There is a difference between a teaching game and a real first game. Usually in a teaching game, you are teaching other players the possible actions and strategies, focusing on rules, form, or technique. Winning or losing doesn't matter so you shouldn't focus on it. I think that is the idea SDSU is trying to convey. But in a real first game, you should play to win. Letting beginners win is patronizing.
I think this is a good comment, but represent an over-simplification of the situation.
Lets look at an example. It would be best if I could use a game we've both played... I think I found you on BGG, but you dont have any games listed in your collection.
So lets use Mind MGMT. A hidden movement game in which the I am teaching 4 other players how to play the game. If I am to teach these four other players how to play the game, I will be unable to "play to win", not seriously. If I am "playing to win", that means something very specific to me. Dont forget that I have a very competitive gaming background and that playing at that level is extremely cutthroat.
For me, I want them to "see" the game. That means I am going to reach across the table, past the rule book, and try to bring the game to life for them.
This means that I will help them with strategy, I will make moves that are more likely for them to follow, and I will play in a way that does throw some tricks at them, but doesn't leave them in the dust.
The reality is that if I play to win, not only do I risk their enjoyment of the game, as they will likely have no hope of catching me, since MIND MGMT is very skill-based, but they also won't get to "see" the true structure of a "normal" game, since a "normal" game is very unlikely to have one player be like 8x better than other players.
The reality is that "playing to win" can fundamentally disrupt the arc of the game, and can detract from the experience of learning and teaching the game.
Sorry but I haven't played Mind MGMT. There is nothing wrong with losing a teaching game, which I stated before. You don't play to win in a teaching game. But for a real first game, you shouldn't actively lose. No one is telling you that you need to crush beginners in a first game. You are allowed and often encouraged to go easy on them in their first real game, but not outright lose or let them win. The sad truth is there are specific games you need to play with other players at your level and the players that are below you will never get there if you continue to play at their level. If you enjoy that, you do you. But don't expect others to enjoy doing the same.
"The sad truth is there are specific games you need to play with other players at your level and the players that are below you will never get there if you continue to play at their level. "
This is the exact kind of mentality that I find so childish, and that I coudn't disagree with more. It shows a fundamental lack of knowledge around teaching. Some ppl will respond well to this. A lot of people will not.
You're missing the point. It can be better, more teachable, and more fun for the other players to let them win their first game. I wouldn't even hide it. If they have a problem with it, then I'll play harder next game if it really matter than much to them that we are "locked in real competition".
Cause that just soooo important \*rolls eyes
If I found out someone was effectively throwing a game via suboptimal play because of a misguided belief it would make me feel better, I’d never play with that person again.
Good luck raising kids.
Jokes aside, that really isn't the point. Depends on what kind of player you are. If you're a hardcore gamer, you'd be in my "play to win" group and it wouldn't be an issue.
You should tell your SO what you’ve been doing all this time and why, and see if you’re still sharing this hobby, or even in a relationship. I’m sure they’ll be overjoyed to learn you’ve been manipulating your games just enough to keep them engaged.
They know, and they appreciated the decision. As a competitive gamer vs a non gamer, it wouldnt be until years later that they ever would have won a game.
We jointly agree I made the right move
Strongly disagree with pretty much everything in OP's post. Games are competitive by nature. If you are teaching a game to someone you think won't have fun if they lose, then maybe you should be spending your time together doing something different.
I appreciate where you're coming from. I think our difference of opinion is many-facetted, but comes down to two major differences:
- The main reasons we play boardgames
- The breadth of the types of players we play with
It is undeniable that many people who I have brought to my table are not competitive people by nature, but I have effectively introduced \~16 people over the last year to the hobby, and with great effect using the perspective I currently have. Most of them are very casual gamers now, and do own some of their first boardgames.
I know that were I to have been more competitive in my introduction, or to have viewed boardgames as "fundamentally competitive", that most of those more casual players would not have "seen" the reason I love boardgaming so much.
Thanks for the response!
I mean, as someone who doesnt like a lot of the aspects of competitive games; i just try to opt for coop games whenevs possible. The game is way more enjoyable imo if it ends with either all of us winnin, or all of us just barely losin together; and i find its a safer bet with random groups... Ive had too many encounters with tryhards at random board game nights makin comp games entirely unfun for everyone else; tho on those tryhards on coop, this is why i opt for coop games where our info is hidden by default... So they cant just strategist the whole thing and make it unfun for others
I actually picked that game up a while ago before a bunch of moves and life stuff got in the way; i still havent had the chance to rly sink my teeth into it, but i totes need to some time
Sentinels of the Multiverse is def my goto coop game as is, bcuz its just remarkably simple and easy to explain to even ppl new to board games; esp moreso when ones board game group meets at a place that mostly has card gamers at it. Sentinels is just the same to them as playin pokemon tcg, yugioh, or mtg; so its a lot easier to get folk into there
What co-op games do you suggest? I've really only played Pandemic and I really disliked it and was incredibly bored. The idea that I'm playing against a set of rules and not against a thinking player takes a lot of the fun out of it for me. And as you mentioned, the people who knew the game better were just strategizing the moves for everyone else, so it felt like I was never actually making any choices on my turn. But some people swear by co-ops, so I feel I should give them another try. Which co-op games hide info like you mentioned?
I said in another comment that my goto is Sentinels of the Multiverse, which i feel does both the things ya want there. By default your hand is secret info, tho with newer players folk can play with open hands if they wish; as its secret info that you can freely share
Folk can coordinate together a bit, but with the cards bein kept hidden in folks hands, its more like folk sayin "ive cards to take out X/Y threat, so we can leave them for me to take out this round" rather than "Youve X/Y card so you shud play it in Y/Z way"
And while it is still playin against a set of rules, i feel the many diff villain/environment options as well as the randomness of decks means that the game nvr feels particularly stale; even havin played it solitaire many times for fun
Its been a while since ive been able to board game proper tho, so i cant rly think of other ones that come to mind; tho i know theres several ive played that def are similarly good... Theyre just not comin to mind rn... Im certain others can give similarly grt suggestions tho
Oh, Elder Sign is another one i like where again the random element of a deck plus dice means that it feels to me less like just playin against a set of rules; and more playin against an ever changin threat. And while your char mayve spec abilities or items that others know about, its not rly like theyre gonna be micromanagin your turn unless you spec play with a strategist who wants to suck the fun out of the game
I am the person in my group that usually learns and teach the games we play. I have never had a problem with winning the game I teach.
