After writing my first article, I posted it in a few game forums I'm a part of. As I've watched the community share their opinions, I've been overwhelmed by the great feedback I've received. I know this is probably going to be a hotly-debated topic for as long as gaming exists, and in hindsight I realize I blindly entered in to this using some loaded terms, but I want to genuinely thank you all for the public and personal feedback I've received. Not everyone agreed, but I've seen nothing but intelligent, thoughtful discourse on this subject.
A Game Without Definition
Now then, how do two ends of the spectrum peacefully coexist? In the past I've seen people suggest only playing with those who fit your playstyle. Objectively, that's great. But often times we gamers are spread pretty thin, and you have to take what you can get. That may mean that you're a casual player trying to relax in a group of 5 other competitive players, or a competitive player trying to play a tight, by-the-rules game in a group of people who are loose with the rules because they aren't "in it to win it."
No one wants to make themselves a pariah by stamping their feet and saying "if you won't play how I want to then I'm going home!" but it's also difficult to play a mutually enjoyable game with someone who isn't on the same page as you. It's like being in a relationship with a terrible person because the only alternative is to be alone. You aren't happy, but what can you do?
The easy answer is to talk to your opponent and let them know what you're looking for, sort of like "eHarmony - Gamer Edition."
Casual gamer seeks opponent for friendly game. No overpowered lists or broken models/cards. Must be willing to have fun and relax. Owning your own dice is a plus.
On paper that sounds ideal to most people. Who doesn't want a friendly game that's relaxing and fun? Some people may not like having to leave their tournament-winning lists at home, but it's not anything deal-breaking. However, I fear that this is where the idea of simple communication breaks down.
Let's say I agree to an ambiguously casual game of Magic with a friend. He sits down and grabs a random deck from his big box o' decks. He opens it up and sees it's a Patriarch's Bidding/Zombie deck he'd made after a George Romero marathon. The deck has approximately $50 worth of cards.
I sit down with an untested Blue/White control deck deck that I'd been thinking about for awhile. I know it's still very rough, but I think that after a lot of testing it could do well in the local tournament scene. It certainly isn't going to win any tournaments yet, but it should work well enough against any casual deck. I'm probably carrying about $300 worth of cards in my deck.
To my friend, the idea of a casual game is bringing a deck whose biggest chance of winning is pulling off a hard-to-hit combo that requires a lot of setup with plenty of room for error. But when he hits it, it's awesome. To me, it's hanging out with a buddy and analyzing how the deck is performing and figuring out what tweaks need to be done to make it competitive. If we were only playing one game, I'm sure we'd both have fun. He might pull off his combo and beat me, or he might get several zombies on the field and make a joke about how they're going to eat my Snapcaster Mage's brain.
But let's say we play several games that day, and we continue this once a week for several years. He keeps bringing fun decks with improbable odds of winning while I keep tweaking competitive decks or bring new ones to try out. He will grow bored because my decks aren't matching his in creativity, while I will grow bored because my decks aren't being challenged after one or two tweaks. We'll still get together and play because we're friends, but neither of us are getting the games we want.
This all happens because there's no objective definition for "casual." Casual is a preference with no absolute way of determining what does and does not fit. If you thoroughly interview me and four other 27 year old males living in Iowa, you'll get very different definitions. That's because I have 27 years of history that has shaped how I translate something as simple as a casual game.
Then take someone who grew up in a household that pushed (and rewarded) success. They might have become wired to link success with enjoyment. To them, a game may only be enjoyable when they're pushing themselves to their mental limit, bringing the strongest and most synergistic list possible to try and outmaneuver their opponent. Or conversely, they may approach gaming as a way to get away from the pressure of succeeding and only play to throw some dice and push some pewter miniatures around on a table. There's simply no way to tell!
So Then... WAAC Is the Answer?
The point of that absurdly-lengthy example isn't to knock the casual crowd. However, agreeing to a game with no fixed boundaries will often leave one party frustrated. But is the opposite much better?
[First, let me define what WAAC should be. It's not about cheating to win, but about doing what you can within the confines of the rules to win the game. If it would get you disqualified, don't do it even if your opponent won't know. Play with decency, but if it's fully within the rules, then it's allowed.]
I believe the answer to this depends on the game system. Let me preface this by saying that my major gaming knowledge (not skill) goes in this order:
- Warmachine
- Magic
- Yu-Gi-Oh (don't hate me)
- 40k
Assuming I'm equally skilled in all games, this is what I believe would happen if I were to play these using the absolute best list against an equally-skilled opponent's best, vs. using what others might consider sub-par vs. an opponent's best list.
