"Multiplayer etiquette." Topic

In a social, multi gamer night do you : 1) play nice, give the opponent across the table a game? 2) Refuse flank as long as you can an try to bring to bare 100% of your forces onto 66.66% of theirs? 3) Read the objectives for the evening and squeeze the living daylights out of them?

Bug is alive and well…

What is this 'social' that you speak of?
And please replace the word 'opponent' with 'enemy', definition: that which must be destroyed tonight at all costs.

I almost always play with long time friends and wouldn't dream of playing other than nice. That goes with playing with strangers, too. They won't become friends if treated badly. Treat others as you want to be treated.

I'm not sure I understand the question. I will play to win/meet my victory conditions. You just act like a gentleman. Win or lose, you will have a good time.

+1 79thPa

"Giving them a game" means playing to the best of your ability and making sound tactical and operational choices. Do less would be impolite and a breach of the unspoken contract.

I play to win and don't enjoy playing against others playing "just for fun". There is a way to do that and not be an ass however.

79thPA is wise.

Whenever we've done more than 2 players, it's been strictly as a casual game, rather than being competitive, so it was pretty chill.

What 79thPA said. Games for me mostly social affairs…

I've seen one game (and heard about another) where there were three or four players a side, and one side set up across the table, while their opponents all set up towards one flank, so one player pretty much had nothing to do for the whole game apart from desperately try to make it across the table to get anything into contact.

The one I saw was a casual game set up for an evening amongst mates, and the guy organising it was pissed, even though he wasn't the one being left out.

The one I heard about was a huge all-day 4-a-side game planned as part of a stag weekend, and a friend of mine took along 3000pts of his painted Tyranid army. His opponents set up everything as far away from him as possible, so he literally spent the day doing nothing but moving a few models around.

If the first one of those happened to me, I'd be a bit annoyed. If the second one happened, I'd be livid, and would be very unlikely to play with such players again.

I play to win but also try to be gracious in both victory and defeat.

DM

I play for fun – and while I like to win there's never a reason not to be civil

While common civility should always be expected, a wargame by definition is supposed to be a competition, and I expect the other side to seriously try to win, as will I. Those who just want to socialize are missing the point. You can do that at a barbecue, the local pub or bar, a restaurant, or a movie night. How many people would be happy to play in a sporting event where the other team just messed about with no serious effort to win?

You can try to win and still be a good sport though.

Nobody is saying throw the game.

We usually play multi-player games and try to win. Given that, the point is to win while having fun and being pleasant.

It's a pure social event with the game being the excuse. Players would like to win and are pleased when they do so, but for 45 years of gaming I have noticed that the anti-social types are better off not being invited back. They make everyone else miserable, and people who think that something serious is going on are the most unsociable of all. Usually the other players ask me not to invite them back. People come to laugh, have a few yukks, swap stories, tall tales, lies, and show off their newly painted troops an dupdates on their projects. People who think there is some great truth going on, or that if they win a game makes them a military genius are simply tiresome.

1) play nice, give the opponent across the table a game?

That is not playing nice; that is being a bad sport and is totally unethical. You should play to the best of your abilities. You should be polite, courteous and a total gentleman to your opponents and at the same time you should be absolutely ruthless in your attempt to win a competitive game. (within the framework of the rules.)

I will not abide cheaters, but I would be almost as angry if I found out that my opponent threw the game in my favor. It would be a hollow victory.

For me it's a movable feast. One night I was given goblins and had to face Ents- well LOTR makes you test when you lose more than 50% of your force, so the goblins did not come out to play. 😜😁
Other times, I go forward, lose the troops and meh…
but I suspect I am more guilty of playing hard and expecting the other side to put on their big boy pants and appreciate that they are being out manoeuvred- and need to do something about it.

Play for fun.

Also, I reject the false alternatives in the OP.

The event is social. Different social groups have different norms of behaviour. You should conform to those norms (advocating change appropriately if you want), or not participate.

The concept of winning and losing is what distinguishes a game from other types of activity. You should play the game to win. There are all kinds of influences on how you play to win:

- Am I "the" expert in the game? Well, I should probably take some type of handicap for my forces.