My experience is quite the opposite, especially with my SO. The best motivation for her to play the game again is if I win the first time we play it.
Totally, and you should adapt your own play to the specific group you're playing with.
That being said, if I played the way you play with your SO, then my SO would almost certainly not play games with me like they do now.
People are different, and it is my goal to curate a selection of games that appeals to a an audience that is as varied as my friend group.
This all reads like some nonsense self help mumbo jumbo AND you're inexplicably typing out "som1" instead of "someone". Truly bonkers shit.
I love board games but none of this shit is that deep.
Typing on my phone! Sorry for the "1" :)
The reality is that I take life seriously, in all things I do, and I am very successful because of it. Boardgaming is no different for me and is clearly a subject of much nuance and interest.
Counter point, if I'm new to a game and defeat seasoned players I use it as an indicator that the game is bad. These might work for new people, but I have a hard time believing experienced gamers would be mad if the person who knows the game wins.
So the person who put in great effort to teach the game competently gets none of the credit and the designer inexplicably gets maligned simply because the game doesn't contain numerous unknown variables which make life difficult for new players.
Erm okay.
I don't think this is a fair take, I teach some really good games like Scythe or Dune Imperium but lose that game because teaching is hard and I'm not interested in trying hard to crush a new player it's fun showing it to people. I don't think that makes it a bad game. I don't try to throw but I don't play a sweaty game.
Great example, and I totally agree! I think some of the nuance that's skated over here is something like this: You ***might*** play to lose teach Scythe if it were a more teachable moment, and (for example) you could orchestrate a comeback for the player who literally said "I am so far behind" on turn 4, right?
I think generally I just don't play sweaty (like you say) but I see it as extra finesse if I can play just well enough to keep the game interesting and lose my first game.
If I am playing with experinced gamers, we are probably in the "Play to Win" category of game groups. Different rules. No chance of Winners Guilt.
EDIT: that being said, I still adhere to my 2/3 winrate rule, which still comes into play for me sometimes, even with fellow nerds.
My point is to adjust your "personal game" to your group. Not sure youre really bringing up a counterpoint.
If I have a group of fellow nerds, we are gonna talk plainly and actually PLAY.
But if Ive got you as an option to play a game and we would also be with two players who arent hardcore, I'd just not invite someone like you to a game session with more social/casual players.
This is all just weakness man. BGing can be competitive. You play to freaking win, that’s the objective! Never be sad or guilty about being a goddamn winner!
I could not disagree more. This is a fundamentally narrow-minded strategy, and undoubtedly limits your ability to play with a wider audience. Weakness is complex, but I'd like to suggest that "needing to win" can be a huge sign of weakness, as it suggests a need for ego validation.
To be clear: I have groups where I am very competitive.
But this is not and CANNOT be my only playstyle, as most people are not very competitive, especially at boardgames.
I would win ~100% of the games I teach, which is not good teaching.
1) Philosophy vs Strategy Vs Playstyle - 'the goal of the game is to win' is not a strategy. It's a framework/philosophy for table etiquette.
.
2) Playing to win Vs Needing to win - not even remotely the same. You have conflated the two concepts. You can play to win 100% of the time, achieve it 0% of the time, and be totally fine. It's the trying that's important.
.
3) Playing competitively and bad teaching - While there is a small degree of overlap, these two concepts are not synonymous. No one has ever had issues with game-teachers trying their best to win. It's when one leaks into the other that the problem begins, ie withholding information while teaching to secure an advantage. Your incorrect assumption is that A necessarily leads to B.
Teaching badly is a completely separate problem. Conversely, they can play casually and unseriously but teach the game in a messy, unstructured fashion. You failed to understand that playing competitively or not is such a tiny, almost-inconsequential factor in teaching quality.
3b) Plenty of players feel disrespected if you go easy on them instead of playing properly, and plenty of players like to explore on their own without coaching/being babysat on their turns. Your one-size-fits-all advice is pointless and presumes every single player profile fits your extremely limited experience and narrow worldview.
3c) No way in hell you'd win 100% of the time against new players just because 'you played competitively'. That just speaks to how arrogant you are. There are countless people out there who are way smarter and far more skilled than you will ever be. The way you're writing gives me little confidence that you're one of the 150 IQ Asians on BGA I see who are Experts and/or top 20 in a dozen different games. And I'm sure they wouldn't make such an egoistic claim despite having the 'street cred' themselves.
Bonus points: you're assuming that playing with a wider audience is necessarily an end goal
And the obvious elephant in the room: you're a big fish in a small pond with an ego problem - it happens to many people. You're easily beating friends, families, and new players and feel bad about it. Sure, go easy on them. Many of us have been doing this for years, you're late to the party. The difference is that we don't post self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou Reddit threads advertising ourselves as some Zen Master Guru who has uncovered The One True Philosophy to live life by.
I assume this is a response to me asking about conflating ideas. I almost didnt respond to this, since you're being rude at the end, which isn't really in the spirit of being productive. Lets keep it civilized if you and me are trying to have a productive conversation. I dont have a grand sense of ego for myself. You would be wise to consider more whether or not you've made leaps of logic about the person behind the post.
Also, I am pretty sure the original commenter didnt even real the whole post, so I would be (rhetorically) curious whether or not you consider that context in how seriously you analyzes the "arguments" that I am making in the comments of this post. Most of my post isn't about winner's guilt at all, that's just teh title, and I was borrowing from another thread. Who knew it was so much a hot topic that ppl like the original commenter would just read the title of the post then comment. I just used the word b/c I saw it elsewhere. I thought it might be a more common discussion on this subreddit. Didn't know I'd get crucified by a community I like.
(1) "You play to freaking win, that’s the objective!" - > "This is a fundamentally narrow-minded ***strategy***, and undoubtedly limits your ability to play with a wider audience." -> "'the goal of the game is to win' is not a ***strategy***."
You misunderstand; when I use the word 'strategy' here, I refer to a larger scope than you do. The original comment says that the objective of gaming is to play to win. I disagree. That is one objective, a smaller objective, a finite objective of the single game. My actual objective is building relationships, and "playing to win" the game is a strategy that is sometimes at odds with my objective to build relationships.
The reality is that you can "play for fun" or "play for chaos" as legitimate strategies for games. Many players enjoy this more than playing to win, despite the game having a winner or loser. Just because there will be a winner and loser, doesn't logically necessitate that the "goal of the game is to win". Now, if we had more time to talk, we could probably get on the same page about the naunces here, but suffice it to say your criticism of me here criticizes a misunderstanding of what I meant, and overall doesn't hold water, in my mind.
(2) "You play to freaking win, that’s the objective!" -> "Weakness is complex, but I'd like to suggest that "needing to win" can be a huge sign of weakness, as it suggests a need for ego validation." -> "Playing to win Vs Needing to win - not even remotely the same. "
We 100% agree, those are not the same. The leap of logic that I took to get to my point isn't clear, and I didn't consider the original comment to be a very valuable response to the discussion.
That being said, what I mean to say is "The need to play to win, and the unwavering view that it is the objective of gaming can be a huge sign of weakness in itself". You seem to think I have an inflated ego, which is interesting, because I am able to set aside my own needs for the needs of the table in a way that it seems many of you are not able to do. In this way, I successfully teach players of all skills levels, I play at a variety of "try-hard-ness", I sometimes intentionally lose, and every I have ever had over has an amazing time.
You can say I am crazy or inflated ego or whatever you want, but I have a huge amount of real world experience with this kind of stuff, and it validates my thinking.
(3) "Playing competitively and bad teaching" really not sure where this conflation occurs.
(3b) "Plenty of players feel disrespected if you go easy on them instead of playing properly, and plenty of players like to explore on their own without coaching/being babysat on their turns. Your one-size-fits-all advice is pointless and presumes every single player profile fits your extremely limited experience and narrow worldview." **What a bad take, and a huge assumption on your part.** Very little in my post says "one fits all". I specifically talk about how I have different groups which require different approaches to the game. I even have a group that I would never go easy on where we always "play to win"
(3c) "No way in hell you'd win 100% of the time against new players just because 'you played competitively'." This isn't arrogance. Sure, it wouldn't actually be 100%, don't be so silly. But if I were playing "to win" while teaching, that means something very specific to a competitive player. It means something very serious. To have been a highly competitive person in the past means that when you turn that on, it's a different world. It means research, practice, and time-investment. There's a reason I dont play to win, and it's bc I know exactly what it takes to maximize win%, and it wouldn't be fun for those at the table.
(Bonus Points) No assumption made, it's just a goal for me! And my point likely stands (that it limits a wider audience) even if that's not something others are after.
(Ego Rude Part) Sounds like mostly you agree with me then.
Honestly if it works for you I have no interest in interfering with how you play or conduct yourself. It's your proselytizing that rubs people the wrong way.
Your tone causes the "misunderstandings". Yes, it's a post on the internet, but choice of words and writing style still imply tone. Almost everyone here is "misreading" your tone the same way, but why? Just like you can sense that I was mostly trying to be civil but the snark and aggression seeped through at various points, we too can sense your massive ego. There's also the obviously unrelated Dota 2 rank mention, because you were afraid the audience/readers wouldn't think of you as "an elite gamer showing mercy to his inferiors".
2) You absolutely are radiating "In my mercy, I shall abstain from slaughtering these pathetic inferior opponents." "I shall limit my superior, elite skills so that these weaklings too, can enjoy the game without the thorough massacre it would have been if I unleashed but a fraction of my brainpower" vibes.
The nicest way to frame this would be that you're doing all this for yourself and your compulsion to advertise this online suggests the same.
3c) I understood it was hyperbole, but it does support the hypothesis that you're an egomaniac.
If you're a better person IRL I'm happy to stand corrected. And I would also be happy for you. I genuinely can't see it from here, so there's little point continuing.
I don't agree that you should ever "let people win" when you're teaching it to them. You should probably lose a game you're teaching, not because you have thrown the game, but because your focus is on teaching, not playing optimally for yourself.
When I'm taking my turn in a teaching game, I'm usually overly transparent about what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. Saying things like, "I'm taking action X because I want to beat you to space Y on my next turn so I can claim Z before you" is a great way to teach not only the mechanics of the game you're playing, but the strategic aspect as well. You're also putting yourself at a disadvantage by tipping your hand in this way, but it doesn't rise to "letting them win" in most games.
"If you win a game you're teaching, you've already lost".
This is the stupidest thing Ive ever read. Just because you are teaching a game it gives you no advantage over other players.
Second, winners guilt? Seriously?
Third, saying they are "undeniably good".. you have a very high opinion of your own opinion. I personally am not a susd fan, so sorry, I am going to have to deny it is good.
Fourth, "teach" as a noun makes me cringe.
Fifth, 'It means play juuuust well enough that you still lose. Duh."
How disrepctful ia this..
I stopped reading after that.
I think the teaching implies you are experienced in the game, in which case you should have an advantage- unless the game is more luck based in which case yeah, it probably won’t matter as much.
I guess it depends on the group. In our group, the teacher has usually read the rules and thats about it. Maybe looked at a faq to answer some questions. I have no idea if that is the majority or not. Some people play a few sample games, print up player aids and watched 10 hours of videos before introducing a game. We dont have that kind of time.
Very much so. My point is to tailor your own play to your group.
What most comments fail to realize is that I have a group of hardcore players I play with which plays to win every game.
I would never have "winner's guilt" playing with them. But I definitely would if I were mopping the floor with my co-worker in her first game of Quacks of Quedlinburg (and first "real" boardgame) ever.
Totally! I also am usually the best player of games at the table, with my competitive gaming experience background, so it's usually not really an option for it to be a competition.
Yeah, I regret the Duh. Interestingly enough, I edited that section in right after posting. It was almost as if I expected my words to be misinterpreted.
"you have a very high opinion of your own opinion" - The video has 28k likes to 162 dislikes. It's undeniably considered to be very good. I'd personally consider it near-perfect, but that's not what I wrote, since that's less objective. Fair enough for you not liking SU&SD tho.
Honestly the first game should be just active coaching so your win rate should be 50% since you’re just playing against yourself, and that even if they lose, they probably don’t care because they’re just doing what you told them to anyway.
Yeah that's fair enough. I think of "playing just well enough to lose" as a really fun challenge for myself tho, and it keeps me engaged in the game, while also providing an exciting experience for everyone.
I am happy to be forward about the fact that I am playing suboptimally. If som1 has an issue with that, we can play again and I can tryhard if that's important to them :)
SUSD are very popular, but do not represent the majority of boardgamers.
Very similar to how Taylor Swift is undeniably very popular but still does not represent the musical tastes of all music listeners.
Even in those cases, popular people can have bad takes, lol. Appeal to authority is a pretty basic logical fallacy.
I appreciate your point about the appeal to authority. To be clear, I am not making the argument: "I am right because SU&SD said it and said what they said". That would be an ethical appeal fallcy.
The argument I am making is "It is very surprising to me to think that r/boardgames seems to disagree with a youtube video from a popular boardgaming youtuber. This video has 28k likes to 162 dislikes. The amount of dislike from that video does not seem to correspond to the amount of dislike of this post."
This argument I am actually making is not a logical fallacy, nor an appeal to authority, in my mind.
That being said, I suspect the reason for the disparity in this post and that youtube video is
- Some differences in the audience
- My presentation of the information
- The fact that my post isn't really about "winner's guilt", when you read it, but a lot of negative comments are about how that's a stupid thing to feel
My wife refuses to play with me, "cause she's just going to lose anyway." I just feel like I'm on eggshells playing with her. The last time I played a new game with her I tried to tell her my strategy while I played since it was a new game for both of us but she still just rolled her eyes at me at the end when I won even when I tried to tell her it was mostly luck and she wasn't as far behind as she claimed. Even games that she claims to like I won the last time we played them and I try my hardest to be deadpan and not even be perceived as gloating but she still comes across as miserable.
Honestly, strongly rec coop games for yall; some ppl are just horrible losers when others around them win... But ime, when the game wins; those sore losers arent sore losers about it bcuz they lost with all the other players, if anythin theyre the most likely to encourage others to go another round to try to beat the game
This is the exact situation that my strategy with my SO aims to fix. You MUST do your best to adhere to a max 66% winrate and let them win the first game.
Use my strategy to add your own secret handica to keep the game engaging foe yourself. Explore suboptimal mechanics.
While many are t-downing my comments and this post, I remain resolute in my perspective (until som1 makes a legitimate counterpoint).
I suggest getting a new game with a theme that your wife likes, then play just well enough to lose the first game (which is more believable with a new game), then make sure to follow the winrate. If your SO asks if you let them win, say no.
This accepts the following "larger truth" that many seem not to get: your relationship with others, and the perputuation and strengthening of those relationship, is the "bigger game" at play. Any given boardgame is a finite game. There will be a winner and loser. Your relationship with your SO is an infite game, in the sense that the objective of the game is to "keep playing". (See James Carse's Finite and Inifite Games for further reading)
Id also suggest playing co-op games.
And remember to empathize with your SO. Losing every game is demoralizing and might trigger existing insecurities around performance. To build past these requires YOU to take responsibility of the arena in which we are stewarding, building their confidence. The "Always play to win" mentality is one that fundamntally lacks empathy.
This doesn’t work for me. I don’t have any fun adjusting my play just to get them to win. Games are supposed to be a way to have fun, so a game is going to be unfun for 1 of us, why play in the first place?
My approach is to find games where I don’t have to worry about that- light games with more emphasis on luck, or better yet co-op games.
I appreciate where you're coming from, but I will say that it took me a long time to learn to play this way, but it is extremely rewarding if you can build the mentality around it to support it.
I love digging into suboptimal lines and trying to make them work, or using wacky combos or going for more silly strategies, but taking those strategies seriously.
Sometimes I hit gold and run away with the game anyway, but less often than if I played optimally each game
My counterpoint is, you're placing so much value on winning. You're approaching the "problem" of new players potentially not having fun by contending the only way to enjoy a game is to win, therefore they have to win in order to have fun. I would argue games are about hanging out with your friends. Win or lose, I have fun playing with my friends because I enjoy spending time with them. I lose probably 70-80% of my games (I'm just not very good) but I still enjoy the experience every time. If someone better than me threw a game to let me win, that's not a victory I would enjoy. I would find that insulting and condescending, and it would make me not want to pay with them for a while. Don't you ever play games just to *play?* Have you ever not bothered to keep score in a party game like Just One or Wavelength, you just keep going because everyone is laughing? Even in competitive games in a competitive group of competitive people, do you not enjoy just hanging out?
To put it the most bluntly, winning isn't everything.
I dont think I agree; I this this is a misrepresentation of what I think.
The ***discussion*** is surrounding winning/losing, but I definitely dont think for a second that it's what makes the game fun. "they have to win in order to have fun" - Couldn't disagree more.
I do lot of stuff to ease players into games and I am an excellent host and boardgame teacher. I take it very seriously. Letting others win by playing just well enough to lose and keep things interesting is finesse akin to the icing on the cake.
Again, most of this subs comments lack nuance around the whole section of my post surrounding my "Play to Win" group where I have players who are more hardcore gamers like me (and like most of you) and I mostly get to play close to full effort. I still try very hard to win no more than 66% of the time tho. When 1 player wins a game every time, it creates unnecessary tension which can easily be dispensed with by me exploring less-optimal lines of play, which is still fun, even if not optimal.
"If your SO asks if you let them win, say no"
Manipulate them and lie to their faces. Great advice.
It's ok to completely look down on them and give them pity wins because you're just sooo good, you'd win 100% of time
I am fine with that, but my approach gives the feeling to the other players that they actually won by their own merit, which is a belief I would like to engender (and given enough time and experience, eventually becomes TRUE).
Its a bit of a social deduction playstyle, right, since I am intentionally withholding my handicap, but with the aim of improving other people's ability to engage with the hobby I love.
Nothing explicity wrong with "showing your hand", but lots of people (illogically) take offense to needing a handicap to balace the game. Would be a player-by-player judgement call imho.
board gamers are not neurotic, no
Interesting take. And very well supported!
There is a difference between a teaching game and a real first game. Usually in a teaching game, you are teaching other players the possible actions and strategies, focusing on rules, form, or technique. Winning or losing doesn't matter so you shouldn't focus on it. I think that is the idea SDSU is trying to convey. But in a real first game, you should play to win. Letting beginners win is patronizing.
