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

I can't believe no one has quoted AHHHNOLD as Conan yet…LOL

"What is best in life, Conan?"

"To Crush Your Enemies, To See Them Driven Before You, and to Hear the Lamentation of Their Women "

(then hit the obligatory bodybuilding "crab pose")

--------------------------------------------

We had a guy in our group that whenever he won, would ALWAYS do the above…

Always sent us into hysterical peals of laughter!

Frank

Not important at all – I like all players to have some successes during a game..even if it doesn't lead to victory. A game were your troops just melt away and your plan falls apart is not much fun but can be instructive.

As for all the beer, snacks and table talk that is fine up to a point but would sometimes annoy me if it got in the way of the game. The game has always been more important to me than the extras. If you just want to drink, eat snacks and chat go to the pub….

From my point of view a player who will not try to win – or rather achieve his side's objectives – is as bad as a player who will spoil the scenario in order to claim a 'win'.

I now play exclusively solo which is mainly due to geographical issues but also due in part to other players often not enhancing my enjoyment and sometimes even spoiling it.

Yea, not too important to me either, but it is always a nice bonus.

I generally play for fun, and for the experience of a decent game/scenario, with others.

"To Crush Your Enemies, To See Them Driven Before You, and to Hear the Lamentation of Their Women "

Isn't the Lamentation of Women the reason most of us get out of the house an spend a few peaceful hours fighting each other? ;)

"Lamentation" isn't the word you are looking for…

Love my wife but sometimes the legitimate gender differences can require a bit more "space between the trees in the forest" to paraphrase Khalil Gibran.

Don't care much – if at all – about winning…which is just as well since it does n't happen often. Really I just like pushing the toys around the table. That said, a large %age of our games are historical scenarios so there may not be a 'winning' solution for one side is anyway.

I play wargames primarily to have fun and to learn. I'm not sure which of those two is more important, and I suspect it goes back and forth. Consistent with those two point, if given the opportunity I am usually going to play to win. The main exception is going to be when playing "teaching games".

One type of game I do like to do is to start out with a historical battle and follow the historical script to a certain point, to see if at that point I do better or worse than the original participants.

Some nice points about when it IS important to win (e.g., against Mr Obnoxious) or actually important to lose (e.g., to encourage a new player or to cheer up a buddy). I suppose apart from the "learning about history" aspect, it's not so different from playing sport for recreation. The competitive element and the social element are both important. Their relative importance varies from individual and from game to game: some guys you just need to beat, others are a pleasure to share the pitch with.

At Fall-In I managed a 100% record – as in, I was on the losing side five games out of five …

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link

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?

If it's a convention game, I would hope that there's an identifiable winner by the end of the day.

Personally, I play to win, but I prefer a close loss over a ROFLstomp blow-out win.

I feel much less heartburn over the "AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!! If only that last [whatever] had gone in my favor!!!" than "Dude, what's up with the dice-hate?"

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.

What's even more amusing to me is when the different sides are playing by different victory conditions. Sure, this takes a lot more work, but it allows things like, "The US Army killed X many VC/PAVN soldiers and only lost Y many of our own. This was a solid victory for the US. The VC took out 3 tanks and 5 of 6 artillery pieces, so that's a solid win for the VC."

Or there's always the double victory conditions, like in one Vietnam game whose name escapes me at the moment. Not only do you have to accomplish the military victory conditions, you also have to accomplish the political victory conditions in order to get a 'full victory'. Only getting one of the two is a partial victory at best.

Well said Zaevor2000

As I contemplate this from the "Tree of Whoa!"

Well played, Beeker!

Before the game begins nobody thinks winning is important. But when the dice starts to roll, everyone thinks winning is important.

I play to win. I expect my opponent to do the same. I also like the players on my side to want to win. But a good loss can sometimes be as much fun as a win. But I still rather win.

We laugh, joke and generally have a good time. Losing is not the end of the world. But just wait till next time.

I mainly just like to watch the scenario play out. I want to compare the results to what happen historically. I don't need to participate. I just want to see the fruits of my labor.

Not to state the obvious, but – and I apologize if this has already been said elsewhere in the thread – if you play solo, can't you always claim to have won or lost, depending on how happy or sad you feel that day ;-)

Good point.

Those who go solo always have a "happy" ending.

Now that I am looking back on it, more times than not, the most exciting and memorable games I have been involved in, I was the looser. John Miller

John,

It sounds like you were with a good group of players.

With a group like that you learn a little history, have some fun, and a good time is had by all…

THAT is the ideal gaming experience!

I can't remember the last time I won, so it is really irrelevent…I'm always a looser-loser.

I don't approach every gaming experience the same way or for the same reasons. Obviously, we play because we enjoy each others' company, but some of the other reasons I/we play are:

1. Try out a new set of rules or compare rules
2. Work out variants or scenarios
3. Simply enjoy a set of rules we all know
4. Make sure we don't lose in a campaign game
5. An excuse to get together and the game never really gets
played, but we do enjoy talking about the rules, the
history etc.
6. Play a competitive game, one-on-one or teams, with
winning a major factor in the challenge/enjoyment.
7. Show off new figures/terrain/markers etc.
8. Practice for a tournament…

And any combination of the above, solo, one-on-one and in groups. How important is winning? It all depends on the weather…

For those of you who MUST win, here is a little prayer-mantra to recite under your breath when his forces are doing a little too well..

"A curse on they army
a curse on they fleet
a curse on thy face
which a bull did excrete."

May your misfortunes be many
Your pleasures be few
Be sure that this curse
shall yearly renew."

I'm a solo type mainly. I have played in the past but I don't remember winning, although to be fair most of these games were back in the day with WRG ancients so you were normally just glad it was over.
I just like moving the toys around on the table to be honest.

I don't mind losing so much as I do a consistent string of bad die rolling. You can't think your way out of that problem, and you know it could end with the next die roll, so you're hope is dashed every time you drop one.