"I don't play to win, I play for fun"

[Grimbad]

You see this is exactly part of the problem. Many "fluff players" like to demonize competitive players. And make sweeping statements that imply they all exploit game mechanics. When this is simply not true. Calling them fluff players is in itself a misnomer.
...
Bottom line is. This difference between fluffy and competitive players is imaginary. The difference is in the amount of effort you want to put into your game. You want to enjoy an afternoon of drinking, eating pretzels and flicking dice across the board without having too think to hard about your list or how you play it? Pick the models you like, or just happen to have and go at it. Or run a straightforward netlist if your opponent wants to give it all he's got. You want to test your abilities, give it 110%, or try and find the absolute limit of a particular build? Then get to planning, think 2 steps ahead, and never surrender. If your opponent isn't looking for that kind of challenge then don't be afraid to try something new and unexpected and see what you can learn from it.

And now you're claiming that fluff players just aren't putting effort into the game. Well, actually, you're just saying fluff players as a group don't exist, but then you're re-categorizing those players into the category of 'not trying hard'. There's no reason at all to associate fluffy gaming with casual gaming. That's like saying people who play dungeons and dragons aren't as committed as people who play starcraft. Yeah, both of those have casual and competitive communities, but you get my point. They're playing different games.

I've been enjoying some games of Necromunda lately. Necromunda is undeniably and unavoidably a narrative-focused game. Does this mean I'm playing it casually? No, it means that I'm playing Necromunda. And the fluffier that campaign gets- and Necromunda starts fluffy and gets fluffier- the more effort we put into it. Because the logical progression, as the rulebooks suggest, is having a GM running the campaign, devising scenarios, arbitrating third party units in the game, and so on. Certainly more work for someone. And as for the players, they often have to literally play at 110%, because 10% of your gang got sick harvesting fungi or whatever.

And I still think that's the best way to play 40k, too. You're free to disagree, and there's no problem with that, because you're probably playing a different game than I am. And maybe sometime I'll be at a games store and play against a player like yourself, and it would be half this, half that, and there would be no problem with that, either.

[Xerkics]

Essentially in my opinion main problem is that a lot of so callef competitive players i came across are massively unpleasant individuals , im sure a lot of people had similar experience putting them off playing in comp games. However if your a decent human being who is willing to plair fair and treat yoyr opponent with respect it doesnt matter whetjer you run a fluffy or power build as fun will be had on both sides. Unfortunately this isnt always the case. And yes you will be called a scrub to your face if you say you play for fun. It does happen.

[SacredCow]

Essentially in my opinion main problem is that a lot of so callef competitive players i came across are massively unpleasant individuals , im sure a lot of people had similar experience putting them off playing in comp games. However if your a decent human being who is willing to plair fair and treat yoyr opponent with respect it doesnt matter whetjer you run a fluffy or power build as fun will be had on both sides. Unfortunately this isnt always the case. And yes you will be called a scrub to your face if you say you play for fun. It does happen.

People who play competitively get all sorts of labels as well. Fluff players are not alone in this.

[BrainFireBob]

This exact statement can be slapped onto anything that people play competitively.

Simple facts - GW holds tournaments. People take part in these tournaments. There is a competitive aspect to the game.

The reasons for this are irrelevant. If a competition is being held, there is a competition taking place. As I previously stated, whether these competitions are balanced or not is a completely different debate.



That is the fault of those in charge of playtesting. It is unfair to hold the player accountable for an error made by GW, especially when most of the errors people claim to be in existence are completely subjective with some just being downright biased. If everyone were allowed to go through their opponents armybook and zero what they felt was overpowered then each codex would become very small indeed. Some would completely disappear. Every game I've ever played bears the same problems with some choices being obviously weak or too strong.



So we've gone from being judgmental to passive-aggressive. When your examples include "power" gamers cheating and exploiting, that is precisely what you're claiming. A guilty conscience has nothing to do with it.



I'm not surprised when people suggest I'm playing the game in a way it isn't intended. In turn, they shouldn't be surprised when I think they have absolutely no right to decide how the game should be played for anyone other than themselves. If the person you play with is a jerk, don't game with them. If they have a different standard they follow to have fun in the game then you should try respecting that person and not smugly thinking to yourself, "It's too bad they don't know what the REAL intent of this game is."

