David Sirlin is a renowned tournament winning video gamer who wrote a very interesting book entitled "Playing to Win". It's a series of articles that was consolidated into one book and published back in 2004.

Link to book: http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Win-Becoming-David-Sirlin/dp/1...

Here's the publisher's note:

"I wrote those articles in order to share the lessons of competition I learned from tournaments in fighting games like Street Fighter. Although I used examples from fighting games, I wrote the articles to be applicable to all gamers with examples from many different kinds of games.

Even within the realm of fighting games, each game has its own community. There are distinct communities for old-school Street Fighter, Marvel vs. Capcom 2, Capcom vs. SNK 2, Guilty Gear XX, Tekken, Soul Calibur, Virtua Fighter, and Super Smash Brothers Melee. Furthermore, I've peeked into communities of many other games such as Magic: The Gathering, chess, Counter-Strike, Puzzle Fighter, poker, Scrabble, and more. Each community tends to value its own game above all others and tends to ignore and be generally ignorant of the other communities. And yet I saw that all these communities were so similar at their core: they were all wrestling with the concepts of what "playing to win" really means. They all struggled over deciding which moves to ban from play and how to ban them. They struggled with concepts of "cheapness" and "honor."

The same arguments raged across the forums and online chats for every game, and even the same personalities were repeated in each community. These arguments stemmed from the basic problem that there are a few different worldviews about how to play competitive games, and no one was clearly voicing the worldview of the most powerful type of player: he who wields the power to win. Those who try to win are wildly misunderstood by the masses, and all sorts of negative things are ascribed to them. In fact, the journey of continual self-improvement that a winner must walk is good and right and true--but it's not for everyone, nor should it be.

The response to these articles was amazing. I've been contacted by hundreds of players of all sorts of games I've barely heard of. Links to the articles are posted all over the internet, often in forums of various gaming websites. Although the ideas always spark debate, almost every e-mail I've ever received on the subject has been of the form, "You've changed the way I think about games, thank you Sirlin." After the constant barrage of thanks I've gotten for years now, I finally decided to extend the material, flesh it out more fully, and organize it into one guide for all competitive gamers.

I start with the very basics of choosing a game and how to get familiar with it. I stress the importance of getting connected to the player community and building an environment for yourself that sets you up to succeed. I then give some advice on how to build up basic proficiency in a game.

Next is the tough section that's hard for people to swallow. The #1 thing holding back most players is purely mental. You must shed all the rules and limitations that exist in your head about how to play, and instead start using all legal moves available to you to win. You must also give up the ridiculous notion that other players should abide by the made-up rules in your head.

I then give my complete retelling of Sun Tzu's book, Art of War.e shifted his chapters around, omitted some, added a couple, and boiled it down to a few key concepts that apply to most competitive games. It's difficult to give actual strategy and tactics advice that would apply to almost any game, but there are valuable fundamentals here.

The next section is about formal competition and tournaments. Finally, I close with a discussion of the ethical issues that the very best players face. The power to win is fleeting, but when you have it you can do a fair amount with it. I can't tell you how exactly to handle the power, but I can lay out your options.

I've also noticed some massive misunderstandings about how to apply the lessons of competitive games to life in general. Some of these lessons do apply and some do not. That's not a topic I can rigorously define, but I do give some good pointers along the way.

I hope this guide will help you to walk the path of continuous self-improvement.

--Sirlin"

I listened to an interview he gave for a podcast I listen to regularly and a lot of what he said resonated because I, being a hardcore gamer, can relate to the type of strategies and methodologies he prescribed for those gamers who constantly lose.

It brought to mind a funny situation which arose before a gaming session my wife and I had with a good friend of mine and his wife. On the way to our house the two had been in the car chatting about gaming and my friend mentioned that "while we are playing a game, we aren't married." Ohhhhh the doodoo that put him in, but I the funny thing was when he said it I knew EXACTLY what he was talking about.

One thing that Sirlin talks about is a gamer subgroup he calls "scrubs". These are people that refuse to use known imbalances (some would call them exploits) because they feel it is against their own code of honor/moral ethics. Sirlin believes that this is a self-limiting factor which reduces that person's ability to fully appreciate a game. Instead, he recommends learning about these imbalances and then using them to your fullest advantage since the likelihood of you playing someone who has no scruples about using what inadequacies exist in the game system is high.

One thing which he mentions which really hit the spot was his arguments concerning the "winning strategy". Every game has them, every gaming community talks about them: these are game strategies that are considered the best way to find victory in a game. They are much like fads in that when these strategies become the norm for most gamers, the result is people have to learn the best way to counter that strategy which then can result in this new "best" strategy replacing the old.

After the game has been out awhile a collection of "best strategies" are developed (to give a boardgamegeek example: the best opening moves in Diplomacy and Axis and Allies) what then develops is a metagame where the psychological effects of habit emerge. For example, if my opponent opens with a familiar strategy then I will respond with the best known counter, but if my opponent opens with what seems like a familiar strategy, but then changes it slighty it would cause me to wonder what the heck he/she was doing and my response might not be as successful.

Sirlin explains that the fullest experience of a game is only really experienced by those who play it the most..the hardcore crown and that this gaming experiences manifests itself most strongly in the metagame that develops around it.

I see a lot of parrallels between the boardgaming community and the video game community on this issue and consider the metagame Sirlin describes as becoming even more important on the boardgame medium than it ever will be in the video with games like Shogun, Wallenstein, and Diplomacy resting almost entirely on it.

Anyways, thought this might be an interesting read. I've provided a link to the book at the top of the page. Check it out!

Here, I think, is where a very large and profound difference between video games and boardgames can be found.

Shedding what limitations exist in your head for a video game is all fine and well - the software will not permit you to do anything outside the rules defined by the programmer (assuming he is a competent coder).

However, in the case of boardgames, the rules and limitations are not self-enforcing, and not all rules are explicit. In what might be an odd revelation for your revered writer, a lot of the rules for boardgames are common sense and/or ethical in nature.

For instance, while the rules to most games do not state you cannot steal money from another player so long as you do not get caught, it is an unstated rule for nearly every, single boardgame involving money held by the players. In short, what cannot be done in a videogame (by virtue of the code) could, in fact, be done in a boargame, yet is no more a viable concept. It is not part of a "winning strategy". It is, instead, a good way to find yourself on your ass, outside the host's door.

I played a lot of games, in my twenties and thirties, with a fellow who - from the sound of it - pretty much epitomized the philosophy espoused in your quotes. That is to say, if there was no explicit rule against something in a boardgame, then he felt it completely legal to do whatever it was. This included deceit, component tampering, misrepresentation of resources, sleight-of-hand, and overwrought interpretation of the rules (and what the rules did not explicitly state). The only thing he achieved for the sum of his efforts was to inexorably be driven from the games in which he wanted to compete.

And yet in the realm of videogames, finding "holes" in the code (or cheats) is viewed in something of a different light, and understandably so.

It's one thing to cheat a computer. It's another thing altogether to cheat human beings, solely so you can claim the disputable (and disreputable) "victory".

Thanks for posting that! Unfortunately, I don't see the link to the book that you mentioned. Maybe I'm blind.

Anyways,


This is probably the best part to be taken out of that. I have been guilty myself of this many a time. I have lost several games, because I felt that the way for me to win was cheap. For those that don't already know, I am a huge Navia Dratp fan. In this game (based loosely on Shogi), there are three ways to win: Capture, Navia Goal, and Navia Dratp. I HATE winning by Navia Dratp, because I don't build my force to specifically do that. Which usually means that my opponent hasn't done much for me to spend my crystals on. Now I don't care if my opponent does this, because if their force is geared towards that, I want to try and stop it. But for me...well, it cheapens the win, so I avoid it at all cost. I want to capture the bastard.

I also had this problem with Magic. I hated losing to Lighting Bolts and Fireballs and such. At the store I used to go to while in college, I got so frustrated because everyone was playing that way,that I started a game night there, where you could not kill a person using direct damage. Lighting Bolts, Fireballs, Incinerates...you name it, was not allowed to be used against your opponent's life total. This is the biggest reason I couldn't stand tournament play. It cheapened the game, at least to me. I wanted to see creative play and card use, but most of the time I got hammered by multiple direct damage cards. When I finally did it their way, I did alright, but the games were no longer fun. So magic is not a game I play to win at ALL costs. I like to see what I can come up with that was unexpected.

In tournmanet play, and winning at all costs, I really believe he has the right of it. You have to ditch that kind of mental block...but then, are you really having fun doing that?

