Each chapter is a very easy read, and I really recommend the book for anyone wanting to challenge their play style. I will always include a link to the relevant chapter so that you can follow along and read it for yourself. With that being said, let's get in to the meat of today's post!
I'm going to go through his introduction and try to set the tone for this article series. Having read the book in its entirety already, I want to warn some of you that you won't like what he has to say. Sirlin can come off as arrogant and elitist, but it's very important to read this book objectively. He's not a professional writer, he is (or was) a professional gamer on a global level. He didn't write this book to offend, but to teach and inform.
He starts off by using a term that is important to know, and that is "zero-sum games." This is apparently a pretty deep term, because all the web results I found were way over my head. But the basic principle is this: a zero-sum game is one where one player wins because another loses. There's a lot more to it than that, but for his book it suffices to look at it as any game where there's one winner, one loser, and nothing else that matters.
He then accurately points out my favorite thing about competitive gaming - it's an objective measure of skill. If you win more, you're doing better. If you win against players you couldn't beat in the past, you're doing much better. As long as you're challenging yourself with equal or greater opponents, you have a fairly accurate measurement of how you're doing.
I think this is the main thing that guides many Win At All Costs (WAAC) players. Some may misinterpret the proper way of handling the desire to improve, and instead become those obnoxious players no one wants to go against because they complain, nitpick, harass, or outright cheat in order to win and feel like they're improving. That's not what the book promotes, as we'll see in later chapters.
He starts off by using a term that is important to know, and that is "zero-sum games." This is apparently a pretty deep term, because all the web results I found were way over my head. But the basic principle is this: a zero-sum game is one where one player wins because another loses. There's a lot more to it than that, but for his book it suffices to look at it as any game where there's one winner, one loser, and nothing else that matters.
He then accurately points out my favorite thing about competitive gaming - it's an objective measure of skill. If you win more, you're doing better. If you win against players you couldn't beat in the past, you're doing much better. As long as you're challenging yourself with equal or greater opponents, you have a fairly accurate measurement of how you're doing.
I think this is the main thing that guides many Win At All Costs (WAAC) players. Some may misinterpret the proper way of handling the desire to improve, and instead become those obnoxious players no one wants to go against because they complain, nitpick, harass, or outright cheat in order to win and feel like they're improving. That's not what the book promotes, as we'll see in later chapters.
One thing all great players understand is that you must know the rules to your game if you are going to be able to play a fair game with your opponent. As Sirlin says, " If players don’t agree on the rules, then they are not even playing the same game." Read that a few times because in later chapters it will change the way you view "cheap tactics." Naturally no one wants to play against the rules, but there are those (myself included) who are hesitant to take advantage of all the rules. Crazy, right? But I'm willing to bet everyone is guilty of it. But more on that in a future post.
In this introduction he asks the most basic question: do you want to win? The knee-jerk reaction is to proclaim "Of course I do!" but I think it's key to define what environment you want to win in. He looks at winning as an absolute - either you're devoting your life to winning or you're playing casually. I don't think it's that clear.
For example, I want to win Warmachine games in my Saturday night group. We have about 8 players, none of which are national champions. If I were to devote all my free time to becoming the best, there's a good chance I could be the best player in the group. But if I were to devote too much time, there's a chance I could far exceed the average skill level of the group. Would I be winning? Yes, but I wouldn't be getting an accurate measurement of my skill because I wouldn't have anyone to try to surpass.
So when working toward winning, it's important to estimate how slow your skill level should grow in order to win challenging games, rather than getting so good that you walk over your opponent. And that's a thought that isn't nearly as clean as "all or nothing." For me, I could probably become one of the top two players of the group by simply playing more games each week. I listen to podcasts and frequent forums, but without the ability to put things in to practice I find my knowledge goes unused from week to week.