No passive aggressive. You have taken offense by injecting your own tone, at a guess, into what I wrote, and are responding aggressively to it.

As another posted said, you have categorized casual gamers into "not trying hard". Frankly, the fact you don't even seem to notice indicates that you are not looking at this debate objectively, and you're pushing the opposite bias onto me because that's what you are setting yourself to argue against- not what I actually wrote.

it's like someone from a conservative area claiming that conservatives are so oppressive culturally, forcing you to conform- the opposite side does that in liberal dominated areas. It's not that liberals or conservatives are more likely to pressure you to socially conform- it's the the dominant group in any area is, and it's grossly imperialistic to assume your local meta equals the meta everywhere at all points.

[Konovalev]

And now you're claiming that fluff players just aren't putting effort into the game. Well, actually, you're just saying fluff players as a group don't exist, but then you're re-categorizing those players into the category of 'not trying hard'. There's no reason at all to associate fluffy gaming with casual gaming. That's like saying people who play dungeons and dragons aren't as committed as people who play starcraft. Yeah, both of those have casual and competitive communities, but you get my point. They're playing different games.

I've been enjoying some games of Necromunda lately. Necromunda is undeniably and unavoidably a narrative-focused game. Does this mean I'm playing it casually? No, it means that I'm playing Necromunda. And the fluffier that campaign gets- and Necromunda starts fluffy and gets fluffier- the more effort we put into it. Because the logical progression, as the rulebooks suggest, is having a GM running the campaign, devising scenarios, arbitrating third party units in the game, and so on. Certainly more work for someone. And as for the players, they often have to literally play at 110%, because 10% of your gang got sick harvesting fungi or whatever.

And I still think that's the best way to play 40k, too. You're free to disagree, and there's no problem with that, because you're probably playing a different game than I am. And maybe sometime I'll be at a games store and play against a player like yourself, and it would be half this, half that, and there would be no problem with that, either.

You repeated this but then posted like you never read it: This difference between fluffy and competitive players is imaginary. The difference is in the amount of effort you want to put into your game. I then go on to give some examples of how a so called fluff players and so called competitive players can be on either sides of the level of effort.

So what's wrong with "not trying hard"? You're post implies there's something wrong with it. Let's run with your example. D&D. There exist D&D players who just want to experience the story the game is telling. Maybe they want to be a dwarf paladin with a focus on agility, speed, dual wielding, and lightweight equipment which is clearly at odds with what that class/race combination is good at. So are they "trying hard", by not giving much consideration to what their character is good at and how the game is designed? No they're not, and who's to say there's anything wrong with that? There also exists D&D players who want more control of their contribution to the story. They might select a race, class, assign stats and equipment, and multiclass to give themself every possible ability achieve what they want to achieve. The DM might present this players party with a room whose only other exit is north but this player wants to go east. He has his character specced, for brute force, knows how his feats and stats synergise, so he says I want to try and break down the wall to the east.

Notice how in D&D there are no "fluffy" or "competitive" players. There's background to the game of course, but ultimately you, the player, are the story. And your struggles, successes and failures great and small are also the story. 40k is the same way. A tyranid hive fleet attacked maccrage. Well that was then and this is now, I want marneus calgar popping firewarrior skulls with his fists. He's not locked forever in eternal conflict with the relentless swarmlord on the snowy poles of maccrage. His story is forged by the player.

Frankly, the fact you don't even seem to notice indicates that you are not looking at this debate objectively, and you're pushing the opposite bias onto me because that's what you are setting yourself to argue against- not what I actually wrote.

I'd like to take a moment and point out the irony of this, where you seem to have forgotten who you are even speaking to.

It was I! Konovalev! Who has been accused of categorizing casual gamers into "not trying hard".

[ColShaw]

"Trying hard" is disingenuous, as it's being used here.

To continue the roleplaying game analogy, developing a character and working on telling a good, compelling story can be trying every bit as hard as trying to make a character as tough as possible.

In RPGs, claiming people who don't make their characters as killy as they can are "not trying hard" is even less forgivable than in leveling that statement on players of wargames. Because in RPGs, the point is not to "beat" the game, unless the players make it the point.

It's not a question of putting less effort into the game, it's a question of putting effort into different aspects of it. Painting and modeling, for example, require a great deal of effort and skill to do well. So does wiping enemy forces clean off the table.

[Konovalev]

"Trying hard" is disingenuous, as it's being used here.

Exactly why I called the poster out on it.

"To continue the roleplaying game analogy, developing a character and working on telling a good, compelling story can be trying every bit as hard as trying to make a character as tough as possible.

And so such a player would also fall into the greater effort end of the spectrum.

"In RPGs, claiming people who don't make their characters as killy as they can are "not trying hard" is even less forgivable than in leveling that statement on players of wargames. Because in RPGs, the point is not to "beat" the game, unless the players make it the point.

It has nothing to do with being killy and everything to do with the level of interaction with the system. The aforementioned character will require concessions from the DM and/or simplifications of aspects of the game in order to "work". Because not "working" means the character crashes and burns.

"It's not a question of putting less effort into the game, it's a question of putting effort into different aspects of it. Painting and modeling, for example, require a great deal of effort and skill to do well. So does wiping enemy forces clean off the table.

We're not talking about other aspects of the hobby though. The thread is about playing, not painting or building or converting. You can have a player whose primary interest is in crashing his units to the enemy for bloody melees, his army forgoing shooting almost entirely, and sending his grunts in to get butchered by some towering monstrosity just because it would be amazing to watch. His models can be painted immacuately, or not at all. Likewise you can have a player who runs a necron list with units that will keep the game under night fight for as many turns as possible, triarch stalkers twin-linking phaeron lead gauss fire, Flayed ones piggybacking enemy deepstrikers, and triarch praetorian with counter-attack baiting an assault. Again his models could be painted beautifully or proxied with space marines.

[Egaeus]

Notice how in D&D there are no "fluffy" or "competitive" players. There's background to the game of course, but ultimately you, the player, are the story. And your struggles, successes and failures great and small are also the story. 40k is the same way. A tyranid hive fleet attacked maccrage. Well that was then and this is now, I want marneus calgar popping firewarrior skulls with his fists. He's not locked forever in eternal conflict with the relentless swarmlord on the snowy poles of maccrage. His story is forged by the player.

But there are different sorts of players in RPGs...there are the "fluffy" players who care more about character concept, personality and motivations than about the actual numbers. And then there are the "powergamers" who look to min/max their stats and abilities for whatever purpose (most damage, biggest skill bonus, etc.). Now it's true that it's possible to have a wide spectrum in a single player (someone who actually cares about character concept and motivation but still wants the "baddest" character they can create) but I believe the general perception is that if you actually care about one aspect more than another then you tend to focus on it to the detriment of other aspects. So the "min/maxers" focus on that part of the game and really don't put much effort into developing a strong "character".

And the other funny thing to point out is that even in RPGs there are occasionally classes or builds that are considered to be "broken"...and this is in games with a Game Master who has ultimate say in what is allowable in their campaign and where players are [usually] working together rather than in direct opposition.

Yeah, but Vulkan gives my Ultramarines much better rules, so obviously he is the "fluffier" choice to lead my army! Not really, just trying to make a point.

I suppose one of the other issues I've always had is that many units have variable effectiveness against different targets so it really depends heavily on your meta what are considered "strong" units...so units that should be included in a "fluffy" army are ignored because they aren't powerful against everything, and if they aren't powerful against what you usually face they will also be disfavored. And this leads to the idea of "only a few good units" in a particular Codex. Of course at other times it is simply poor pricing, internal balance or choices of rules by GW. In theory, nothing should really be "bad" but if it is far too situational then it will be passed over in favor of more consistent choices.

Although I've always thought that in some ways this was part of GW's concept of balance...you have some "overly good" units and some "not so good" units. If you take a mix you have a "balanced" army. But since you aren't required to take what you consider the "bad" units (even if you should because they're "fluffy") then you end up with the "overpowered" lists.

[Grimbad]

You repeated this but then posted like you never read it: This difference between fluffy and competitive players is imaginary. The difference is in the amount of effort you want to put into your game. I then go on to give some examples of how a so called fluff players and so called competitive players can be on either sides of the level of effort.

You stated that the difference was level of effort, and then backed up with examples which very plainly identified the competitive players as giving the most effort they could while providing no obvious examples of fluff players at all. I assumed the guys eating pretzels and playing without thinking too hard were meant to be fluff players, but if I misinterpreted that and they're supposed to be competitive, sorry. Anyways, the way I read your examples, it looked very much like you were identifying competitive as effort and fluff as thoughtless.
There's nothing wrong with casual play, but, again in the way I interpreted your post, there is something wrong with dismissing all fluff players as casual and identifying all competitive players as hardcore. If you didn't mean to do that, then I have no problem.