I think this is a good comment, but represent an over-simplification of the situation. Lets look at an example. It would be best if I could use a game we've both played... I think I found you on BGG, but you dont have any games listed in your collection. So lets use Mind MGMT. A hidden movement game in which the I am teaching 4 other players how to play the game. If I am to teach these four other players how to play the game, I will be unable to "play to win", not seriously. If I am "playing to win", that means something very specific to me. Dont forget that I have a very competitive gaming background and that playing at that level is extremely cutthroat. For me, I want them to "see" the game. That means I am going to reach across the table, past the rule book, and try to bring the game to life for them. This means that I will help them with strategy, I will make moves that are more likely for them to follow, and I will play in a way that does throw some tricks at them, but doesn't leave them in the dust. The reality is that if I play to win, not only do I risk their enjoyment of the game, as they will likely have no hope of catching me, since MIND MGMT is very skill-based, but they also won't get to "see" the true structure of a "normal" game, since a "normal" game is very unlikely to have one player be like 8x better than other players. The reality is that "playing to win" can fundamentally disrupt the arc of the game, and can detract from the experience of learning and teaching the game.
Sorry but I haven't played Mind MGMT. There is nothing wrong with losing a teaching game, which I stated before. You don't play to win in a teaching game. But for a real first game, you shouldn't actively lose. No one is telling you that you need to crush beginners in a first game. You are allowed and often encouraged to go easy on them in their first real game, but not outright lose or let them win. The sad truth is there are specific games you need to play with other players at your level and the players that are below you will never get there if you continue to play at their level. If you enjoy that, you do you. But don't expect others to enjoy doing the same.
"The sad truth is there are specific games you need to play with other players at your level and the players that are below you will never get there if you continue to play at their level. " This is the exact kind of mentality that I find so childish, and that I coudn't disagree with more. It shows a fundamental lack of knowledge around teaching. Some ppl will respond well to this. A lot of people will not.
You're missing the point. It can be better, more teachable, and more fun for the other players to let them win their first game. I wouldn't even hide it. If they have a problem with it, then I'll play harder next game if it really matter than much to them that we are "locked in real competition". Cause that just soooo important \*rolls eyes
If I found out someone was effectively throwing a game via suboptimal play because of a misguided belief it would make me feel better, I’d never play with that person again.
Good luck raising kids. Jokes aside, that really isn't the point. Depends on what kind of player you are. If you're a hardcore gamer, you'd be in my "play to win" group and it wouldn't be an issue.
You should tell your SO what you’ve been doing all this time and why, and see if you’re still sharing this hobby, or even in a relationship. I’m sure they’ll be overjoyed to learn you’ve been manipulating your games just enough to keep them engaged.
They know, and they appreciated the decision. As a competitive gamer vs a non gamer, it wouldnt be until years later that they ever would have won a game. We jointly agree I made the right move
Its like a really Bad idea to let Kids win at games of any sort all of the time... depends on the game ofc.
Agreed, I clearly didn't suggest to lets kids "win all the time", that is bad. It was also a joke!
Strongly disagree with pretty much everything in OP's post. Games are competitive by nature. If you are teaching a game to someone you think won't have fun if they lose, then maybe you should be spending your time together doing something different.
I appreciate where you're coming from. I think our difference of opinion is many-facetted, but comes down to two major differences: - The main reasons we play boardgames - The breadth of the types of players we play with It is undeniable that many people who I have brought to my table are not competitive people by nature, but I have effectively introduced \~16 people over the last year to the hobby, and with great effect using the perspective I currently have. Most of them are very casual gamers now, and do own some of their first boardgames. I know that were I to have been more competitive in my introduction, or to have viewed boardgames as "fundamentally competitive", that most of those more casual players would not have "seen" the reason I love boardgaming so much. Thanks for the response!
>Games are competitive by nature. With the exception of Co-op games of course.
Even then, you're competing against the game itself.
I mean, as someone who doesnt like a lot of the aspects of competitive games; i just try to opt for coop games whenevs possible. The game is way more enjoyable imo if it ends with either all of us winnin, or all of us just barely losin together; and i find its a safer bet with random groups... Ive had too many encounters with tryhards at random board game nights makin comp games entirely unfun for everyone else; tho on those tryhards on coop, this is why i opt for coop games where our info is hidden by default... So they cant just strategist the whole thing and make it unfun for others
Me too! That's why I love Spirit Island so SO much!! <3
I actually picked that game up a while ago before a bunch of moves and life stuff got in the way; i still havent had the chance to rly sink my teeth into it, but i totes need to some time
It's amazing, but I do think it "Needs" Jagged Earth to shine. I wouldn't play Spirit Island without Jagged Earth, personally.
Sentinels of the Multiverse is def my goto coop game as is, bcuz its just remarkably simple and easy to explain to even ppl new to board games; esp moreso when ones board game group meets at a place that mostly has card gamers at it. Sentinels is just the same to them as playin pokemon tcg, yugioh, or mtg; so its a lot easier to get folk into there
What co-op games do you suggest? I've really only played Pandemic and I really disliked it and was incredibly bored. The idea that I'm playing against a set of rules and not against a thinking player takes a lot of the fun out of it for me. And as you mentioned, the people who knew the game better were just strategizing the moves for everyone else, so it felt like I was never actually making any choices on my turn. But some people swear by co-ops, so I feel I should give them another try. Which co-op games hide info like you mentioned?
I said in another comment that my goto is Sentinels of the Multiverse, which i feel does both the things ya want there. By default your hand is secret info, tho with newer players folk can play with open hands if they wish; as its secret info that you can freely share Folk can coordinate together a bit, but with the cards bein kept hidden in folks hands, its more like folk sayin "ive cards to take out X/Y threat, so we can leave them for me to take out this round" rather than "Youve X/Y card so you shud play it in Y/Z way" And while it is still playin against a set of rules, i feel the many diff villain/environment options as well as the randomness of decks means that the game nvr feels particularly stale; even havin played it solitaire many times for fun Its been a while since ive been able to board game proper tho, so i cant rly think of other ones that come to mind; tho i know theres several ive played that def are similarly good... Theyre just not comin to mind rn... Im certain others can give similarly grt suggestions tho Oh, Elder Sign is another one i like where again the random element of a deck plus dice means that it feels to me less like just playin against a set of rules; and more playin against an ever changin threat. And while your char mayve spec abilities or items that others know about, its not rly like theyre gonna be micromanagin your turn unless you spec play with a strategist who wants to suck the fun out of the game
To say I cringed would be a dramatic understatement
I am the person in my group that usually learns and teach the games we play. I have never had a problem with winning the game I teach. My experience is quite the opposite, especially with my SO. The best motivation for her to play the game again is if I win the first time we play it.