- Are there "newbies"? More experienced players should try to coach. Not lose. Real experience and expertise is needed to assist others without doing it for them or throwing the game.

- What is the timbre of the game itself? Play can be gritty, silly, analytical, in character, driven, or have a host of other flavours, in many combinations.

I suppose it is possible for the social norms of a group selecting to play a game to "not play" the game. That group should probably find a more efficient pastime.

We're pretty social. We help each other with rules analysis. Nobody gives anybody an easy time at the tactical level.

We are creating a story. That is the objective.

So, the dice structure the outcome of our intentions. Dice are not a competitive "sport" ferpetesakes. Therefore lucky or unlucky rolls are not any reflection on intelligence or anything but caprice of the "dice gods"………..

Funny…Several times I have "thrown" a game to a player who was just plain obnoxious and was the poster boy for the "had to win category." I have no shame in doing so. What is interesting in that each time the person who was being the anti-social boor NEVER complained I was doing so or felt insulted that I was doing so, he was actually greedily lapping it all up and convinced it was his genius that was winning the game. He literally gloated over his brilliancy.

People who have to win at all costs to the point of being atrocious socially think they s**t ice cream, and never even see you are throwing the game. Their ego has eclipsed their discernment.

And in the end, Great War Ace is quite correct. No matter how much a genius you may think you are, once you bring dice into the game, any genius you have goes right out the window.

We usually have between 6 and 10 players on our monthly Friday night game, all long-time gamers, and most of us have been playing together for 20+ years, and most of us go to the pub afterwards. We all play to win and play the role assigned.

In the War of the Roses game we played a couple months ago, I sat on the left flank and basically stared at an opponent and a quarter for the entire game -- couple bow shots, but otherwise, delay, delay, delay. My side won as the two players to the right punched through the enemy, part of which I was occupying. Other games, I'm in the thick of the battle. Other games, plans fall apart. Play enough rule sets for a long enough time and just about anything can happen.

We're social. We allow people to take a forgotten fire. Point out something that looks like an egregious "error" (which sometimes turn out to be inspired cleverness). Of course, "period" commentary, humor, and insults are encouraged. :)

Dice rolls, well, that's just an excuse for further period commentary…with a post-game drink.

@Ottoathome,

I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that it works both ways, and that your attitude might make YOU unwelcome in some clubs and homes?

Even though we are only discussing games here; we are discussing "war" games, not playing charades at a party. The notion of losing is completely antithetical to the military profession and fighting battles, which is what we are trying to simulate to some degree on the gaming table.

"Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war."
-George S. Patton

The opposite role that pisses me off is when, usuallyin a historical scenario, a player assigned to demonstrate, feint, or defend in a certain sector decides that this is boring and goes all out on the suicidal attack killing his troops, creating a big hole in the line and leaving his friends in a lurch to lose the game for them. Glory ain't in it and those types who play "for fun" might have to be thought of as quite selfish

If a scenario if the opponents set up a fredrickian asymmetrical scenario, the guy who rushes forward towards the refused flank, should judge whether his troops should indeed press forward, perhaps never to contact, or would his assets be better used to relieve an adjacent sector enabling them to shift to aid the far flank the opponent has weighted towards. Victory conditions matter.

Vietnam

Patton was dead before that, but he did overlook 1812.

We lost 1812?

I think one can say the Americans lost in that none of their reasons/goals for going to war were achieved. It being a limited war, the British did not lose anything but were tired of the distraction. So the Americans lost since it was their shipping/trade that suffered most.

But we won that marvelous pitched battle………..

The British did have to give up a war aim, due to the failure of their late-war offensives. They had really wanted to force the U.S. to recognize a permanent Indian buffer state in the "Old Northwest" (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan). That, obviously, didn't happen, so I maintain that the war was a draw. Neither Britain nor the U.S. gained anything material from the conflict. Canada did "win" in remaining independent of the U.S. and gaining the beginnings of a sense of Canadian identity, but that "win" was mostly down to the British army, even if Canadian troops did perform valiantly in the war.