Yeah, we were playing a 'new' game the other day. And someone said 'it doesn't say in the rules you can't'. I looked at them and said 'it also doesn't say I can't reach over and take all you money, or take your piece off the baord and throw it at you head hoping to hit you in the eye blinding you' I really wanted to do the later when he had the gull to say that.

Darrell, nice post.


You are dead on with the difference between video and boardgames. In video...you just can't because of the code. In board...you can do whatever your ethics can handle. There is an honor code to board games that isn't needed in video games.

Can you imagine what war games would be like if you could do anything that wasn't stated? Or how big the rule books would have to be?

I play to win in either case, but in boardgames, it comes down to how satisfying winning in a certain way is. Most of the time I don't have these issues, but there are specific games, like Navia Dratp, where how I win matters a lot to me.

Stealing money in a game? Bad form. For me, unless it specifically says that you CAN do something, then assume that you cannot. An example would be Dragongold. One card says that you CAN steal, as long as you are not caught.

This is where we disagree. I don't consider the examples you mentioned (stealing money, modification of game pieces) to be considered legal moves. You are dead on that there are implicit rules that govern boardgame play and that these are just as important as the explicit ones given in the rule book.

What I'm railing against are those people who absolutely refuse to use a tactic/strategy simply because it's the prefered method for achieving victory and thereby limit themselves.

I disagree. In a sense, the "code" for a board games are the rules which govern the play. Situations not explicitly covered should be interpreted as not being allowed within the scope of the title, much in the same way actions not explicitly covered in a video game are bared from occurring.

"You must shed all the rules and limitations that exist in your head about how to play, and instead start using all legal moves available to you to win."



Lest us not overlook that the majority of what gets classified as "competitive" in video gaming circles involves other people just as much as in board gaming (online multiplayer experiences, ect). These exploits, as they're called in MMORPG and FPS circles, are symptomatic to any codified system - whether digital or otherwise. A shining example of board games where players routinely find exploits are FFG-esque adventure titles like Arkham Horror and Runebound.

Anyhow, my main point is the original author wants one to look past person definitions of ethical interaction to spice up the competitive arena, and I agree 100%. Ironically, I'm really not a self described competitive gamer - I often play games to experiment with technique. However, I always love a good challenge, so pulling punches where the rules don't dictate you should is never desirable. For example, I play Settler's with a very wholesome couple that refuses to ever intentionally play the robber on anybody else. If space is allowing, they would always rather place the robber in neutral territory than to play it against a friend. I personally make a large distinction between my persona in a game and my persona between mates, but not all people are willing to do such. I never cheat, but will use any legal tactic to win.

Every board game should contain the rule of COWTRA, which in fact is stated up front in the ASL rules.

Concentrate
On
What
The
Rules
Allow

and to finish the sentence in the rules...
"and not what they don't disallow"

I believe that a game can be played with the same intensity indicated by the book's author without resorting to downright cheating and abusing these common sense rules.

If you think the author is saying to go beyond the rules, then I think perhaps you are having trouble thinking outside the box.

So head-butting your opponent while playing a video game is ok? Because the programmer didn't prohibit this in the code?

The difference has nothing to do with the type of game, video or board. The difference has to do with the level of competitiveness the players bring to the console/table. The author is talking about competitions, probably where money is involved.

Anyway, this sounds like a very interesting book. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

"The goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important - not the winning" -Knizia

I would never play with anybody who intentionally exploits rules or strategies... and does the same thing without variation... just in order to win. Boardgaming is a storytelling, cooperative process. I had a non-gaming friend really drive this home when, after finishing (and winning) a game of Citadels, said "We should play at least one more turn so you guys can finish your buildings, too! I don't want to have the only completed citadel!" It was silly and we were already packing up, but really even though we were stabbing each other in the back and stealing from each other and exploiting each other in the worst possible ways, we were all collaborating in something bigger than just one person's victory.

This is why I can't understand people who say "losing in a 6 hour game is pure agony," like with a big FFG game or something. Even if I'm knocked out of the running it's still fun (for me at least) to build up my empire, or my kingdom. Like being Lannister in Game of Thrones, I've been chased to the edges of Westeros with no chance of survival, but I grabbed what land I had and built and swore to take my homeland back, and I never did and Baratheon won, but I tried and fought without reservation and was dragged through the muck for hours. But I tried.

End speech.

PS yeah, he's talking about competative play and I'm not. I just wanted to give my 2 cents about people who bring competative play to my game nights. I've experienced it rarely, but when I have.... it's just sad.

Perhaps I misunderstood the OP's angle. Then again, if anybody wants all participants in a game to "look past" a commonly-held set of definitions of ethical interaction, then I fail to see the difference between that, and illegal interaction.

I'm uneasy with what is being advocated, here. Trying to identify and remove what one person has for ethical considerations that falls outside the common set of ethical considerations? A slippery slope, I think.

If, instead, he's simply referring to a lack of "killer instinct" as it were, then this - again - presumes to make irrelevant the social context of the game. And - again - boardgames differ significantly from video games, in this respect. There is a social context in boardgaming, and to ignore it for the sake of "optimizing your chances of winning" is generally foolhardy.

I've read and own his book.

In the book he talks about cheating by doing things outside the game. His examples are things like punching the other guy while he's doing a combo in a Street Fighter game. There are also glitches in the game which make it freeze up and crash.

He's against both of those things because they are "outside the scope of the game". Making the game unplayable is not winning.

The same can be applied for boardgames. You can't steal money, or physically cheat because it's outside the scope of the game. If everyone did it to there fullest extent the game would turn into a fist fight for who can physically hold onto the most victory points.

Boardgames which have hidden information where cheating won't be detected by the other player just need a judge/ref when done at a tournament.

You can make almost any game tournament viable. Anyone cheating (doing this outside the scope of the game) gets tossed out.

If the rules don't state you can do something (even talk) then you can't do it. Obviously lots of games would need a page or two of clarification on things like talking and such. You just have to spell out the social contract.

What I see this author saying, is in a game of, say Carc., you should be jumping in on peoples' cities and farms, or in Settlers, placing the robber on someone, even if a 7 is rolled on the first turn. To me competitive cut-throat play is awesome...as long as you are not breaking any rules, written or common sense (like stealing money or moving tokens when no one is looking). I don't like to play games where we are just being social and who cares who wins.


I'm not exactly clear what this means. Can you give an example of this? Not being an ass with this, just asking if you can explain further.

I never minded playing against direct damage decks in M:TG, what I couldn't stand was playing against decks that were designed to not let you play.

Heavy counter-spell, land destruction, tap-em-alls, etc.

Yes, they are often winning decks but my 'meta-goal', above even winning, was to play M:TG and those deck was designed to NOT LET ME play.

Why would I want to play against a deck whose aim is to make me sit and watch the other person play?

But to the topic at hand, winning at all costs = self-improvement?

Poor, deluded soul.

In a tournament, yes, but when playing for fun the goal is fun not winning. And not just fun for you, but fun for all players. To have the attitude that anything goes, screw the other players, all that matters is that I win is a very self-centered, anti-social attitude.

Sure, you can be a jerk not just in games but in every aspect of your life. Its your perogative. But who wants to play/associate/do anything with people with that attitude?

Strategies: someone who plays War of the Ring and every time they are shadow player pounds DEW north with no variation or imagination. Someone who finds a "winning strategy" and just keeps doing that. Even if you can eventually figure out the counter, I play games to experiment and have a good time. Repetitive play makes games... repetitive.

That's the more minor one, though. The rules one is along the lines of rules lawyering. A classic example:

Heroscape, endgame, some dog thing versus one of the Deathwalkers. The dog thing can target a character every turn and on a 16+ (or something like that) with a d20 can freeze somebody for their whole turn. Deathwalkers have crazy amounts of defense dice but is only rolling three attack dice against the very healthy dog. The dog player rolls the dice and gets a 19. HURRAH! "Doesn't count," Deathwalker player says, "you have to declare the character you're using it against." "Well it's obvious I'm using it against the only character on the map." "No, it specifically says you have to declare who you're using it against. I'll let you re-roll after declaring, but only because I'm a nice guy."

This didn't even happen to me but it still pisses me off. It shows a lack of respect for the person you're playing against. So yeah, my opninion may not be popular (if you have a winning strategy and nobody can figure out how to stop it, why not use it?) but I would find a way not to play with somebody like that again. There are all sorts of variations on this, too. People who are super-strict about take-backs ("I'm playing this card" "Um that doesn't do anything for you and helps me a lot" "Oops, ignore that") are also high on my annoyance list. Again, this probably isn't a popular opinion but I play a very relaxed game, where the purpose is entertainment, not winning (even though you have to be trying to win or it doesn't work).

And no, I don't act bitchy about it when people don't abide by my strict rules of relaxation. I know if I go to a con people will play to win and I will do the same. Games can be fun that way, in small doses, once or twice a year. But I use board games to relax and enjoy life, and that kind of behavior in not conducive to relaxation in my mind.

Don't have any experience with it, but this is exactly the thing I'm trying to rail against. Thanks for the example Evan

I think this thread is divering from the path I originally intended it to tread. My argument is that successful gamers are people who play games (be in board or video) on an entirely different level than a casual gamer because, NOTE: while remaining within the boundaries/scope of the rules, they have enough experience with the game and are knowledgeable enough about the known strategies to win (some of which take advantage of game imbalances).

Let me give you an example: a very successful strategy in Puerto Rico is to rush for the Harbor or Wharf. In a lot of games the player(s) who receive these buildings first are generally placed in a position where their chances of winning the game are likely.

Another example: A few years ago when the Skaven army was first released by Games Workshop it was easily the most overpowered army in the whole game. The result? You saw tons and tons of skaven armies pop up in tournaments. It was a known winning strategy and it was abused because of that.

Yet another example: Chess is a game that has been played and replayed for generations. Whole books have been devoted to a discussion of strategies and unit combinations. Avid chess players who are very knowledgeable about the game can simply wipe the floor with a casual player fairly quickly, but whenever two proficient players come together who are both equally knowledgeable you then are able to view a game which is being played on a completely different level than two casuals. Moves assume an even greater role in feinting your opponent and the metagame I've described before takes center stage.

What the author is arguing is that there are people who intentionally choose to not use standard/known winning strategies simply because they consider those strategies to give an overly unfair advantage to the person who uses them which can make a perfectly legitimate strategy within the boundaries of the game seem almost like an exploit. It is this mindset which is self-defeating.

Instead, the author says to try out that strategy for yourself, learn it and by playing it you will also learn the weak points/counters for various methods within that strategy.

My point is that I don't play with people who consider it a "perfectly legitimate strategy" because my gaming experience goes beyond the "boundries of the game" to the "boundries of my social setting." I might try out a strategy to learn it and also learn weak points/counters (sometimes, but not often since I'd rather try out my own ideas) but in some cases (like in the DEW North strategy in original WotR) it's just a gamn good strategy. And if repeated enough, leads to a damn boring game. It may be self-defeating but only if the other people are playing with the sole purpose of winning, instead of playing the game to win but enjoying it no matter what.

I'm not saying my way is right, I just find your way detestable I'm sure a lot of people find my gaming philosophy detestable, too, since I'm a huge fan of kingmaking. We just have different gaming philosophies and I wanted to present mine, which is far removed from "by any means necessary." I'm going to stop beating my drum now

    Back when I was a professional boardgame player . . . hang on, I've never played professionally.

    Boardgaming is a hobby for me. I refuse to play for money. Same rule applies to billiards. People change the way they play when money enters the picture. The fun stops.

    The author is preaching the same thing that every other self-described "winner" preaches -- win at all costs. Steroids, cheating rules, technical edge, illegal information. If that's what it takes to make a living, then go for it. Don't get caught unless the penalty is small enough to bear.

    I'm playing for fun, and that doesn't rate compromising my personal ethics. Draw the line where you choose, but when the fun stops, the playing is pointless.

             Sag.

That's playing to win. The good-side player needs to develop a strategy to beat the DEW strategy. If DEW becomes beatable then deeper strategies emerge. You keep doing this.

If DEW is mathematically better than the game has been "solved" and unfortunately the game isn't very deep. You can keep playing tic tac toe even after solving it, but it's not going to be very fun.


The writer, Sirlin, won a championship game by only doing a single woosy kick move. He kept doing one dinky kick move because the other guy couldn't figure out how to beat it. He won that tournament. Later on they figured out a way to get around the woosy kick and the gameplay evolved.


Because somebodies better at the game you won't play with them? So, you're not supposed to use winning strategies?


Chess wouldn't be nearly as deep, and brain burning if take backs where allowed.

You can choose to be bad at games if it makes you feel better.


