In this article I will explore the goals (and pitfalls) behind my time as a "casual player." Keep in mind that this is my experience of trying to be an extreme case of casual, and this is not an indictment of other casual players.
For years I've seen myself as a casual player. That's a broad and rather undefined term, but here's what it always meant to me:
- Play for fun
- Don't "metagame" This is a bit of a loose term, but most people would consider a powerful deck or army with no real "theme" to be metagaming. If you mash together a bunch of powerful, unrelated pieces and turn it in to a winning list (especially if it's built to directly counter what others are doing), there's a good chance you're metagaming.
- Rules aren't important if they get in the way of fun (this will be important later)
- Don't use things that are considered "broken" or "overpowered." This differs from metagaming in that you can use "overpowered," game-changing things without breaking a theme.
- If I didn't have fun, I've failed in playing casually.
- If my opponent isn't having fun, I've failed in playing casually.
Being a casual player in things like Magic and Warmachine aren't the same as "poker night with the guys." Despite sharing the goal of winning, the means of winning are quite different.
In poker, your goal isn't necessarily to beat an individual opponent. True there is the aspect of "reading" and "bluffing," but for the most part you win by doing better than everyone else. As a player, you exist in a vacuum with no direct hand in your opponents' successes or failures. In short, you have very little to do with your opponents' loss.
Competitive games like Magic, Warhammer... heck, even Pokemon thrive on you working directly against your opponents. In Magic you destroy their creatures, make them discard cards, or shoot massive fireballs at their head. You don't win the game by winning - you win the game by making your opponent lose.
It's a primal thing, and it's hard to balance it with the criteria I stated above. After all, how can I make it my goal to wipe my opponent's Space Marines off the board while making sure everyone has fun? Do I not take advantage of an opening they left me? Do I leave a powerful vehicle behind for fear of it being "too good," and therefore unfun?
But let's pretend my last criteria doesn't apply to most people. If your overall goal as a casual player is to "have fun," how do you accomplish that? How can you even gauge that if winning isn't the goal? Here are some ways I've tried to define a successful game:
In poker, your goal isn't necessarily to beat an individual opponent. True there is the aspect of "reading" and "bluffing," but for the most part you win by doing better than everyone else. As a player, you exist in a vacuum with no direct hand in your opponents' successes or failures. In short, you have very little to do with your opponents' loss.
Competitive games like Magic, Warhammer... heck, even Pokemon thrive on you working directly against your opponents. In Magic you destroy their creatures, make them discard cards, or shoot massive fireballs at their head. You don't win the game by winning - you win the game by making your opponent lose.
It's a primal thing, and it's hard to balance it with the criteria I stated above. After all, how can I make it my goal to wipe my opponent's Space Marines off the board while making sure everyone has fun? Do I not take advantage of an opening they left me? Do I leave a powerful vehicle behind for fear of it being "too good," and therefore unfun?
But let's pretend my last criteria doesn't apply to most people. If your overall goal as a casual player is to "have fun," how do you accomplish that? How can you even gauge that if winning isn't the goal? Here are some ways I've tried to define a successful game:
- I put up a good fight, or the game was even
- I pulled off a combo or tactic they wanted to try
- The game ended in a big way for either player
- I got to relax and play a game, no matter the result
As the years have gone on, I've found one major problem with this: my enjoyment is generally dictated by my opponent. If I am constantly stomping or getting stomped in a casual game, it starts becoming tedious. You know the end result before going in, and the game's anticipation is lost. It becomes two hours of "going through the motions" as the night progresses the same as it always does. Even the last one requires that you only play with people you don't hate.
But perhaps you haven't lost the anticipation because despite a negative win record, there are still those times when you pull out a win and feel great about it. Awesome! But why not do it more? If you are playing something that is obviously inferior to other choices, why continue?
That's a bind I found myself in. Unless you have casual play imposed on you (usually due to financial limits), it's hard to justify being a purely casual player. I was rather stubborn about this for years, even when I started playing things like Warmachine where I could spend 2 hours playing a game where I know I'm going to lose - not through any fault of my own, but simply because I didn't want to "bring it."
During a rather intelligent online discussion of this topic (which I can't locate, but an intelligent online discussion did happen!), someone posed a simple question to me. He told me to look at it from my opponent's perspective - if I'm going in to a game knowing that my inferior choices are going to lose me the game in the name of casual fun, am I not robbing my opponent of his fun? Even if he enjoys the win, I've done nothing to challenge him in a friendly, but competitive, way.
As I thought about that, I realized I couldn't argue. If I ask someone to play a 2 hour game of Warmachine with me and my basic plan is "have fun, maybe win," then all I've done is lock my opponent in to a 2 hour game of eventuality. Instead of making him work for the win, all he has to do is put in the time.
Is it fun for him? Sure, the first few times will be a lot of fun because everyone loves winning. But after 4 or 5 games, fun turns to drudgery. Even if I try to win with a poorly-made army, the onus is on him to find his own fun. If he wants to have an even game, he has to bring an equally bad list, and if he's really good he'll have to dumb himself down so that his "bad list piloted by a good player" doesn't stomp my "bad list piloted by a player who doesn't care."
Doing that makes me a poor opponent and a poor friend. The worst part is that I knew I was doing it. I knew I was a horrible Magic opponent because I brought $10 casual decks against $200 competitive ones and acted like it didn't matter. But I wore that "casual player" classification like a badge of honor. I'd tried my hand at being nothing but competitive (which you can hate me for me part 2), and somehow I felt that not actively trying to win made me more honorable than those dirty rotten players who played competitive games... competitively.
And now, at age 27, it finally hits me:
That's a bind I found myself in. Unless you have casual play imposed on you (usually due to financial limits), it's hard to justify being a purely casual player. I was rather stubborn about this for years, even when I started playing things like Warmachine where I could spend 2 hours playing a game where I know I'm going to lose - not through any fault of my own, but simply because I didn't want to "bring it."
During a rather intelligent online discussion of this topic (which I can't locate, but an intelligent online discussion did happen!), someone posed a simple question to me. He told me to look at it from my opponent's perspective - if I'm going in to a game knowing that my inferior choices are going to lose me the game in the name of casual fun, am I not robbing my opponent of his fun? Even if he enjoys the win, I've done nothing to challenge him in a friendly, but competitive, way.
As I thought about that, I realized I couldn't argue. If I ask someone to play a 2 hour game of Warmachine with me and my basic plan is "have fun, maybe win," then all I've done is lock my opponent in to a 2 hour game of eventuality. Instead of making him work for the win, all he has to do is put in the time.
Is it fun for him? Sure, the first few times will be a lot of fun because everyone loves winning. But after 4 or 5 games, fun turns to drudgery. Even if I try to win with a poorly-made army, the onus is on him to find his own fun. If he wants to have an even game, he has to bring an equally bad list, and if he's really good he'll have to dumb himself down so that his "bad list piloted by a good player" doesn't stomp my "bad list piloted by a player who doesn't care."
Doing that makes me a poor opponent and a poor friend. The worst part is that I knew I was doing it. I knew I was a horrible Magic opponent because I brought $10 casual decks against $200 competitive ones and acted like it didn't matter. But I wore that "casual player" classification like a badge of honor. I'd tried my hand at being nothing but competitive (which you can hate me for me part 2), and somehow I felt that not actively trying to win made me more honorable than those dirty rotten players who played competitive games... competitively.
And now, at age 27, it finally hits me:
If you don't play to win, why play at all?
If you're new around here, be sure to like my Facebook page. I post various gaming-related content every single day, and Facebook is the best way to stay up-to-date on it. It's also the only way to qualify for my monthly giveaways! Next time I'll explore my brief stint as a Win At All Costs (WAAC) player. (Part 2 here)
See you tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment