Thoughts on games in general. . .

[xiphias]

There are (at least) two ways in which one can play a game. One can play it as something to do with one's hands while one is socializing, or one can play it to win.

Both are perfectly wonderful ways to play games, and there's no hard-and-fast line between them -- one can be very cutthroat in one's play style, yet also value the socialization which goes on at the same time. One could even play a game one doesn't particularly care about with people one doesn't particularly like, but I'd hope most people wouldn't bother doing something like that.

The problem is when you've got a game in which some of the players are there for the socialization, while others, while they may enjoy socializing, are there to play the game. This causes conflicts. Of course, the conflicts may be very mild ones that don't particularly bother anyone.

I was thinking about this because, in the most recent game of Illuminati I played, I and one other player were playing to win, while two other players, I suspect, were mainly playing to socialize. The other player who was playing to win and I also were enjoying socializing, because they're a great group of people who I love hanging out with. But it's tough to play a game in which half the players are having a friendly game, and the other half are having a cutthroat game. I enjoy both styles -- but it's hard to have them in the same game at the same time.

This is not meant to be a complaint or anything like that -- I really enjoyed the games tonight. It's just something I've noticed in lots of places, not just tonight.

Comments

[brooksmoses]

This reminds me of a games night that I used to frequent a lot. It worked pretty well with the balance of people playing to win (or even specifically to play the game well), and people playing to have a means of interacting with people that didn't require continual making of conversation (which, I think, was somewhat more than simply something to do with hands, but along the same lines).

This produced many games of spades until it was going out people's ears and jokes were made in other gatherings of people from the group that we couldn't get together without eventually playing spades. (Even the infamous 50-Hour Post-Exams Party involved spades, I think.) But there were games of Illuminati and Settlers of Catan and other things, sometimes, too. Once even a game of war, played with Waterworks cards, because the idea came up in conversation and someone said it couldn't be done.

Then, somewhere along the line, bridge occurred. This was, essentially, the end of the games night -- the people who were playing for the sake of playing would play bridge, which involved much attention to playing well and to long bidding sheets and doing a post-mortem after each hand to determine how the bidding should have gone, and there wasn't any room in that for socializing, or really for interested watchers, so people outside of groups of four tended to get left out, and the people who mostly wanted to socialize always did.

I think, having somewhat been occupied with other things in the intervening year, that the upshot was that the group split, and one half completely died out (of course, having a lot of members graduate will do that anyhow), and the other half shrank to a small core of people that presumably play bridge....

- Brooks

[kimberly-a.livejournal.com]

I've noticed this same distinction. I love to play games (especially card games, word games, charades, etc.), but I do it primarily for the fun of the interaction. Shannon (my hubby) and I have often discussed the fact that I tend to enjoy more cooperative activities, while he tends to enjoy more competitive activities.

Somehow, we're able to work this out when we play games, just the two of us (no, not that kind of games, you perv!), but it can cause slight problems when we get together with other people. We have one friend who takes Scrabble *very* seriously, and he's just no fun to play with. On the other hand, it drives me up the wall when some people are so busy socializing that they can't seem to take their friggin' turn!

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Heh. :)

I think the majority of it was that Two Of The Players (as we were named) got extremely tired midgame, if you recall. I'm not as comfortable with Illuminati as I am with some other games (such as Chez Geek), but most of my easygoingness last night was sheer weariness. I'm pretty sure it's the same for the other such player, who is quite capable of playing to win, let me tell you.

Try me again on Saturday. ;)

A.

[goljerp]

I think part of it has to do with the type of game being played.

For me, for Illuminati to work well, everyone needs to be on basically the same page. Thus the good ol' Illuminati games of yore at Brandeis. Sure, there would be times when Dbl would start reading a book, looking up only occasionally, but even that was probably part of a strategy.

On the other hand, there are games like Fluxx where (once people are familiar with the game and don't take 15 minutes looking at their hands in sheer bewilderment) the line between playing to win and playing to socialize is blurred to the point of no return. Another example, I think, is The Great Dalmuti: the play is so fast that it encourages a mindset; yet, after the first couple of people have gone out, they can chat amongst themselves.

This is not a moot question for me; as the self-appointed coordinator of a gaming night (Goljerp Gaming - held monthly in NYC), I've tried to keep the tone light. And there have often been games where I did something just for style, even though it would not mean winning. But the other week, we were playing Munchkin and I was so close to winning, when Mendel decided he'd had enough and so turned the monster that Amy was about to defeat to win into a baby, thus ensuring that she'd win. (The truth is that even without that I'm not sure that we'd have been able to stop her, but if we had, I would've won on my turn!) Maybe I was just getting too much into the Munchkin mindset.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Yer such a munchkin.

*Note to self - bring book to Illuminati game and make people think I'm not paying attention :)*

[goljerp]

Yer such a munchkin.

Thank you!

Note to self - bring book to Illuminati game and make people think I'm not paying attention

Well, Dbl knew that it would work because I was such a kibbutzer that I'd alert him to anything major (unless, of course, I was about to win...)

[gingicat]

Actually, I *wanted* to be cutthroat and was simply too tired to concentrate.

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

One could even play a game one doesn't particularly care about with people one doesn't particularly like, but I'd hope most people wouldn't bother doing something like that.

Except at 3am on a convention Friday. Then one's likely to do all sorts of things. :)

[angelovernh.livejournal.com]

This was essentially my problem with games night. I went to socialize more than to game and it was really not working especially since I didn't have the interest in the games enough to put in the effort to learn them when I'd rather just be talking, flirting, cuddling. This is why I'm going to try to do more OPNs and/or parties than games nights.. However, I do really like the games night folks, so I hope to still see them a bunch.