That last comment I made is kinda harsh.

Why avoid playing with people who are better at winning? I'll point out that playing to win doesn't mean being a jerk. People who actually want to play the best game possible help each other out with strategies while playing (well not during a tournament). They test tactics out, and talk about strategies after the game. By helping the people you play with get better you're giving yourself better competition, which forces you to play better yourself.

The goal isn't to because a grumpy rules lawyer who exploits things so he can have the glory of relieving his inferiority complex. The goal is to have everybody playing in their top form, so the action is more exciting and challenging.

You can always introduce a handicap system if somebody is learning (like "Go").

I think you're mixing up rules-lawyers and hard-cases with friendly competitive play.

Here's an interview with the author since I think he explains this better than I can:

http://tales.tsncentral.com/podpress_trac/web/159/0/Tales_of...

Go to 43 minutes, 30 seconds in for the interview with Sirlin.

Here is his website: http://www.sirlin.net/

Note: he does mention that you shouldn't "play to win" every time as that can lead to burn out. I probably should have mentioned that back in the OP.

Another Note: Interesting parallel discussion going on here about this topic: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/162242

Why does the fun stop when money enters the picture? If it's enough money to effect there life then it becomes work, and adds stress. Work and stress aren't fun. If the "money" is just a prize to say you are the best then the players attitudes shouldn't change.

He doesn't "preach" cheating, or illegal information (whatever that means). Steroids are a poor subject because baseball is retarded with there rules for it's use. "make a living"... we're talking about boardgames.

It shouldn't stop being fun when the players try to win the game. The whole goal of the game is to win. The goal of playing the game is to have fun. Goal of Play = Fun. Goal of Game = Win. Goal of Playing the Game = Have fun trying to win.

Trying to win is a built in part of playing games. Obviously you're trying to win at least a little bit. The point the author is trying to make is that lots of people put artificial rules into the game based upon a social contract. The social contract is never talked about, so when somebody breaks one of the made up rules the player gets mad.

If you're going to remove viable strategies from the game, then be upfront about the rules you want changed. House rules should be clear and up front.

I think some people have gotten a bad taste for competition. Maybe a few to many poor sports who yell and whine when they lose or their team isn't doing what they want spoiled some peoples view of competing.

You don't have to be a jerk to play your best. In fact, in order to get better you need people to play with who are good at the game. The best way to do this is to be friendly and help them get better too.

The thing is that the topic of the book and the article is TOURNAMENTS.

To apply those attitudes of 'all I care about is winning, I don't care whether its fun for other people or not' to casual play is not really appropriate.

If you are playing other serious players who want to be seriously tested, then fine.

But if you take tournament attitudes into a casual game where people's overall goal is to have fun more than winning, they don't be surprised when people consider you a jerk.

what a great example of how to reply when some twit uses the 'it doesn't say in the rules you can't'

i must remember that

I'm not seeing how trying to win is the opposite of having fun.

How do you go about "having fun more than winning"?

Why are you being a jerk by playing the game your best?

I'd like to thank the original poster for the link to the book. I will have to check it out since I find I have strong opinions on this issue.
Second, I notice a little back and forth about gaming philosophies so I thought I would chime in.

I will state right off I play to win. I do not cheat to win. There is a big distinction. Within each game, I look to make moves that will lead me to win the game. That information comes from the rules of the game itself and from what my opponents are doing.

Furthermore, I want to play against other players who are trying to do the same thing. I enjoy the games themselves. I enjoy developing and testing strategies and tactics. Some of the best game experiences I have had have been loses where I was playing to win but was simply beaten by a superior player (A late night game of Age of Steam at BBG Con comes to mind).

I have no problem with people who want to sit at the gaming table and do something else; I just want to know so that I can game at another table. The other things I have encountered include: people who want to have something to do with their hands while they talk, people who want a storytelling experience (and thus will not make moves that are not thematic), people who don't want to come in last and therefore target whomever is second to last, people who carry grudges from other games or real life and therefore target certain people regardless of the game situation, etc.

A problem develops when two or more people are doing the same thing (gaming) with contrasting purposes in mind. If, for instance, you want to play in a casual "we don't care who wins" sort of way and play against me, we will both hate the experience. So, what I think is important is to clearly define the goal since it seems that when different people say "I want to play a game" they mean very different things.