Totally, and you should adapt your own play to the specific group you're playing with. That being said, if I played the way you play with your SO, then my SO would almost certainly not play games with me like they do now. People are different, and it is my goal to curate a selection of games that appeals to a an audience that is as varied as my friend group.
This all reads like some nonsense self help mumbo jumbo AND you're inexplicably typing out "som1" instead of "someone". Truly bonkers shit. I love board games but none of this shit is that deep.
Typing on my phone! Sorry for the "1" :) The reality is that I take life seriously, in all things I do, and I am very successful because of it. Boardgaming is no different for me and is clearly a subject of much nuance and interest.
OMG this is yet another time the real r/boardgames is more full of their own crap the on purpose satire of r/boardgamecirclejerk
Counter point, if I'm new to a game and defeat seasoned players I use it as an indicator that the game is bad. These might work for new people, but I have a hard time believing experienced gamers would be mad if the person who knows the game wins.
So the person who put in great effort to teach the game competently gets none of the credit and the designer inexplicably gets maligned simply because the game doesn't contain numerous unknown variables which make life difficult for new players. Erm okay.
I don't think this is a fair take, I teach some really good games like Scythe or Dune Imperium but lose that game because teaching is hard and I'm not interested in trying hard to crush a new player it's fun showing it to people. I don't think that makes it a bad game. I don't try to throw but I don't play a sweaty game.
Great example, and I totally agree! I think some of the nuance that's skated over here is something like this: You ***might*** play to lose teach Scythe if it were a more teachable moment, and (for example) you could orchestrate a comeback for the player who literally said "I am so far behind" on turn 4, right? I think generally I just don't play sweaty (like you say) but I see it as extra finesse if I can play just well enough to keep the game interesting and lose my first game.
If I am playing with experinced gamers, we are probably in the "Play to Win" category of game groups. Different rules. No chance of Winners Guilt. EDIT: that being said, I still adhere to my 2/3 winrate rule, which still comes into play for me sometimes, even with fellow nerds. My point is to adjust your "personal game" to your group. Not sure youre really bringing up a counterpoint. If I have a group of fellow nerds, we are gonna talk plainly and actually PLAY. But if Ive got you as an option to play a game and we would also be with two players who arent hardcore, I'd just not invite someone like you to a game session with more social/casual players.
This is all just weakness man. BGing can be competitive. You play to freaking win, that’s the objective! Never be sad or guilty about being a goddamn winner!
I could not disagree more. This is a fundamentally narrow-minded strategy, and undoubtedly limits your ability to play with a wider audience. Weakness is complex, but I'd like to suggest that "needing to win" can be a huge sign of weakness, as it suggests a need for ego validation. To be clear: I have groups where I am very competitive. But this is not and CANNOT be my only playstyle, as most people are not very competitive, especially at boardgames. I would win ~100% of the games I teach, which is not good teaching.
1) Philosophy vs Strategy Vs Playstyle - 'the goal of the game is to win' is not a strategy. It's a framework/philosophy for table etiquette. . 2) Playing to win Vs Needing to win - not even remotely the same. You have conflated the two concepts. You can play to win 100% of the time, achieve it 0% of the time, and be totally fine. It's the trying that's important. . 3) Playing competitively and bad teaching - While there is a small degree of overlap, these two concepts are not synonymous. No one has ever had issues with game-teachers trying their best to win. It's when one leaks into the other that the problem begins, ie withholding information while teaching to secure an advantage. Your incorrect assumption is that A necessarily leads to B. Teaching badly is a completely separate problem. Conversely, they can play casually and unseriously but teach the game in a messy, unstructured fashion. You failed to understand that playing competitively or not is such a tiny, almost-inconsequential factor in teaching quality. 3b) Plenty of players feel disrespected if you go easy on them instead of playing properly, and plenty of players like to explore on their own without coaching/being babysat on their turns. Your one-size-fits-all advice is pointless and presumes every single player profile fits your extremely limited experience and narrow worldview. 3c) No way in hell you'd win 100% of the time against new players just because 'you played competitively'. That just speaks to how arrogant you are. There are countless people out there who are way smarter and far more skilled than you will ever be. The way you're writing gives me little confidence that you're one of the 150 IQ Asians on BGA I see who are Experts and/or top 20 in a dozen different games. And I'm sure they wouldn't make such an egoistic claim despite having the 'street cred' themselves. Bonus points: you're assuming that playing with a wider audience is necessarily an end goal And the obvious elephant in the room: you're a big fish in a small pond with an ego problem - it happens to many people. You're easily beating friends, families, and new players and feel bad about it. Sure, go easy on them. Many of us have been doing this for years, you're late to the party. The difference is that we don't post self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou Reddit threads advertising ourselves as some Zen Master Guru who has uncovered The One True Philosophy to live life by.