Warmachine: I love Warmachine for its balance. In a competitive environment, there's no telling who will win. Out of the 11 factions to choose from (if you count Minions), only 2 seem to be considered unsupported enough to be competitive. So it should be no surprise that if I were to bring my 3 best Khador lists against an opponent's 3 best Cygnar/Skorne/Circle/etc, the game wouldn't be decided before the first dice are rolled. Granted some matchups may be more difficult than others, but no one army can dominate the game because no one has answers for it.
Bringing something subpar (say a battlebox and some decent infantry) will be an uphill battle, but is in no way unwinnable with good list building. I believe it was the guys from Muse On Minis who said that it's not about what you bring, but what you do with it. So in Warmachine, as long as you're both pushing yourselves to play a clean game, you'll both have a good time and be challenged.
Warmachine: I love Warmachine for its balance. In a competitive environment, there's no telling who will win. Out of the 11 factions to choose from (if you count Minions), only 2 seem to be considered unsupported enough to be competitive. So it should be no surprise that if I were to bring my 3 best Khador lists against an opponent's 3 best Cygnar/Skorne/Circle/etc, the game wouldn't be decided before the first dice are rolled. Granted some matchups may be more difficult than others, but no one army can dominate the game because no one has answers for it.
Bringing something subpar (say a battlebox and some decent infantry) will be an uphill battle, but is in no way unwinnable with good list building. I believe it was the guys from Muse On Minis who said that it's not about what you bring, but what you do with it. So in Warmachine, as long as you're both pushing yourselves to play a clean game, you'll both have a good time and be challenged.
Magic: Depending on the format you're playing, your access to competitive decks may range from 3 or 4 good ones to 10 or 20 good ones. There may be one that is hands-down the best in a given format, but several can be considered top-tier, tournament-winning decks. And within those decks there's often room for some variation. Often times they'll be the same core deck, but not everyone will have the same "copy/paste" deck that I'll discuss next. So two players bringing their A game will usually stand an equal chance of winning without one decimating the other.
And as I discussed earlier, if I bring a deck built for fun against one made to work flawlessly, there's no question what will happen.
Yu-Gi-Oh: Here's an example of a game that was not made for creativity when I played it. Years ago, you had two types of decks. You had several theme decks that kids would see on the show and want to emulate, and then you had one deck that everyone had to copy if they wanted to stand a chance of winning even a local tournament. If I brought my best against an opponent's best, it would always be a mirror match.
And if I brought my fun deck against an opponent's, it wouldn't be like Magic where I could have some fun every few games. I'd lose every time without even being given a chance to attempt to challenge my opponent.
40k: I will be up front and say that I can only speak on this based on a year of lurking on various 40k forums and blogs. I won't offer an opinion based on experience, but on that dangerous sort of knowledge based on second-hand knowledge. If you want a fantastic write-up, you owe it to yourself to read this blog post from Pins of War. To sum it up though, 40k is the antithesis of Warmachine.
Yu-Gi-Oh: Here's an example of a game that was not made for creativity when I played it. Years ago, you had two types of decks. You had several theme decks that kids would see on the show and want to emulate, and then you had one deck that everyone had to copy if they wanted to stand a chance of winning even a local tournament. If I brought my best against an opponent's best, it would always be a mirror match.
And if I brought my fun deck against an opponent's, it wouldn't be like Magic where I could have some fun every few games. I'd lose every time without even being given a chance to attempt to challenge my opponent.
40k: I will be up front and say that I can only speak on this based on a year of lurking on various 40k forums and blogs. I won't offer an opinion based on experience, but on that dangerous sort of knowledge based on second-hand knowledge. If you want a fantastic write-up, you owe it to yourself to read this blog post from Pins of War. To sum it up though, 40k is the antithesis of Warmachine.
While Warmachine rewards you for bringing good over bad (and what game doesn't?), 40k's games seem to be decided based on 1) what army you've purchased 2) whether Games Workshop has recently released a new codex (set of rules) for them, and 3) what list you build with that codex. Unfortunately, all of this happens before dice hit the table. If you have two people in a tournament environment trying to win, the game seems to devolve to a YuGiOh-like situation.
On the bright side, 40k seems to thrive as a "casual game." While still difficult to pin down what casual means, if you have two people who aren't building their lists to obliterate the enemy in two turns, it seems possible to have a fun game.
So while WAAC seems to be easier to define, it does run the risk of limiting your options if you know your opponent will always bring a powerhouse list. Games played for fun are supposed to be fun, and only being able to bring a small percentage of cards/models in order to be competitive... well, sucks.
Finding the Balance (Finally!)
So if you can't define casual, and you can't play whatever you want and win, is WAAC the only thing left? To be honest, I don't think there is an final conclusion I can reach, but I think if you define what it is you want out of your game time it will get you closer to finding your own answer.
