponent are able to use contemporary tactics to achieve a "win" that is the cake and frosting moment for me.

That means for Science Fiction or Fantasy those tactics should be reflected from the story (LOTR or Traveller) or setting of the background where such exists.

If the dice rolls randomly control results completely, irrelevant of real or fantasy/fiction background/history, then I might be satisfied but I will not have had any pleasure (unless it is a game like Rivets where the premise is intentionally 'forget reality' level fun.)

If horribly irrational ahistorical "gamey" mechanics (like firing at every other vehicle in a combined group of seven adjacent figures – each one representing a tank squad) to create gaps between figures resulting in going from 100% to 30% chance of activating the squads then I might enjoy the people but win, lose or draw, I will not feel like I had a good game and certainly not feel any satisfaction – Battle Tactics this week-end – and most assuredly will never play those rules again no matter how close my friends are.

Good friends can make rules or elements of a rules set I find uneven (TSATF's melee) acceptable or even pleasurable but if a rules set is truly "broken" or "points based tournament only" designed then I would rather play Chess, Checkers, or Go.

I win so infrequently that a victory is a cherished moment! I enjoy the tactics of the thing. The problem solving. About the best games you can play are close affairs. What I don't enjoy is the picking apart afterwords. Some people analyze the outcome to death, like vultures on a carcass.

Winning is nice but the camaraderie and the stuff that happens during the game are far more important to me.

Completely and utterly irrelevant.

I play with my friends, and almost invariably at my house, and we all like the game and have fun in it and we try to win of course, but the important thing for all of us is the camaraderie, the bad jokes, the bragging and the gossip and tales of how they are doing and the enjoyment of each others company, complaining about ailments and the "guv'mint" and the like. Somewhere in there of course is the game, but it's far more a social event liberally lubricated with beer, wine and food and a big dinner after the game is over.

Winning is nice but I'd rather lose to a player if he seems to really need a win.

I've been to over 100 conventions, been going to the HMGS conventions for 30 years. Played hundreds of games at my house. Can't remember more than five or six of them, but of the memories of good friends and good times, and the joking, grousing, complaining about the guvmint' boasts, and good times I have a huge treasury and remember far more.

There's winning, and there's winning.

Winning because I played well, getting the best out of what I had to work with, that's fun. Winning because of a fluke die roll, or because my opponent was incompetent, that's not fun.

But the important thing is the comradeship -- and the snacks.

"Men have hobbies to have an excuse to hang around with other men and talk "

I haven't seen the episode (yet) but this (or something close) was apparently said on BBC sit-com "The detectorists"

(The Anglo-Saxon for Sphere or ball)

"Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat!"

- Jesse "The Body" Vetura

I don't I have ever 'won', perhaps once would be nice.

I play Nuts! which is man to man to man combat in WW II. So if my character can get off the table alive, I consider that a victory.

I don't really care that much. The people I play with are generally more interested in a fun story emerging or chaotic, unpredictable things happening.

We tend to look at it more like an unfolding situation where each player just happens to be controlling a particular side so a lot of the time the game ends when we feel one side or the other would have had enough.

I like OSchmidt's viewpoint which EXACTLY matches my own.

Well stated!

----------------------------
Completely and utterly irrelevant.

I play with my friends, and almost invariably at my house, and we all like the game and have fun in it and we try to win of course, but the important thing for all of us is the camaraderie, the bad jokes, the bragging and the gossip and tales of how they are doing and the enjoyment of each others company, complaining about ailments and the "guv'mint" and the like. Somewhere in there of course is the game, but it's far more a social event liberally lubricated with beer, wine and food and a big dinner after the game is over.

Winning is nice but I'd rather lose to a player if he seems to really need a win.

I've been to over 100 conventions, been going to the HMGS conventions for 30 years. Played hundreds of games at my house. Can't remember more than five or six of them, but of the memories of good friends and good times, and the joking, grousing, complaining about the guvmint' boasts, and good times I have a huge treasury and remember far more.

Sometimes losing is important to me. I have in the past thrown a game here and there to encourage a player to stick with a rules set that I like or want to explore more.

David F Brown

Win, lose or draw …. total victory is key; smash the opponent, stamp on his dreams, spoil his Wednesday, despise his painting … oops, sorry.

Back in the room now – "whatever, as long as it is fun".

…. and he dies of course and his figures melt and his beer is rancid … and …

"I have nothing to contribute to this discussion. I always win, so the consideration of what it means to feel like a loser… well I have no experience with that."

(NOT my view. Wouldn't it be strange of somebody actually really posted that and meant it? I think there is too much work involved in learning the rules and painting the figures to have that type of butt head be involved with the hobby. We do have some very competitive types playing, but they are usual disarmed by mild ridicule or, in extreme cases, shunning. I would much rather lose with glory or admit gross stupidity than have genuine people upset about having played.)