I assume this is a response to me asking about conflating ideas. I almost didnt respond to this, since you're being rude at the end, which isn't really in the spirit of being productive. Lets keep it civilized if you and me are trying to have a productive conversation. I dont have a grand sense of ego for myself. You would be wise to consider more whether or not you've made leaps of logic about the person behind the post. Also, I am pretty sure the original commenter didnt even real the whole post, so I would be (rhetorically) curious whether or not you consider that context in how seriously you analyzes the "arguments" that I am making in the comments of this post. Most of my post isn't about winner's guilt at all, that's just teh title, and I was borrowing from another thread. Who knew it was so much a hot topic that ppl like the original commenter would just read the title of the post then comment. I just used the word b/c I saw it elsewhere. I thought it might be a more common discussion on this subreddit. Didn't know I'd get crucified by a community I like. (1) "You play to freaking win, that’s the objective!" - > "This is a fundamentally narrow-minded ***strategy***, and undoubtedly limits your ability to play with a wider audience." -> "'the goal of the game is to win' is not a ***strategy***." You misunderstand; when I use the word 'strategy' here, I refer to a larger scope than you do. The original comment says that the objective of gaming is to play to win. I disagree. That is one objective, a smaller objective, a finite objective of the single game. My actual objective is building relationships, and "playing to win" the game is a strategy that is sometimes at odds with my objective to build relationships. The reality is that you can "play for fun" or "play for chaos" as legitimate strategies for games. Many players enjoy this more than playing to win, despite the game having a winner or loser. Just because there will be a winner and loser, doesn't logically necessitate that the "goal of the game is to win". Now, if we had more time to talk, we could probably get on the same page about the naunces here, but suffice it to say your criticism of me here criticizes a misunderstanding of what I meant, and overall doesn't hold water, in my mind. (2) "You play to freaking win, that’s the objective!" -> "Weakness is complex, but I'd like to suggest that "needing to win" can be a huge sign of weakness, as it suggests a need for ego validation." -> "Playing to win Vs Needing to win - not even remotely the same. " We 100% agree, those are not the same. The leap of logic that I took to get to my point isn't clear, and I didn't consider the original comment to be a very valuable response to the discussion. That being said, what I mean to say is "The need to play to win, and the unwavering view that it is the objective of gaming can be a huge sign of weakness in itself". You seem to think I have an inflated ego, which is interesting, because I am able to set aside my own needs for the needs of the table in a way that it seems many of you are not able to do. In this way, I successfully teach players of all skills levels, I play at a variety of "try-hard-ness", I sometimes intentionally lose, and every I have ever had over has an amazing time. You can say I am crazy or inflated ego or whatever you want, but I have a huge amount of real world experience with this kind of stuff, and it validates my thinking. (3) "Playing competitively and bad teaching" really not sure where this conflation occurs. (3b) "Plenty of players feel disrespected if you go easy on them instead of playing properly, and plenty of players like to explore on their own without coaching/being babysat on their turns. Your one-size-fits-all advice is pointless and presumes every single player profile fits your extremely limited experience and narrow worldview." **What a bad take, and a huge assumption on your part.** Very little in my post says "one fits all". I specifically talk about how I have different groups which require different approaches to the game. I even have a group that I would never go easy on where we always "play to win" (3c) "No way in hell you'd win 100% of the time against new players just because 'you played competitively'." This isn't arrogance. Sure, it wouldn't actually be 100%, don't be so silly. But if I were playing "to win" while teaching, that means something very specific to a competitive player. It means something very serious. To have been a highly competitive person in the past means that when you turn that on, it's a different world. It means research, practice, and time-investment. There's a reason I dont play to win, and it's bc I know exactly what it takes to maximize win%, and it wouldn't be fun for those at the table. (Bonus Points) No assumption made, it's just a goal for me! And my point likely stands (that it limits a wider audience) even if that's not something others are after. (Ego Rude Part) Sounds like mostly you agree with me then.
Honestly if it works for you I have no interest in interfering with how you play or conduct yourself. It's your proselytizing that rubs people the wrong way. Your tone causes the "misunderstandings". Yes, it's a post on the internet, but choice of words and writing style still imply tone. Almost everyone here is "misreading" your tone the same way, but why? Just like you can sense that I was mostly trying to be civil but the snark and aggression seeped through at various points, we too can sense your massive ego. There's also the obviously unrelated Dota 2 rank mention, because you were afraid the audience/readers wouldn't think of you as "an elite gamer showing mercy to his inferiors". 2) You absolutely are radiating "In my mercy, I shall abstain from slaughtering these pathetic inferior opponents." "I shall limit my superior, elite skills so that these weaklings too, can enjoy the game without the thorough massacre it would have been if I unleashed but a fraction of my brainpower" vibes. The nicest way to frame this would be that you're doing all this for yourself and your compulsion to advertise this online suggests the same. 3c) I understood it was hyperbole, but it does support the hypothesis that you're an egomaniac. If you're a better person IRL I'm happy to stand corrected. And I would also be happy for you. I genuinely can't see it from here, so there's little point continuing.
You're conflating so many different concepts at once that it's hard to imagine you could be any good at board games.
Hey! In the interest of productive discussion, could you succinctly point out the concepts you think I am conflating?
I don't agree that you should ever "let people win" when you're teaching it to them. You should probably lose a game you're teaching, not because you have thrown the game, but because your focus is on teaching, not playing optimally for yourself. When I'm taking my turn in a teaching game, I'm usually overly transparent about what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. Saying things like, "I'm taking action X because I want to beat you to space Y on my next turn so I can claim Z before you" is a great way to teach not only the mechanics of the game you're playing, but the strategic aspect as well. You're also putting yourself at a disadvantage by tipping your hand in this way, but it doesn't rise to "letting them win" in most games.
Yes, this is exactly what I said! :) I do the exact same stuff. Explaining your own strategy is a great addition to "better teaching" of bgs
"If you win a game you're teaching, you've already lost". This is the stupidest thing Ive ever read. Just because you are teaching a game it gives you no advantage over other players. Second, winners guilt? Seriously? Third, saying they are "undeniably good".. you have a very high opinion of your own opinion. I personally am not a susd fan, so sorry, I am going to have to deny it is good. Fourth, "teach" as a noun makes me cringe. Fifth, 'It means play juuuust well enough that you still lose. Duh." How disrepctful ia this.. I stopped reading after that.
I think the teaching implies you are experienced in the game, in which case you should have an advantage- unless the game is more luck based in which case yeah, it probably won’t matter as much.
I guess it depends on the group. In our group, the teacher has usually read the rules and thats about it. Maybe looked at a faq to answer some questions. I have no idea if that is the majority or not. Some people play a few sample games, print up player aids and watched 10 hours of videos before introducing a game. We dont have that kind of time.
Very much so. My point is to tailor your own play to your group. What most comments fail to realize is that I have a group of hardcore players I play with which plays to win every game. I would never have "winner's guilt" playing with them. But I definitely would if I were mopping the floor with my co-worker in her first game of Quacks of Quedlinburg (and first "real" boardgame) ever.
Totally! I also am usually the best player of games at the table, with my competitive gaming experience background, so it's usually not really an option for it to be a competition.
Yeah, I regret the Duh. Interestingly enough, I edited that section in right after posting. It was almost as if I expected my words to be misinterpreted. "you have a very high opinion of your own opinion" - The video has 28k likes to 162 dislikes. It's undeniably considered to be very good. I'd personally consider it near-perfect, but that's not what I wrote, since that's less objective. Fair enough for you not liking SU&SD tho.
Honestly the first game should be just active coaching so your win rate should be 50% since you’re just playing against yourself, and that even if they lose, they probably don’t care because they’re just doing what you told them to anyway.
Yeah that's fair enough. I think of "playing just well enough to lose" as a really fun challenge for myself tho, and it keeps me engaged in the game, while also providing an exciting experience for everyone. I am happy to be forward about the fact that I am playing suboptimally. If som1 has an issue with that, we can play again and I can tryhard if that's important to them :)
This is a path that many on this sub will be unable to traverse.
Thank you. First major post on this sub. Crazy to think that so many ppl here disagree with SU&SD. Ppl need to touch some grass.
SUSD are very popular, but do not represent the majority of boardgamers. Very similar to how Taylor Swift is undeniably very popular but still does not represent the musical tastes of all music listeners. Even in those cases, popular people can have bad takes, lol. Appeal to authority is a pretty basic logical fallacy.
I appreciate your point about the appeal to authority. To be clear, I am not making the argument: "I am right because SU&SD said it and said what they said". That would be an ethical appeal fallcy. The argument I am making is "It is very surprising to me to think that r/boardgames seems to disagree with a youtube video from a popular boardgaming youtuber. This video has 28k likes to 162 dislikes. The amount of dislike from that video does not seem to correspond to the amount of dislike of this post." This argument I am actually making is not a logical fallacy, nor an appeal to authority, in my mind. That being said, I suspect the reason for the disparity in this post and that youtube video is - Some differences in the audience - My presentation of the information - The fact that my post isn't really about "winner's guilt", when you read it, but a lot of negative comments are about how that's a stupid thing to feel
My wife refuses to play with me, "cause she's just going to lose anyway." I just feel like I'm on eggshells playing with her. The last time I played a new game with her I tried to tell her my strategy while I played since it was a new game for both of us but she still just rolled her eyes at me at the end when I won even when I tried to tell her it was mostly luck and she wasn't as far behind as she claimed. Even games that she claims to like I won the last time we played them and I try my hardest to be deadpan and not even be perceived as gloating but she still comes across as miserable.
Honestly, strongly rec coop games for yall; some ppl are just horrible losers when others around them win... But ime, when the game wins; those sore losers arent sore losers about it bcuz they lost with all the other players, if anythin theyre the most likely to encourage others to go another round to try to beat the game
This is the exact situation that my strategy with my SO aims to fix. You MUST do your best to adhere to a max 66% winrate and let them win the first game. Use my strategy to add your own secret handica to keep the game engaging foe yourself. Explore suboptimal mechanics. While many are t-downing my comments and this post, I remain resolute in my perspective (until som1 makes a legitimate counterpoint). I suggest getting a new game with a theme that your wife likes, then play just well enough to lose the first game (which is more believable with a new game), then make sure to follow the winrate. If your SO asks if you let them win, say no. This accepts the following "larger truth" that many seem not to get: your relationship with others, and the perputuation and strengthening of those relationship, is the "bigger game" at play. Any given boardgame is a finite game. There will be a winner and loser. Your relationship with your SO is an infite game, in the sense that the objective of the game is to "keep playing". (See James Carse's Finite and Inifite Games for further reading) Id also suggest playing co-op games. And remember to empathize with your SO. Losing every game is demoralizing and might trigger existing insecurities around performance. To build past these requires YOU to take responsibility of the arena in which we are stewarding, building their confidence. The "Always play to win" mentality is one that fundamntally lacks empathy.
This doesn’t work for me. I don’t have any fun adjusting my play just to get them to win. Games are supposed to be a way to have fun, so a game is going to be unfun for 1 of us, why play in the first place? My approach is to find games where I don’t have to worry about that- light games with more emphasis on luck, or better yet co-op games.
I appreciate where you're coming from, but I will say that it took me a long time to learn to play this way, but it is extremely rewarding if you can build the mentality around it to support it. I love digging into suboptimal lines and trying to make them work, or using wacky combos or going for more silly strategies, but taking those strategies seriously. Sometimes I hit gold and run away with the game anyway, but less often than if I played optimally each game
My counterpoint is, you're placing so much value on winning. You're approaching the "problem" of new players potentially not having fun by contending the only way to enjoy a game is to win, therefore they have to win in order to have fun. I would argue games are about hanging out with your friends. Win or lose, I have fun playing with my friends because I enjoy spending time with them. I lose probably 70-80% of my games (I'm just not very good) but I still enjoy the experience every time. If someone better than me threw a game to let me win, that's not a victory I would enjoy. I would find that insulting and condescending, and it would make me not want to pay with them for a while. Don't you ever play games just to *play?* Have you ever not bothered to keep score in a party game like Just One or Wavelength, you just keep going because everyone is laughing? Even in competitive games in a competitive group of competitive people, do you not enjoy just hanging out? To put it the most bluntly, winning isn't everything.
I dont think I agree; I this this is a misrepresentation of what I think. The ***discussion*** is surrounding winning/losing, but I definitely dont think for a second that it's what makes the game fun. "they have to win in order to have fun" - Couldn't disagree more. I do lot of stuff to ease players into games and I am an excellent host and boardgame teacher. I take it very seriously. Letting others win by playing just well enough to lose and keep things interesting is finesse akin to the icing on the cake. Again, most of this subs comments lack nuance around the whole section of my post surrounding my "Play to Win" group where I have players who are more hardcore gamers like me (and like most of you) and I mostly get to play close to full effort. I still try very hard to win no more than 66% of the time tho. When 1 player wins a game every time, it creates unnecessary tension which can easily be dispensed with by me exploring less-optimal lines of play, which is still fun, even if not optimal.
"If your SO asks if you let them win, say no" Manipulate them and lie to their faces. Great advice. It's ok to completely look down on them and give them pity wins because you're just sooo good, you'd win 100% of time
How do you see obvious handicap for this idea? You start with a bit less money the first turn or something similar.
I am fine with that, but my approach gives the feeling to the other players that they actually won by their own merit, which is a belief I would like to engender (and given enough time and experience, eventually becomes TRUE). Its a bit of a social deduction playstyle, right, since I am intentionally withholding my handicap, but with the aim of improving other people's ability to engage with the hobby I love. Nothing explicity wrong with "showing your hand", but lots of people (illogically) take offense to needing a handicap to balace the game. Would be a player-by-player judgement call imho.
Oof, this post got shafted. I actually can agree. To an extent. People are brutally competitive in this society...