"Do you play for fun, or to win?" Topic

Over the weekend I hosted a game at my place (it was a board wargame, and not a miniatures game, but I think the same issues apply). I was really looking forward to it, as there were six players and it was great to get a full game in (it's a game where you can play 2-6 players).

Five of us were there to just game and have fun. The six player was the partner of one of the other players, and he was recommended to join the group as he is a big fan of the game. Unfortunately, I didn't realize, and probably should have, that not only was he a big fan of the game, he was a hard core fan of the game.

This meant that he wanted to have a 45 minute discussion of what rules and house rules we'd be using up front. Two of the guys had never played, so this just left them lost and bored as he litigated what was in and what was out.

Then after every player played their turn, it meant he critiqued their moves and told them what they 'totally did wrong.' When I went, as I was the other very experienced player in the game, he would comment "Oh, you are going with THAT strategy." Or, "I wouldn't have made THAT play."

We ended the game without a conclusion (after 7 hours of play- it was game that typically takes about 4-5 hours to come to conclusion, but with all the haranguing, it took much longer to play.) We almost all agreed that the game was too tough to call as the outcomes weren't clear (it was really unclear). Except for the last guy- who told us exactly how it would end up- as he just knew that it would be that way.

I basically came to the (very late in my life, admittedly) realization that I really just play to hang out with friends and have fun. It's not a chess tournament. It's a game. My wife was gobsmacked that we played that long and didn't have a clear winner. My eldest son responded (with no prompting from me) that "Gaming is about playing the game, not winning the game." Here, here. I couldn't have said it better.

So, despite the fact that this guy really is a nice guy and was never overly rude, he made me really realize that despite the fact that I consider myself a huge gamer, I'm firmly and committedly in the 'have fun camp.' I just don't want to play with people who have prefigured every outcome of every turn of the game from every perspective. It's just not enjoyable to me.

That's probably why I've never been a tournament gamer.

Where do you come down on this? Do you play to have fun, or are you a power gamer who derives enjoyment from beating those who play at their top level every game? Neither is wrong, really. I just now have come to clearly understand how I want to game from now on.

Games are for fun. Beating others to win is to much like work.

Fun.

Fun.

Your son has it right!

Fun, but I try to play intelligently.

For fun, but since I'm playing solo these days I can have it both ways.

Yes, fun definitely.

Generally start out hoping to win, then remember that I'm absolutely rubbish so just enjoy it instead.

Fun. Winning is fun but not required

Winning is part of the fun. So is the historical aspect. I give my best game but try to do it in a historically plausible fashion.

Fun!

Fun, always. Light hearted smack talk. Mocking horrible die rolls. Even some name calling. All with a laugh and a smile.

I have been involved with players, both mini and board, who get belligerent when things don't go their way. Them and 'Rules Lawyers ' don't get asked back…..

Fun, but I do enjoy a win – mostly for the rarity value!

Fun, always. Anymore, I don't game with people like you describe. He wouldn't be back at my house.

Fun.

I do forget sometimes. There are a couple of games that I like to win. I don't really know why.

If you aren't having fun doing your hobby, you have the wrong hobby. I'll play to win of course but not to the extent that I stop having fun doing it.

I play to win and in most cases have NO FUN playing against someone who does not also. Most annoying thing I EVER head after a game that I won was an opponent saying "I wasn't playing to win". Made it a point to never see them again.

What is this "win" of which you speak?

I have been in games where someone deploys poorly and the rest of the game is not just "playing" but being punished for the duration of the evening.

It's not as if everything is even until the very last move. An early mistake or catastrophic die roll, can make it no fun at all for a few hours.

Fun first though it is pleasant to win also.

I play to have fun and to win. I'm not a professional soldier attempting to hone my command skills or a tournament player seeking a prize, I'm a hobbyist role-playing the experience of battle, so I take the outcome and the process of the game equally seriously.

Miniature wargames are by nature poorly suited to a tournament environment, and even a "casual" game with one or more hypercompetitive players gets to be a drag. Nearly all miniatures games require some amount of gentlemanly behavior above and beyond the printed rules in order to maintain a sense of historicity (or in sci-fi/fantasy, adherence to the theme/setting/genre). If every hole and crack in the rules is fair game for exploitation, the race to the bottom leaves little semblence of simulation, and the patches to the rules to "fix" all those flaws eventually distort the game into an ugly caricature. In order to keep the rules simple and fun, miniatures games nearly always feature some number of deliberately un- or under-regulated aspects to the mechanics (e.g. gridless movement/shooting, zero C3, unlimited ammo or endurance, etc.), and it's only when players consciously adhere to the theme and honorably conform to the vicissitudes of luck and circumstance that these things remain non-issues.