I don't think that's entirely a correct way to look at it, though, dividing into levels of effort. Because a 110% effort competitive player and a 110% effort fluff player aren't going to enjoy their games together. I'd make those two axes of a chart if I were making a map of player preferences. I guess then level of hobby could be the z axis...

[SacredCow]

No passive aggressive. You have taken offense by injecting your own tone, at a guess, into what I wrote, and are responding aggressively to it.

You said...

"But that army sucks. This one that exploits a rules loophole works better"

How is the guy who is knowingly exploiting not aware he's exploiting? Confuses the heck out of me.

How is this not an attempt to call out "power" gamers as people who exploit rules? Seems pretty clear to me. People who exploit loopholes and exploits are cheating. There is a vast difference between a "power" gamer and a cheater. For the record, I would also like to point out I haven't taken offense. I just don't agree with you.

As another posted said, you have categorized casual gamers into "not trying hard". Frankly, the fact you don't even seem to notice indicates that you are not looking at this debate objectively, and you're pushing the opposite bias onto me because that's what you are setting yourself to argue against- not what I actually wrote.

In no way shape or form have I advocated that people should change the way they play. I am firmly in the "don't tell anyone the way they like to play is wrong" camp. I entered the discussion to dispute the claim that "power" gamers are a bunch of cheaters and elitists. I never grouped casual gamers into a group that doesn't try too hard. If you intend on accusing me of not reading your posts, I would suggest you also read mine.

it's like someone from a conservative area claiming that conservatives are so oppressive culturally, forcing you to conform- the opposite side does that in liberal dominated areas. It's not that liberals or conservatives are more likely to pressure you to socially conform- it's the the dominant group in any area is, and it's grossly imperialistic to assume your local meta equals the meta everywhere at all points.

Which is exactly what you are doing by suggesting people are playing the game in a way that is not intended (I have not surmised this, you have clearly stated it multiple times). That is the imperialistic view. I believe people should play the game in whatever manner they find the most fun. If you are playing with a regular group, it is best to discuss what every person wants to get out of the game and try to assure each person has an equal say in their own meta. I am not making any assumptions about any other meta based on my own.

[Aluinn]

It's probably been said, but my main problem with statements phrased in the form of the hypothetical quoted by the OP (which I've heard spoken and written verbatim before, plenty of times), is that if you aren't playing a wargame to win--unless it's a historical and the purpose is to recreate a historical battle, or you're essentially roleplaying and using the wargame as rules for combat within that context--then you're not really playing it at all. The defined purpose of 40K, Fantasy, Warmahordes, etc., in terms of what you do during the game, is to win. Everyone is either playing to win or they're playing something that was entirely not intended by the designers of these games, or at least was far from their primary goal.

In other words, these are competitive games, and zero-sum games as well. The statement "I don't play to win" makes sense when you're talking about D&D or other tabletop RPGs, because those are not zero-sum games and the goal of them is not to "win"--there is in fact no real condition for winning in the vast majority of them. Wargames are different. If you don't want to play a competitive strategy game, my recommendation would be to stay away from wargames and find something that suits your purpose better. For example, if you love 40K models and backstory, but don't want to play a competitive game, Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and other FFG publications allow you to play non-competitive games where the goal is to create a fully-realized character, develop that character, and, um, not die, whilst participating in a narrative, within the same setting and using some of the same models if you like.

Simply put, competitive strategy games do not work when one party isn't doing their darnedest to win, for the most part, because this causes them to lose the strategy aspect and that's a core part of what they are explicitly meant to be. For example, if an Ork player charges blindly forward with the full expectation that this will cause them to lose the game, knowing what they do, because "Orks would do that" (and indeed they might), it is no longer a strategy game but a sort of abortive, incomplete, and quite likely un-fun for the other party/parties (who are not being challenged to think tactically, and are confronted with a foregone conclusion) roleplaying ... thing.

Of course this all comes in degrees and on a sliding scale. If our hypothetical Ork player above was generally doing their best to win, but decided at a certain point in the game to charge even though running the Boyz away from danger seemed like it might be optimal from a pure gaming perspective, that's a little different.