Gaming communities are often too small to allow people to find decent-sized group of players with similar playstyles, and who they actually enjoy being around. I think it's important to decide if you want people who are on the same page as you in the real world, or in the game. Sometimes you can get lucky and find both, but since I'm generalizing I'm going to say that it's important to decide what you want and go find it.
I'll use myself as an example. I really want to get good at Warmachine. I listen to podcasts, watch battle reports, read tactica, etc. I have no desires to be a tournament player simply because I don't have time, but when I start doing my Coat of Paint Battle Reports (TL;DR battle reports where I paint a model for the winner) I want my games to be worth watching. I have a handful of people who will give me the sort of matches that will push me to my limits, but for the most part my group is pretty relaxed about their games.
That gives me two choices. I can use my one free night to go hang out with friends and maybe play a game or two, or I can go to my local shop and play with the tournament-calibre guys from Muse on Minis and the skilled players they've helped create. People in my group have become some of my best friends, so I choose to focus on the social aspect of gaming. I accept that competitive gaming will be a rarity for me, but finally knowing what I want out of gaming (games with friends, competitive if they're up for it) helps keep me grounded and willing to play any style of game.
However, I think I have it easier than those who identify themselves as "casual" simply because the games I'm looking for are more easily defined. If I say I want a competitive game that follows the rules, has exact measuring, etc., then my opponent knows what to expect. They may still struggle because of skill or their access to certain models, but at least they know what they're getting in to. But I also know that if I keep asking casual players for a competitive game, I'll soon only be left with 1 or 2 people who enjoy those games. So as with any friendship, I too need to be willing to play their preference and try to play an even, relaxed game.
But Only When Winning Doesn't Matter
All of this is based on the assumption that you're just playing games with friends. If your focus is on tournament play, then you need to find people with that same passion. Trying to encourage friends to be competitive is great, but if they aren't that type of player then it may be best to abandon the social aspect of gaming for the competitive side. You will probably find jerks you don't get along with, but just remember that they are in your life to make you a better player, not for you to invite out to lunch. As long as your focus is on the game, not the person, I think it will be a bit easier to deal with.
That gives me two choices. I can use my one free night to go hang out with friends and maybe play a game or two, or I can go to my local shop and play with the tournament-calibre guys from Muse on Minis and the skilled players they've helped create. People in my group have become some of my best friends, so I choose to focus on the social aspect of gaming. I accept that competitive gaming will be a rarity for me, but finally knowing what I want out of gaming (games with friends, competitive if they're up for it) helps keep me grounded and willing to play any style of game.
However, I think I have it easier than those who identify themselves as "casual" simply because the games I'm looking for are more easily defined. If I say I want a competitive game that follows the rules, has exact measuring, etc., then my opponent knows what to expect. They may still struggle because of skill or their access to certain models, but at least they know what they're getting in to. But I also know that if I keep asking casual players for a competitive game, I'll soon only be left with 1 or 2 people who enjoy those games. So as with any friendship, I too need to be willing to play their preference and try to play an even, relaxed game.
But Only When Winning Doesn't Matter
All of this is based on the assumption that you're just playing games with friends. If your focus is on tournament play, then you need to find people with that same passion. Trying to encourage friends to be competitive is great, but if they aren't that type of player then it may be best to abandon the social aspect of gaming for the competitive side. You will probably find jerks you don't get along with, but just remember that they are in your life to make you a better player, not for you to invite out to lunch. As long as your focus is on the game, not the person, I think it will be a bit easier to deal with.
Thanks and Such
And that's been my journey in gaming. I started casual and boring, I went WAAC and crazy, and now I think I've settled somewhere in the middle. Thanks to all of you who have given me so much to think about as I've written these. This certainly isn't where I'm planning to settle - who knows, a year from now I may have a completely different point of view on the subject I've spent all this time writing about! I'm human, and my opinion is prone to change as life shapes who I am.
If nothing else, I hope we can all be a bit more accepting of those with a different style than our own. Whatever game we play, our opponent is sitting across from us because we share a similar interest. So let's communicate, be open-minded, and give them the very best game we can!
More Where That Came From
If nothing else, I hope we can all be a bit more accepting of those with a different style than our own. Whatever game we play, our opponent is sitting across from us because we share a similar interest. So let's communicate, be open-minded, and give them the very best game we can!
More Where That Came From
For those who don't know, I committed myself to writing a gaming-related blog post every day for an entire year. They aren't all essays, I promise! I love sharing my interests with like-minded people, and blogging has been an excellent way to keep me connected with other gamers. If you want to join me on this year-long journey (and get in on my monthly giveaways!) be sure to like my Facebook page where I link my daily blog post.
See you tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment