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

Btw, in my gaming group we have an understanding that no one should look up strategies or tactics online inbetween gaming sessions when we start playing a new boardgame.

That's to avoid an arms race, for which some have the time, but others haven't, and it would spoil the atmoshpere.

It's much more fun to explore a game together at the same pace, rather than having one player who dominates from the second time you play the game, resulting in effectively banning the game from further play sessions.

To go back to the OP, "Do you play for fun, or to win?"

You should always play to win, but always in such a manner that the game is fun for everybody.

If you play the game to win, but there's no fun for the other players, you've lost.

And another anecdote:

My old professor (when I was a postdoc in the nineties) used to play tennis during lunch hour once a week. He had played competitive tennis in his youth, but he never talked about that.

He always won the lunch games 6-4, 6-4, no matter who the opponent was.

One day there was a young Ph.D. student, who didn't quite understand the purpose of the lunch tennis games, and played agressively. The kid lost 6-0, 6-0.

Playing to win? Or playing for the experience? Sometimes both :-)

Winning just ends the game.

Have fun. Be a good sport. Laugh with friends.

I like fun and we tend to help each other out with overlooked rules or units etc.

I have never understood the kind of play in which a player concedes the game once they feel their chance of winning has slipped by.

If I played to win,I'd never play,as I dont win very often.

Since I lose 90% of the time, I'd have to go with "fun."
Although sometimes I get agro.

I like to win but if I'm down, I keep on trying so the other side gets to have their licks. I only throw in the towel if it is getting late and everyone wants to call it quits.

It does bug me when opponents throw in the towel after several bad rolls of the dice, before the game is really decided.

I'd rather lose a game that felt like a good approximation of history than win in a cheesy, a-historical way.

Since I possess the (in)famous BGG or Brom Gaming Gene, I've lost many a game in my time. And some of the most enjoyable gaming experiences have been while losing. I like to win, and winning while enjoying the troops, terrain and people gathered around the table, is just an added perk. But I did manage to take Hougoumont once upon a time, in the wilds of Indianola, Mississippi, at my first game with the Jackson Gamers…….

I like to win, but it has to be fun… have been known to tell a competitive player how he is going to lose, or exactly what I couLd do if I did this… then do something different because it would be more fun…

We all like to win, but I'd much rather have a good time losing than a bad time winning a game.

If my ships sink, my planes crash and all my survivors fail their morale checks, I still get to go home with a grin on my face.

To quote Jervis Johnson, the goal of every gamer should be to make sure his opponent has a good and fun game.

Mike B

+1 to Mexican Jack an mbsparta.

I play to have fun. Winning is too much like a job. It is nice to win but I am here for the company and seeing how the story of the game unfolds.

Since my dice rolls cause me to lose 90% of the time, I play for fun and to learn more history (I play in a well read group).

Winning is fun. But what is more fun is having a good time with my friends.

I sense a dichotomy, and I suspect that it might possibly be false.

I've always played for fun. If I DID play to win, this would be one woefully unfulfilling hobby!

Both.

I play for fun, after all its a hobby. I like to game with people who enjoy the banter and micky taking as much as playing the game.

Fun. If I happen to win, it's even more fun.

I sense a dichotomy, and I suspect that it might possibly be false.

Oh, yeah, it is a stupidly false question: There are lots of ways to have fun in the hobby, and none of them are exclusionary. But let's have fun with the dichotomy approach:

Answer the following questions: Please remember that they are dichotomies. You can only chose one, as they are presented as either/or opposites:

Do you eat because A. you are hungry or B. because you like the taste of the food?

Do you take your car to A. Reach a destination or B. because you enjoy driving?

Do you have sex because of A. Your hormones or B. You like who you're with?

Do you go to football games because A. You like tailgate parties or B. enjoy watching the game?

Do you play competitive games like chess to A. Win or B. Lose?

Do you answer questions like this because A. it illuminates the topic or B. someone asked?

I enjoy the hobby for many reasons that all fall under the category 'fun' which includes playing to win when I feel like it. The question doesn't even recognize that possibility--it just some kind of generic/vanilla 'fun' or only 'winning'.

Both. Playing is fun but winning is more so.

I don't think anyone plays to not have fun.
The issue here is some are only having fun if they're winning.

The issue here is some are only having fun if they're winning.

You're probably right about that. Poor question that made fun exclusionary rather than the type of fun.