"‘Casual’vs.‘Competitive –The False Dichotomy Needs To Die" Topic

"You know how this goes. There are ‘casual' players and there are ‘competitive' players. There are players who try their utmost to win, for whom anything goes and there are no rules except the ones written down; there are players who don't care whether they win or lose and are just out to put whatever toys they feel like down on the table and have fun.

My old friend and comrade Ranz wrote a screed back in the Mark I days, which I feel outlines the situation perfectly:

"I owe it to my opponent to try to win. If we are not both trying to win, then why play? There are plenty of other FUN things to do. Why play a game? Why have the game governed by rules? Why have rules about victory points and conditions? Why not just get drunk? Why not just play "Sorry" and roll dice and run around a board while drinking beer and eating pretzels?"

I would hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of wargames – the ones that aren't about pushing your toys around as you accurately recreate the Battle of Knob Creek Bridge in 15mm scale and not rolling a single die or making a single tactical choice of your own – are games with a winner and a loser. One player or team wins and the other players or teams involved do not win. That's competition. Whether they like it or not, the most laid-back and super-chill of ‘casual' wargamers are still playing a competitive game. They are competing. They are engaged in competition. They are competitive…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I disagree with the author. If he does not understand the difference between a humorless, lacking banter, tournament game and a bunch of friends making jokes, exchanging commentary on tactics etc, I pity him.

Competitive Game: Goal is to win
Casual Game: Goal is to learn something or tell a story.

When I was playing 40k I was playing with a competitive crowd. We were friends etc, but our games were not characteristic by a lot of friendly interaction. Now that I play BBB our goal is to have fun and understand why the historical battles happened as they did. We try out best to win, but we are willing to offer suggestions, exchange ideas during the game, and joke or exchange friendly banter. When I was playing 40k friendship took a break during the game. With BBB it is very much part of the game.

Perhaps this has less to do with causal vs. competitive, and more to do with player personalities. But to say there is no difference is simply fallacious.

If i haven't enjoyed a game, the time has been wasted. It's nice to win and our games are full of what,in cricket, would be called "sledging"-banter, good humoured insults etc, all aimed to get an edge over ones's opponent and make them forget that you have left an infantry unit with a flank wide open. Nothing kills a game more than the opponent who is so determined to win that they sneak an extra half inch move, quibble every rule etc. I won't play with such people more than once. Casual beats ultra competitive every time, but it is nice to win sometimes.

The dichotomy is not wrong, just incomplete at a set of two options. I prefer the middle option: play at your best and fly casual.

I don't really enjoy playing games when folks are just shoving figures around and rolling dice without any particular attempt at playing well.

I enjoy playing games, win or lose, where everyone is trying to play at their best. But also being friendly and sporting — pointing out obvious mistakes or things overlooked to the opponent, allowing any corrections to be made that don't have to backtrack other moves already taken. Friendly competition!

At big X-Wing tournaments and/or any I am judging, I always wear my Fly Casual tee.

One of my best 40k experiences involved a single Guardsmen who kept winning melee vs. melee against a stream of Orks coming through constricted terrain (so they had to fight one-on-one). I don't remember who won the game. I don't even remember if I was on the same side as the Guardsman! (We always player with more than two players.) Who cared? It was the experience that counted.

What he's missing is that there almost all players are competitive to a degree, but only some are purely competitive. That's a huge difference. In fact, some are essentially non-competitive: solitaire gamers. Some folks like to set up historical battles and try different strategies strategies to see what would have happened. It's not about which player won, it's about which side won. I've met folks who were almost entirely about setting up a beautiful battlefield with beautiful figures.

I suspect that the author is simply unaware of the breadth of the hobby.

I know players that only care about how to win; they enjoy the part of the hobby that is based upon planning. The game itself is not important. What it is relevant for them is the preparations. If they got it right, they know they are going to win even before the first dice are rolled.

Others prefer the stories being lived with the miniatures on the tabletop. They can retell the story of how the lonely battalion defied all the odds and single handed stopped a whole brigade of grenadiers from destroying the flank. For them it is irrelevant that it was their opponent who commanded the heroic battalion and they who commanded the grenadiers! What they remember with misty eyes are the stories that they built in their imaginations while playing the game.

