This cuts close to something I find occasionally cropping up.  If you’re starting to lose a game, do you try successively riskier strategies to try and reach for a win, or do you try to continue to optimize your score in order to place as high as you can (ie. guarantee 2nd place...)

In war-type games and games with a medium (or more) amount of luck, I tend to go for the win if I can.  Games with far less risk available, I’ll usually settle for performing as solidly as I can.

Joe and I were discussing this on our latest show of the Dice Tower.  It’s why Age of Steam has dropped ever so slightly to make room for Railroad Tycoon - it’s entirely too unforgiving to new players.

I’ve never understood the reason players insist that another player play a game for an hour or two after it’s clear they’ve lost.  Either they like rubbing the other player’s nose in it, or somehow they think that learning harsh lessons is fun.

Bah!

C’mon, Tom, it’s not rocket science!  Players with good manners don’t concede in multiplayer games because it isn’t fair to the other players, who are still in contention.  There are some games in which you can have a player drop out with no ill effects, but they are few and far between.  As Patrick notes, concessions are hard to deal with in multiplayer games.  We all make a big point about how it’s the playing that’s important, not the winning, so why is this such a big issue?  Sure there are games in which I realize I have practically no chance of winning, but I can still enjoy myself by trying my best, looking to maximize my low chances of winning, and just enjoying playing with my friends.  To be honest, the games I’m far more likely to want to bail on are new games where midway through, I realize this is a game I’ll never enjoy.  Still, you finish it up so as not to deprive the other players of their enjoyment.  If someone is truly having a miserable time and wants to bow out of a game, people will almost always let them do so, but it happens very rarely in our group, mostly, I think, because we don’t want to spoil the experience for others.

OK, Larry, I should have clarified.  I meant when teaching the game to new players, and utterly destroying them in the first couple of turns, then insist that the game play out to its miserable conclusion.

For me, and other “gamers”, I agree with you - finish it out!

I’m talking about being nice to new players.

Okay, I get you now, Tom.  I agree with you entirely.

I think it about the set-up of expectations. 

Simply put:  When you are playing Age of Steam, you are playing for the game’s sake.  The sole focus is on the game.  And this has been something I have seen from many “gamer’s” (not all) playing for “the game’s sake”. 

I tried out a game of Caylus recently, and as the “new” player, I knew I wasn’t going to win.  So I decided I wanted to try some crazy new strategies so I at least wouldn’t finish in last place.  And it worked.  I finished in third.  Unfortunately, it upset the balance of the pre-conceived notion of how the game was supposed to “flow” for some of the other players.  To such an extent that one in particular was very angry as a result.... as if I breached some unspoken ettiquette… I suppose.  That one player in particular really wanted to drive that point home with me.  It wasn’t about “adaptive strategy” on his part and seeing something new.  It was about the fact he didn’t win… by his normal margin of points… and somehow that was my fault.

Now. On the other hand, I get together my friends.  We play Ticket to Ride (which somewhat masks this problem that you speak to Patrick) A Dog’s Life, I’m the Boss etc.  These games are not the deepest games… but they have a fair amount of strategy and they are a lot of fun.  But of most importance here… is that the evening is about getting together people who are friends and are there to just have fun and socialize a bit. 

It most certainly is not about a bunch of half-strangers who are there solely because of “the game”.

As I said, I think it is in the set-up of expectations.

Well, different groups have different styles, Ryan, but I honestly thing my group doesn’t approach Ticket to Ride much differently than, say, Puerto Rico, and there’s certainly no difference in their approach to PR than to I’m the Boss (which we play as a very cutthroat game).  They’re there to have fun and socialize and talk some smack, but they’re also all there to win.  Now, if I decided in my next game of Puerto Rico that I was going to see just how many times I could take the Craftsman and still not finish in last place, I think my opponents would be pretty annoyed, and with good reason.  After all, there’s lots of ways you can socialize, if that’s all you want to do.  But we want to combine that with the enjoyment of a good game as well.  And part of that is the fun of playing well and having your opponents play well.  Many of your moves are predicated on them making rational choices, and not having those choices be based upon some arbitrary goal that they’ve set for themselves that you can’t possibly know.  I’m not saying that everyone has to follow the same script, just that the goal needs to be to win the game.  This is far from a hard and fast rule, and I’m not going to blow a gasket if someone’s judgement was less than optimal or if someone decided to make a choice at the end of the game to guarantee them second place (and cost me any chance of winning).  But I also think there should be a limit and part of being a considerate opponent is trying your best to win so that the other players can enjoy the game as well.

Interesting.  I guess I see it differently on both points.  First, if someone wants to take the “Craftsman” every single time in Puerto Rico, that’s their business.  And I certainly wouldn’t bear them a grudge for doing it… epecially if they were succesful in the game.  It becomes my job to adapt my gameplay to the existing scenarios on the board.  As long as one player isn’t trying to exclusively and deliberately harm another individual player, its all good.

Second, who said that as friends that we’re not there to win?  As an example, about half of my friends have played competitive sports… so we all have a healthy appreciation of the importance of winning.  Our sessions of I’m the Boss… amongst friends...are ridiculously cutthroat.  But our main purpose for being there is to hang with our friends, laugh and have a good time.  If I am being pounded at I’m the Boss and losing badly, I still am trying to make every good deal I can… but most important of all… I am having a good time.  I rarely get upset at anybody during a game… because it is just a game.

Having said that, I just like the honest discussion on this topic.  I think that I look at everything from a “non-gamer” perspective.  I love certain types of boardgames and I can be like a kid waiting for them to come out.  But I might get together a group of friends to play boardgames every four to six weeks or so and I only have about 20-25 games in my collection.  To do more?  Sometimes I do.  But otherwise, it’s just not me.

So let me do a flip end of things here.  I have a friend who I met through one of the game clubs here.  He is a bona-fide “gamer”.  In fact, far more than I.  He is awesome to hang with and an all-around great guy.  He loves Puerto Rico, Caylus, Upfront, La Citta and all those games… where it truly is about “the game”.  And you know what?  That’s awesome too. 

And I hope I am not denigrating it being all about “the game.” Because those type of games are awesome, incredible experiences that have a depth and replayability that is incredible.  I can easily see if that is someone’s “thing"… that it is totally understandable as to why it would be about “the game.”

Because that’s what so great about games… they offer that amazing depth if you really want it.  So it is OK for it to be about “the game”.  For the same reason people get together to discuss their sportscars, motorcycles, boats, food, wine, basketball etc.  It is OK for it to be about boardgames.  I heartily join in the fray. 

So while I respect it being about “the game”, it just isn’t that way for me personally.  I think it is entirely possible to enjoy boardgames and not be a “gamer”.  I see in your comments, Larry, a sprited defense about it being about “the game.” But you are right, it is a difference of opinion.

I don’t think that any one side of the arument hold sway over the other… they are both equally credible.  We simply play game for different reasons.  But we also find commonalities.  So all this means is that when I start taking the “Craftsman” all the time at the next Puerto Rico we play together.... I hope you don’t bear me grudge.  : )