However, the "just for fun" attitude carried too far can also ruin the experience. The most extreme examples are players who resort to totally wonton behavior, such as: pointless suicidal attacks; unwarranted back-stabbing of in-game friends; idiotic tactics that obviously won't work; complete inattention to orders, coordination, or command hierarchy; apathy or even antipathy about victory conditions; and so on. It's one thing to play against an earnest but poor player, it's another entirely to play against someone who doesn't even take the game seriously enough to try playing within the spirit of the game.

A lower-order (and more common contemporary) reflection of the "just for fun" attitude is the substitution of luck (dicing or card pulls) for a decision cycle. Lady Luck is capricious and her infuriating meddling makes victories hollow and defeats ashen. I would much rather the player was the primary arbiter of victory or defeat. Games that consistently go to the luckiest player regardless of acumen aren't fun to play, and gamers who prefer such games usually aren't much fun as opponents, either.

- Ix

Fun.

what WATJ said … plus I'm always surprised by the reference to tournament play in analyses like this … Now I can only talk about historical wargaming (and do hear horror stories from other genres) but tournament players are most definitely not like your hard core chum.

UK, anyway, they are most definitely only in it for the fun and also do like to get on with the game (rather than yak and critique) …

In my humble experience, bores are just bores, whatever field they are in (cars, photography, model railways – you name it, there's a bore that will make an interesting afternoon tedious) …

OK: Fun – in a historical context … and I love the figures.

Phil

Depends. Sometimes I play for fun, some for win, some for both.

Interesting, no one so far has asked for yours or others, definitions of fun?

I can't believe the 20+ people above me in the response list would all define "fun" in the same manner.

However, it is a relevant question, and one I regularly rile a mate about. Just what is fun?

Horses for courses I guess.

Yesthatphilsaid:

plus I'm always surprised by the reference to tournament play in analyses like this … Now I can only talk about historical wargaming (and do hear horror stories from other genres) but tournament players are most definitely not like your hard core chum.

UK, anyway, they are most definitely only in it for the fun and also do like to get on with the game (rather than yak and critique)

That's really interesting. My experience with DBA tournaments was similar (nearly everyone was amiable and honorable), but not with other miniatures games. One of the chief reasons I stopped playing in tournaments was the way the competitive attitude poisoned the experience. I've found this in other types of tournaments besides miniatures gaming, too – chess, poker, Magic the Gathering, motor racing, etc.

- Ix

I expect my opponents to play to win otherwise I won't have fun.

I am sort of "middle of the road" on this issue. I am always out to win, if I can, but not at any cost. By which I mean I would try never to be rude, and I will not resort to "rules lawyering" at the expense of historical accuracy in the results. Having said that, however, I do not enjoy playing with opponents who do not take the game seriously enough to study the rules well enough to know what they are doing, and who never bother to read any background material about the period which the rules attempt to simulate. After all, how can you hope to achieve an historical result, if you don't really know anything about the period. And if you really do not care about that, you might as well go for fantasy or sci-fi gaming, since there is no reality to worry about in the first place.

It is fun to win, but I play for fun. Which is good, because I often lose.

Playing to win? Yeah right…

Just fun for me.

John T

Fun is the name of the game, winning is incidental.

There's something called winning in gaming? Well I'll be blowed!

For fun for God's sake – I certainly don't win enough to worry about it

Let me quote a board game designer.

""When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning."

I'm sort of period specific on this. For giant napoleonics games I play to have fun but am also a bit competitive. For goofy colonial/pony war skirmishing I don't care if I get slaughtered as long as I get a laugh out of it!

Phillius-

Fair point. That would lead me to tweak the question somewhat as you are right, I think the definition of the terms skews the question.

What I'm really after is are you in it for the experience you have while playing the game, or the outcome? I think that's fairer to my point.

To misapply Shakespeare, is the play the thing for you, or the conclusion?

I agree that it's no fun playing against people who aren't serious enough to at least try. I am not one to expect every player to know every rule- especially when playing a game where on the outset it is known that some of the players are very new to the rules.

