"How competitive are you?" Topic

How much are you driven to win a game? How important is it that you get the victory and how dissatisfied are you when you lose for whatever means. Rate yourself on a 10 (extremely competitive win at any costs, are extremely upset when you don't win, to 1 which means you are not competitive at all and don't care if you win or lose.

For myself I rate "1." I couldn't care less if I win or lose or if the game is fair or rigged, or if it is realistic or not. As long as I'm having fun with friends, and they are having fun too, all is well.

About a 3 I think.

Like everyone I like to win, but I'd rather lose a close game than win a landslide.

6.

6, I play to win but if you lose you lose, plus its only a game for crying out loud.

5.5, I prefer to win but fun is the reason

2

I play for the competition. I play to win but there is NO fun in beating someone who did not put up a challenge. Nothing aggravates me more than someone NOT playing to win.

It is fun to win, but nothing aggravates me more than someone who gloats over a victory or derides his opponents (or even his own teammates) for not "winning." For me, it's seeing the troops and terrain, and watching the figures come alive on the tabletop.

I hate over the top competitiveness in gaming. I enjoy the history, the terrain and the figures. The rules are a matter of preference, but I like to feel submersed in the era. That is why the look and feel of the figures and terrain hold so much weight for me. Frankly, a week after the game, I do not recall with 100% accuracy who won and lost. I always recall the look and feel of the game for years. If I want competition, I will go to the office.

I echo Otto's basic premise, but I do care if someone is cheating to win (as opposed to throwing the game a little to help out a younger or inexperienced player. Though, to be truthful, some of the young folk I've gamed with have held their own handily!). Having fun is more important than winning to me. Dying gloriously has its charms, too. So, I'd say, like 20thMaine, about a 3.

Wargaming isn't real life.
Who doesn't want to win? But it's not worth getting upset about.

Depends on the opponent. Let alone, I'm probably a 3 or 4. But if I playing someone that's more competitive, I'll match them.

3, going up to a 4 or 5 in tournaments.

As for the extreme cases, if a person is cheating, or if they are being super competitive I'll just shorten the unpleasant time of playing with them by purposely throwing the game or conspiring to end it quick by assisting in my own destruction. I will even play with them in the future, but it will be with the aim of letting them have their victory as early as possible.
I had to deal with such types and unpleasant people when I was working and they paid me for it. Being retired now, I don't have to suffer fools gladly, especially now that I don't work for them.

Remind me never to play against Dynaman. I might not live up to his expectations.

Not dreadfully no. 4'ish ?

If both players know the game well and it's agreed upon, we can notch it up a step.

I happen to agree with Dynaman.
If you aren't trying to win, then its just a random moving diorama. If that's what you want, good on you.

I like my games to be competitive in the broadest sense, both sides trying their best to win.

However, personally I don't NEED to win to enjoy myself and for a game to be considered successful.

Everyone having fun is the most important factor, especially if I'm hosting.

Our games frequently are more about bragging rights over silly little incidents rather than win/lose victory result.

….So I guess I'm a 2.

For me it definitely depends a lot on the game. I've been doing some warmachine recently and its a game that only really makes sense as a full on Win at all costs experience (staying inside the bounds of personal civility but pushing rules). For most historical games I'm much more relaxed even in a tournament setting. (Never done DBx though – I gather they are more designed for competitive play).

1

For me, the point is to play the game. I like to immerse myself in the game and enjoy the experience of the journey, to "feel" the period and flavor of the environment created by or depicted in the game. It is about playing and experiencing the game, in the spirit of the game.

I never approach the game with concern about winning or losing specifically, I never think about scoring points. I don't play against or try to beat the rules (playing tax code is a horrible game). I play within the context of the game, and try to beat the enemy if there is one.

I try to survive, unless survival is out of character for the force that I'm playing (like Kamikaze, or maybe hive minded aliens). I try to do better than I believe I should (given the forces and objectives).

I don't perceive myself as being competitive, and won't get upset about losing, or caught up in winning. Maybe the best way to express it is that I derive satisfaction from the experience, not the victory.

Haven't we done this recently? This is another false premise. Playing to win is not the same as being competitive in what is generally a social activity rather a competition.

I generally play to win and expect the opposition to do the same. Otherwise, as othe's have said it's a moving diorama rather than a game or you might as well toss a coin to see who wins rather than lugging figures around and setting up. That doesn't mean I will ignore mistakes being made by an inexperienced player and not offer advice that may help them.

Winning a game against someone who's got no idea what they're doing is no challenge and that's one of the things I enjoy in a game, more so than exquisite figures, for example.

I do find that dissatisfaction from not winning can come from a variety of factors but if someone is ungracious in victory or defeat that spoils the game in itself, so I try to avoid that. As someone said in a discussion about games recently, you're not just responsible for you're own enjoyment in social games, you're responsible for that of others.

Also you can be competitive and even driven to win without it leaving you dissatisfied by not winning .
These are different things .
There are different levels and definitions of competitive as well . In the opening post I am sure that Otto and his friends are competitive in their desire to put on a friendly fun game . They want to be the GM remembered for the game that people enjoyed the most ,So competition over time for that .
You trying to do better than you did last time is competitive
I am competitive in every game – as in most things in life ,if you are not trying to get better than you are getting worse.
I generally don't care about the results of game though – there is no reason to (except tournaments) they just aren't that important in life .

I don't like to lose, but I play for the narrative of the story that unfolds not for competition points.

Nothing annoys me more than someone who is only concerned about winning by utilising the rules framework with no regard to the underlying principles of representation inherent in the game.

In RPG land its the difference between roll-playing and role-playing, and like those axioms there is a huge spread between and beyond the points described.

extremely competitive win at any costs, are extremely upset when you don't win

Reject the scale. For me, being competitive has nothing to do with winning at any costs nor with becoming upset about the outcome of a game. Also, not caring if you win or lose is not in opposition to winning at all costs and being upset about a loss is not necessarily correlated with caring about the outcome.

+1 etotheipi

I'm with Otto on this. Winning is nice and I do try to win, but the main thing is having fun, enjoying the camraderie and talking smack in jest with good friends. I don't know…maybe I am a 2 or 2.5 at most.

I like to win, if I earned it, losing well can be as satisfying too!

To me it's not about winning and loosing, it's about the camaraderie, fun, laughs and a good game.

When I was younger, I used to be an 8.

Now that I'm older, I realize that I was a jerk. Now I'm a 3, at best.

I expect myself and my opponents to play their very best and try to win at all costs short of obvious exploits. A well fought loss is more thrilling than a lazy win.

A win is always good. Losing doesn't have to be bad. I've been training my attitude for as long as I can remember. I just like to do well, not screw up, you know? If I win so much the better. But if I don't win, and did my best, and did well, losing is trivial. The Universe doesn't care.

4

4. I play mostly for fun and the company.

1 It's a game and we are doing it for fun.If there is something that I can do which will reduce my chances of winning, but make for a better game, then, of course, I do it. You still try, as it would be disrespectful to your opponents not to do so, but who cares who wins. I care about matters of life and death, games are pleasant distractions.