There is a majority of gamers, though, that enjoy the middle ground: you play to win AND to recreate an entertaining narrative on the tabletop. Actually, they are not incompatible. I know I am part of that big average crowd. Some of my best memories are from nail bitting games, when until the last turn nobody could guess which side was to achieve victory, and when everything hinged upon those few fresh squadrons that you have carefully kept in reserve for that particular moment. Would they charge into glory? Or will be wiped out into oblivion?

Bottom line is that there is not such a thing as a "proper" approach to wargaming. Or to any hobby, for that matter.

OK, So what do they win?

Do they think that because they won a game they are better than me?

Do they feel better when they win?

How so? Why do they feel better? Or is it that they like making other people lose?

If they feel that winning makes one feel better than when one loses, then isn't it axiomatic that they like making other persons feel bad?

How can they feel better or attribute ANY veracity to the game, most of all their own genius, as there are dice, and the rule of chance is universal?

Or is it the joy of power they feel when they can drub one of their best friends?

Sorry, I've seen far to many people to whom the answers tot he above are unabashedly YES! They tend to be singularly unpleasant and they are people you tend not to invite over your house.

I've had a basement group going since I went into the hobby 54 years ago. It averages about a dozen all told with 8 or so showing up at any one time. Persons who were competitive tended to self-select out very quickly because the rest of the group simply wanted a fun time.

We ALL play to win, but the degree of vehemence with which we do is virtually non-existent. We're much more interested in yuks, yaks, jokes, and seeing our friends.

Otto

han isn't it axiomatic then that

OK, So what do they win?

Do they think that because they won a game they are better than me?

Do they feel better when they win?

How so? Why do they feel better? Or is it that they like making other people lose?

If they feel that winning makes one feel better than when one loses, then isn't it axiomatic that they like making other persons feel bad?

Wow!

I can't remember how many times I have come across people like you, so full of themselves and their high morals that don't hesitate to pontificate about how everybody else MUST enjoy their hobby.

That is an interesting response, as I don't see where Otto has said anything about how anyone else has to enjoy the hobby. He states how his group plays, that those who didn't enjoy their style self selected to play elsewhere, and nothing more. Perhaps it might due to take a deep breath and reread what he actually says.

Aha … the regular 'bring out your prejudices' thread.

Enjoy …

Phil

Otto,

Your group sound like an ideal group of friends with a great thing going.

I especially like the "self-select out" option.

Yeah, I have to say I didn't get that from Otto's post, either. I agree with everything he said-- there are indeed singularly unpleasant win-at-all-costs players out there and not just a few, either. My preference is the tell-a-story-and-see-what-happens type of game with a lot of fun social interaction at the same time. Sure it's nice to win sometimes but the main goal for me is simply hanging with friends and rolling dice.

There are very different ways to play to win.

I play to win in that I try to pick strategies that will help my side, etc. (I'll admit I'm not very good at it.) But for some, the drive to win means stretching rules (which _can't_ cover every possibility), or just an unfriendly attitude. I'm not so casual that I will just move whatever units wherever whenever and see what the dice say. But I'm not intense about winning at all.

I think I'd enjoy setting up a game (painting, making terrain, setting up a battlefield) and hosting a game for others to play as much as anything. Shoot, I should be doing that!

andy

Myself and those I game with (semi) regularly just play for fun and to catch up. Yes we all try to win, but no one is too serious about winning that it's the be all and end all. We have had so many moments that were to the detriment of one player but laughed about by all, as we're friends and game for fun.

I played competitive sports for many years. I even played competitive chess. I don't do that any more. It was too exhausting mentally, emotionally, and physically. I play minis to learn and to have fun. Win/lose/draw doesn't matter to me as long as I have fun and learn what I set out to learn. My sense of self-worth is not dependent upon the outcome of some game. I give it my best shot and what happens is OK. I've got my fair share of trophys, but what I remember best is my teammates not who we beat, or who beat us. It's all about the social interaction before – during – after a game. Just some thoughts from an old geezer.