Fun Or Competitive?

[Bartmanhomer]

Are you a type of person who enjoyed having fun at any type of game or are you a type of person with a competitive personality who like to win at any type of game? I'm a type of person who always play competitive at any type of game (including Dungeons and Dragons).

[lunaticfringe]

Fun, definitely fun. I've thrown games when playing with really poor losers (mostly MTG).

[Bartmanhomer]

Fun, definitely fun. I've thrown games when playing with really poor losers (mostly MTG).

What's MTG stands for?

[Winter_Wolf]

Magic the Gathering, I'd bet.

I'm competitive, but I'm not particularly keen on that personality trait. It's not like I set out to do it, but it kicks in anyway. My best friends are also pretty competitive, so we can end up in a pretty heated game easily. Somewhat strange, I'm also the voice of reason in situations where we're not competing against each other. We got each other's backs.

If you're not a part of that small group, though, probably playing with/against me isn't going to be a super fun experience.

[Knaight]

These aren't in any way opposed. I like to have fun, and I also like to win.

[Anteros]

These things are not mutually exclusive.

[Starwulf]

These things are not mutually exclusive.

They can be if you take the competitive part too far, which I've seen a lot of people do over the course of my life. It may still be technically fun for THEM, but with how they behaved, I can guarantee you it was not fun for anyone else involved.

Myself, I'm a mix of both, or at least, I was when I could do things that involved being competitive(I don't play any video games that can you can be "competitive" in). Like, when I was younger I was a top-notch duckpin bowler. I loved bowling, I also loved winning and being the absolute best(I have like...100+ trophies to prove it, lol). I also had a friend who was in the above-mentioned category. He was nearly(a few pins difference usually) as good of a bowler as I was, but the moment he faltered, the moment he had a bad frame or two, POOF, angry friend came out, and he would start yelling, and getting mad about every little thing.

He actually cost us a major tournament between 20 other bowling alleys from 10 states. We lost by 1 damn pin, and I can safely say it's his fault, he got really angry in the 5th or 6th frame of the last game because he guttered on a strike, and then missed a spare the next frame. After that he started just winging the ball as hard as he could and not caring about where he aimed it at all. It actually wasn't even me that pointed out how it was his fault, it was the team that beat us, at the awards ceremony the next week(I was the only one invited from my team, because I had the highest game, set, and over-all average for the entire tournament). The entire 1st place team came up to me and said "You know man, your team should have won, your friend just got too pissed off and collapsed at the end".

[Bartmanhomer]

They can be if you take the competitive part too far, which I've seen a lot of people do over the course of my life. It may still be technically fun for THEM, but with how they behaved, I can guarantee you it was not fun for anyone else involved.

Myself, I'm a mix of both, or at least, I was when I could do things that involved being competitive(I don't play any video games that can you can be "competitive" in). Like, when I was younger I was a top-notch duckpin bowler. I loved bowling, I also loved winning and being the absolute best(I have like...100+ trophies to prove it, lol). I also had a friend who was in the above-mentioned category. He was nearly(a few pins difference usually) as good of a bowler as I was, but the moment he faltered, the moment he had a bad frame or two, POOF, angry friend came out, and he would start yelling, and getting mad about every little thing.

He actually cost us a major tournament between 20 other bowling alleys from 10 states. We lost by 1 damn pin, and I can safely say it's his fault, he got really angry in the 5th or 6th frame of the last game because he guttered on a strike, and then missed a spare the next frame. After that he started just winging the ball as hard as he could and not caring about where he aimed it at all. It actually wasn't even me that pointed out how it was his fault, it was the team that beat us, at the awards ceremony the next week(I was the only one invited from my team, because I had the highest game, set, and over-all average for the entire tournament). The entire 1st place team came up to me and said "You know man, your team should have won, your friend just got too pissed off and collapsed at the end".

Dang! I'miss so sorry that you'be to experience this poor sportsmanship with your teammate.

[valadil]

Honestly, I can do either. What I don't enjoy is when the group playing can't decide if it's for fun or for competition.

[Aedilred]

While it's perfectly possible to combine having fun and wanting to win, often wanting to win can get in the way of fun. Certainly if you're all about the winning, it can get in the way of everybody else having fun. I'm sure we all know at least one person who is so focussed on winning that they ruin the game for everyone (and a clue: if you think you don't know someone like that, that person may be you).

I don't think anybody likes to lose, but if given a choice between winning and the game being as much fun for everyone as possible, I'll at least try to prioritise fun.

[Bartmanhomer]

While it's perfectly possible to combine having fun and wanting to win, often wanting to win can get in the way of fun. Certainly if you're all about the winning, it can get in the way of everybody else having fun. I'm sure we all know at least one person who is so focussed on winning that they ruin the game for everyone (and a clue: if you think you don't know someone like that, that person may be you).

I don't think anybody likes to lose, but if given a choice between winning and the game being as much fun for everyone as possible, I'll at least try to prioritise fun.

That'a true. People don't like to lose. I don't mind losing a few games every now and then and if I losses many games I'll get very upset.

[Corlindale]

I'm not that competetitive usually, though it depends a bit on the game.

In most physical sports, I always had a very defeatist attitude. I didn't care if our team won, I just wanted to make it through with getting a football in the face or embarassing myself.

Even now that I've taken up running, I don't obsess over race times and compare myself to others, I just try to increase my distances and improve myself as much as possible.