But the main point is, the explicit goal of the game (40K in this case, extending to many others) is to win. There are victory conditions and the game is designed at every stage with the assumption that each player will be doing their best to achieve those, and to whatever extent the designers/developers include elements that are intended to create a fun experience, it is within this paradigm, for the most part (discounting fluff). Throwing it aside completely really turns the game to a purpose that it does not well serve, and there's no excuse when there are many games out there (RPGs, generally) that are explicitly intended to serve the purpose in question, which could just as easily (and more cheaply) be played instead.

EDIT: To be clear I think we should distinguish this issue from building fluffy army lists, which I regard as a good way (along with converting, naming, and writing backstories for your characters) to bring a bit of roleplaying into competitive wargaming. The reasons this is such a totally different thing are twofold: First, one can attempt to build the most competitive list possible within the constraints they impose upon themselves in list building, for fluff purposes, and this is still competitive list-building; second, though there's a case to be made that list-building is "part of the game", not building the strongest possible list has nowhere near such a deleterious effect on the gaming experience as not playing to win once a game has commenced, and one can certainly play to win with a fluffy list, even though they may be at a disadvantage against some opponents. The alternative I was writing about above is tantamount to throwing a game; using a sub-optimal fluff list is not that at all.

[Gingerwerewolf]

Notice how in D&D there are no "fluffy" or "competitive" players. There's background to the game of course, but ultimately you, the player, are the story. And your struggles, successes and failures great and small are also the story. 40k is the same way. A tyranid hive fleet attacked maccrage. Well that was then and this is now, I want marneus calgar popping firewarrior skulls with his fists. He's not locked forever in eternal conflict with the relentless swarmlord on the snowy poles of maccrage. His story is forged by the player.

Sorry dude but Ive got to disagree. As and old school D&D player Ive got to say that 4th edition bred players who are exactly that: power gamers. They work out the Best Build for a class and they stick to it. Cookie cutter.

Its the reason why I stopped playing 4th ed D&D as it felt like theyd made WoW the board game.

I played D&D for roleplay. For the interactions and emotional input not how quickly I can splat a beholder.

And I guesd thats why I more interested in stories and characterisation of armies and the imagery of finally getting my fully painted army with acres of background out, that may this one time win...

[Grimbad]

It's probably been said, but my main problem with statements phrased in the form of the hypothetical quoted by the OP (which I've heard spoken and written verbatim before, plenty of times), is that if you aren't playing a wargame to win--unless it's a historical and the purpose is to recreate a historical battle, or you're essentially roleplaying and using the wargame as rules for combat within that context--then you're not really playing it at all. The defined purpose of 40K, Fantasy, Warmahordes, etc., in terms of what you do during the game, is to win. Everyone is either playing to win or they're playing something that was entirely not intended by the designers of these games, or at least was far from their primary goal.

You'll find that Games Workshops' wargames originated very much within the concept of historical/roleplaying wargaming, with a 3rd-party GM devising scenarios and refereeing rules. I don't know as much about WHFB, but in Second Edition 40k, we have decks of cards that form a sort of mechanical GM, giving each side a mission and some plot twists. This was cut out for Third as the game got simplified, but the fact is that people still do play campaigns and develop narratives between themselves and their immediate circle of gaming buddies that take their games out of the default win-or-lose state, and that GW continues to encourage it. In cases like that, the goal might not in fact be to win the game as the rules define it, but to complete an ulterior objective like killing the enemy leader so they don't return in future games or just wiping out the newly painted unit your friend is so proud of. And the game doesn't suffer for it.

Throwing out competition completely does turn the game into something it's not meant to be. Throwing out narrative completely does turn the game into something it's not meant to be. These can both be true.

[Delicious Ron]

Long post

First I don't like the term "play to win" because everyone is playing to win, even the most casual player tries to win. As someone said before me "The objective of the game is to win, but the goal is to have fun" is an more apt description for those who play "casually".

Secondly, telling people to stay away from wargames if they aren't competitive-minded sounds dumb to me, I would rather say competitive players should stay out of wargames and stick to video games where the designers at least try to balance the game. GWs front-line wargames are notorious for not being balanced or even trying to be balanced. On the whole these wargames are so much more then a competitive chess game, with all the time you spend on customizing and making your army your own, the extensive backstories and such.