For instance, at the end of the game, we all discussed playing another game, and this same person described above stated, "I wouldn't want to play unless I was able to download the rules and study them thoroughly before having a go." Now the game we're talking about playing next time is Risk Legacy- a game where you play a number of sessions where the rules intentionally change between each session. Part of the allure for the rest of us is that experience- just figuring it out as we go and enjoying the game.

Again, as I said above- neither approach is wrong- in this case, I am in it for the experience, not the outcome, so I accept learning the rules as we go, rather than studying them rigorously ahead of time so I can obtain the best outcome. I'd rather learn through play, but again, that's just me.

That said, I agree mostly with Atillathepun above that I would prefer someone to at least know something of the setting and at least something of history of a period before diving in, though I'm very accommodating to new players in an attempt to interest them in a period.

Historical Outcome I do question, though. How far does that go? Does the Bismarck always blow up the Hood suddenly after a few volleys? If not, then is it ahistorical? Do the Germans always get bad weather in the opening of the Battle of the Bulge? If not, is that ahistorical? Does Cleopatra always leave with her fleet at Actium? If not, is that ahistorical? I get what you mean, but taken too far, it becomes less interesting to me at least.

Did I just hijack my own thread?

Fun. Gamind is a social experience with friends. I never paly with people I don't know. Too many bad experiences with rules lawyers and those who feel they must win.

YM--I do sometimes resort to totally wonton behavior,but only at the Chinese place after the game.

Fun. Had a very good friend many years ago we just stopped playing games with. He had to win, and it made the game miserable for everyone else playing.

I play for fun. I haven't won a game in twenty years, no exaggeration, and in each game I have had an enormously good time. Gotten beat badly sometimes, but I always had a good time.

I had an especially good time when I played with those people who HAD to win and were completely over the top. The greatest fun for me was their perplexity and astonishment when I was having fun even though being trounced. Apparently part of their fun was to see people feel beaten and humiliated and when that didn;'t happen it drove them nuts. Which gave me even MORE fun!

Now you haven't mentioned the game this person was playing that he was an expert in, but I can tell you this. I really, truly, positively, enormously hope that he falls in with my group some day because such an obnoxious person would be eviscerated in the game by all the other five players.

Or worse, he would be completely ignored.

Over "The Weekend" in Lancaster we played at one point "7 Wonders". A rather complex game I didn't even know existed till I was press ganged into it. Played it, made horrible mistakes, decided I couldn't ever master the rules for a win so I played it to what I thought was cool. Had a monstrously good time.

Fun first and foremost.

Conan! What is best in life?

Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.

I enjoy winning but have fun even when losing a game. We once had a rules lawyer start attending our games. Every time he began to get on our nerves everyone began to tease him lightheartedly. He soon got the message and dropped out. He was severely outnumbered by the players who weren't too timid to make their thoughts known to him in a fun way.

Fun, and I will just walk away if the guy on the other side of the table is only about winning.

Fun

I enjoy the fun of winning – but sometimes it's even more fun to lose. Now how does that add up in this pseudo-conversation?

I do sometimes resort to totally wonton behavior,but only at the Chinese place after the game.

Well, that's okay then. The "cigar and nightcap phase" is where that behaviour belongs.

- Ix

I think a game has to have some point (aims, objectives etc) otherwise you may as well just sit around and have a chat, however the journey is more enjoy than the outcome.

Playing with a bore is going to be tedious whatever the environment, unless your interests coincide.

When you play a game with a group of people, there's always a social setting that determines how you should approach the game.

If you play a game with hardcore fans, who all know the rules and played the game before – that's a different setting than when playing possibly the same game with a group of social friends who decide to bring a game to the table to pass the evening.

If you are an expert player, who happens to play a game you know very well with casual gamers, you should adapt your approach accordingly. This might even go as far not to use 'expert tactics' that would be hard to grasp for casual gamers, or even considered to be unfair or cheating by newcomers.

Such behaviour has nothing to do with not playing to the fullest, but has to do with keeping an eye on a fun social setting. Some gamers will never understand this, claiming you should always play to win, no matter what.

So yes, I lean much more towards the 'playing for experience' rather than 'playing for the outcome'.

P.S. This reminds of an anecdote. Some years ago, I wanted to pick up squash again after an hiatus of several years. One friend, who was a regular player, agreed to play. We spend an hour on the court, but he never gave me the opportunity to hit a single ball. He was using all possible moves he knew to prevent me from hitting back. "That's the best way to pick it up again." I stopped after that session. He never understood why.