Play to Win
Posted by Rob Herman at June 1st, 2006
While procrastinating going into work the other day, I was reading the World of Warcraft forums (shame on me) and one of them linked to this article. Highly recommended, as is the rest of the site, although I can only verify that the linked-to page is safe for work.
The gist of the article is that players of games of all kinds put mental blocks up as to how the game should be played. Often these players will describe tactics that fall out of their purview as “cheap” or, in the seedier online games, “gay.” Clearly these mental blocks are an impediment to doing well in serious play.
First, let me stress the contrast between competitive multiplayer video games and board games. Most players of the first kind prefer to play games to get good at them, to understand them, to win and demonstrate their skill. Internet games (Warcraft III, Counterstrike) have an essentially infinite pool of opponents, and arcade games have very many. On the other hand, board games are usually played with friends and family—people who might get discouraged if they lose 20 games out of 20 and certainly won’t stand for being called scrubs.
Board games also have the advantage that if the difference in skill levels is vast, a “teaching game” is possible and often appropriate. It’s difficult to pause a Street Fighter game and tell your opponent how to counter the combo you’re about to execute; it’s easy to point out the strengths and weaknesses of a move in Go and Chess.
Back to the issue of scrubs: I’m sometimes guilty of these kinds of mental blocks myself. In Boggle, I don’t tend to put down the esoteric words that I can’t define, even if I remember from past games that they’re words. I don’t even bother to play Diplomacy because I can’t bring myself to backstab hard enough and at the right time.
Reader John Rhoadhouse plays Magic in mostly-casual settings. He reports deliberately not building certain powerful types of decks because his opponents consider them “not fun” to play against; consequently, when he brings his decks to tournaments, he ends up losing. Magic is a particularly striking example of this attitude, because the potential pool of cards is so vast. Different players own different numbers of cards, but which ones are appropriate for a particular setting is very debatable. Bringing in old out-of-print cards that are vastly more powerful than any your opponents own is certainly inappropriate, but what about good cards from recent sets? The “Type II” environment is restricted to only the most recent editions of the game, but many casual players feel it makes too many of their cards obsolete. I’m sure volumes could be written about this subject—if you find something, please link it in the comments.
And please, play to the fullest extent of your ability whenever you can. To do otherwise cheats your opponents out of victory when they finally earn it.
Hmm, I may be guilty of following that last bit of advice to the extreme sometimes. Oh man though, I remember playing Chess against my father when I was wee; I don’t think he ever took it easy on me and I was so proud of myself the first time I beat him.
With online games and video games, I usually try not to complain about other people using winning strategies against me. On the other hand, I might not use a strategy that I think makes the game too easy, because I like challenges. For instance, I try to avoid using Vanish-Doom or any of the sundry exploits present in Final Fantasy 6. Or for something multi-player, while in City of Villains certain powerset combinations are very powerful, but I also think they are very boring.
For me playing competitive console games, I sorta have the board game issue of a limited pool of opponents. That’s why if I’m playing Soul Calibur or whatever, and am winning all the time and my opponents are clearly getting frustrated, I will start randomly selecting characters or pick one I know I’m not very good at playing. I think it might be possible to play a teaching game in a fighter, but it’d be pretty tough, and I think you would need two skilled opponents to demonstrate. So much of it is timing.
I like playing board games with my family, because with them complaining about never winning in Settlers is just a strategy to get my brother to trade with you.
It’s also worth noting that winning or even improving skill level isn’t always a goal. When either of those is actually a goal, this makes sense but if you’re playing because you happen to think the game is fun, then arbitrary house rules completely make sense. Because people who don’t play by those rules make the game less fun (for whoever made up the rules).
If you mix people playing to win and people not playing to win, it’s a recipe for disaster. I’ve never seen that turn out well.
I disagree that there is a dichotomy between “playing for fun” and “playing to win.” I play to win, but except under unusual circumstances I only play games that are fun.
I will try to address this more fully in a future article after some lunchtime interrogation…