And that's when I have to answer the question of whether I'm willing to devote enough time to win where I want to win. Playing 5 hours on Saturdays isn't enough for me to learn, so I can either accept that I won't beat our best players or I can carve out time throughout the week to play. Sadly I can't do the latter, so I'm left with hoarding advanced tactics that I rarely put in to practice.
Some people may stop and ask why steamrolling people is a bad thing. Sirlin gives an example of a game being like a debate - the true fun is found when you're going against someone who gives you a good back-and-forth. Being trampled may allow you to learn something from someone of greater skill, but they certainly didn't get anything out of it. There was a comparison I heard about how good players stomping new players is like clubbing baby seals. It's a terrible example, but it does give a picture of why being too good doesn't teach you anything.
So as I go through these articles, I want you to ask yourself what environment you want to be successful in. Winning at the local game shop is a lot different that winning at a national tournament. And maybe you will find yourself moving from local to national, but in our busy world I think it's best to look at what you need to beat right now, rather than saying you want to beat the best when you still struggle against the mediocre. That's where I'm at - I'd love to think I could be good enough to be talked about around the country, but right now it takes work for me to beat players who play once a month.
So what do you guys think? Do you want to win? If so, how high do you need to climb to win? If you're already winning in your area do you find yourself wanting more, or do you have people to challenge you? And perhaps most importantly, what's the first step you need to take to improve your current skill level?
See you tomorrow! And remember, there's only a few days left until my Warmachine/Hordes dice giveaway!
In this introduction he asks the most basic question: do you want to win? The knee-jerk reaction is to proclaim "Of course I do!" but I think it's key to define what environment you want to win in. He looks at winning as an absolute - either you're devoting your life to winning or you're playing casually. I don't think it's that clear.
For example, I want to win Warmachine games in my Saturday night group. We have about 8 players, none of which are national champions. If I were to devote all my free time to becoming the best, there's a good chance I could be the best player in the group. But if I were to devote too much time, there's a chance I could far exceed the average skill level of the group. Would I be winning? Yes, but I wouldn't be getting an accurate measurement of my skill because I wouldn't have anyone to try to surpass.
So when working toward winning, it's important to estimate how slow your skill level should grow in order to win challenging games, rather than getting so good that you walk over your opponent. And that's a thought that isn't nearly as clean as "all or nothing." For me, I could probably become one of the top two players of the group by simply playing more games each week. I listen to podcasts and frequent forums, but without the ability to put things in to practice I find my knowledge goes unused from week to week.
And that's when I have to answer the question of whether I'm willing to devote enough time to win where I want to win. Playing 5 hours on Saturdays isn't enough for me to learn, so I can either accept that I won't beat our best players or I can carve out time throughout the week to play. Sadly I can't do the latter, so I'm left with hoarding advanced tactics that I rarely put in to practice.
Some people may stop and ask why steamrolling people is a bad thing. Sirlin gives an example of a game being like a debate - the true fun is found when you're going against someone who gives you a good back-and-forth. Being trampled may allow you to learn something from someone of greater skill, but they certainly didn't get anything out of it. There was a comparison I heard about how good players stomping new players is like clubbing baby seals. It's a terrible example, but it does give a picture of why being too good doesn't teach you anything.
So as I go through these articles, I want you to ask yourself what environment you want to be successful in. Winning at the local game shop is a lot different that winning at a national tournament. And maybe you will find yourself moving from local to national, but in our busy world I think it's best to look at what you need to beat right now, rather than saying you want to beat the best when you still struggle against the mediocre. That's where I'm at - I'd love to think I could be good enough to be talked about around the country, but right now it takes work for me to beat players who play once a month.
So what do you guys think? Do you want to win? If so, how high do you need to climb to win? If you're already winning in your area do you find yourself wanting more, or do you have people to challenge you? And perhaps most importantly, what's the first step you need to take to improve your current skill level?
See you tomorrow! And remember, there's only a few days left until my Warmachine/Hordes dice giveaway!
No comments:
Post a Comment