In competitive boardgames and videogames I do want to win, but in many games I really like I think it's just as fun to try out strategies and see them play out (especially the case with Dominion, one of my favourite games).

I also really like Catastrophe Games, where half the fun of the game lies in failing spectularly. I've played Spelunky for about 40 hours, I've died 600+ times and I've never actually completed it. I still love it

My favourite tabletop games are actually cooperative games. First and foremost PF/D&D, but also Arkham Horror and Betrayal at House on the Hill (although the latter is of course only semi-cooperative). I do want to contribute in these games, but I don't set out to be more powerful than everyone else and I usually like to play support characters. If my character hits a string of bad luck, I tend to just laugh it off (although if it persists I might start to feel a bit upset).

[factotum]

While it's perfectly possible to combine having fun and wanting to win, often wanting to win can get in the way of fun.

It depends how you define "winning". If to win means "I personally defeated the Big Bad and everyone else in the team stood slack-jawed at my uberness" then yes, the others in your team aren't likely to have much fun with you around. If to win means "my team wins and I contributed meaningfully toward that goal" then it's entirely compatible with having fun, so long as you're not riding everyone else to do better.

Personally? I like to win, but fighting against impossible odds can still be fun...it'll just be horribly disappointing when your inevitable defeat happens.

[tensai_oni]

I like competetive play in games where it belongs. Most tabletop roleplaying isn't them.

I need to ask the question, who are you competing against? The game master? Other players?

Competing against the game master is pointless because if both of you really are playing to "beat" each other, the players can't win. You'll just face an impossible to win scenario or die immediately from falling rocks or something. Tabletop RP is done with assumption, an agreement of sorts - that the game master will provide a challenge that may be easier or harder, but that is supposed to be "fair". As in, the players either are capable of beating it (will they is another thing entirely), or are supposed to run away from it but in the end will face a scenario they can overcome. That is not competetive, that is collaborative.

Likewise if you're competing against other players then it becomes an exercise in hogging all the spotlight, or just outright PvP. The former is annoying and unfun and the latter is actually the point of specific systems or games - but usually it isn't. The players are supposed to work together, not against each other.

And I second what a lot of other posters said. Fun and competetive are not mutually exclusive. All those online competetive games, Overwatch, Hearthstone, World of Tanks/Warships/whatever? They're fun for at least some people - otherwise who'd be playing them?

BTW winning is not the same as playing competetively. Let's take an MMO as an example. You go raiding with other people, face a difficult dungeon, but everyone worked hard and had good gear/builds so you prevailed and won. Was that competetive? No, it was collaborative. It's not competetive just because players worked for it or had optimized builds/strategy. It just means they were willing to put in effort.

[Quild]

Both.
Not only am I competitive, but I am also over-competitive! I still can have fun without winning.

I enjoy:
- Improving (I'm a lootwhore in video games (but I earn my loots))
- Good teamplay (then losing does not ruin the game if the teamplay is enjoyable, winning is of course better)
- Single-handedly defeating a team despite bad teamplay

Thus, I hate:
- Retrogress (not being able to do something I already managed to do in the past)
- Losing because of bad teamplay (even if good teamplay wouldn't have changed the result)

[Kalmageddon]

Fun, but I don't mind competitive if I find the right people to play with.

[MrZJunior]

I often find winning kind of dull. I prefer to play games in a more amusing or odd way, not really trying to use the mechanics or be effective but doing what I think would be fun. For instance the one time I played Go I spent all my time making pretty patterns with the stones rather than trying to make effective moves. In games with more narrative structure I will make moves that fit with the narrative in my head rather than going for effectiveness. What difference does it make if I win? It's just a game. Also, being effective would mean that I have to read and understand the rules, which I would rather not do.

In RPGs I chose my actions based on what my character would do rather than what would be most advantageous. Back when I was LARPing almost every single one of my characters died because I stayed in character instead of breaking character to save them. I think that failing spectacularly is much more fun than winning in a dull manner. Admittedly winning spectacularly can also be OK, but loosing is usually much funnier.

Are you a type of person who enjoyed having fun at any type of game or are you a type of person with a competitive personality who like to win at any type of game? I'm a type of person who always play competitive at any type of game (including Dungeons and Dragons).

How the heck can you be competitive in D&D?

[sleepy hedgehog]

I'm fun before the game, and competitive in the game.

It's a habit I picked up from playing so much Elder Dragon Highlander in MTG.
The deck I design will be underpowered and fun, probably trying for a silly idea or feel.
However, once the game begins, I'll make the best decisions I can, to optimize my chances of winning.

[Cespenar]

One of the most weirdly fun things is failing at a cooperative game, provided the group doesn't start to blame each other.

[Eldariel]

I occupy varying places on the field, depending on my mood and social factors such as the people I'm playing with. That said, as general outlines, in a video game like League of Legends, Starcraft or Street Fighter 2, I usually do my best to win but I only place expectations on myself; thus, in a cooperative game, teammates be what they will. I don't really care too much about them one way or another, though I'll of course try to cooperate where I can.

When playing boardgames with friends, I always play to win but only because that tends to be required for the game mechanics to really function and be enjoyable. We're competitive enough but sometimes people in our tables do put more effort into messing with each other than winning themselves. And ultimately, while we keep a track, people are generally just fine losing (though one guy tends to prefer switching games after a losing spree in e.g. Race for the Galaxy, Dominion or such).

With more open-ended games we usually prioritise enjoyment but try and push the game mechanics as far as we can while at it. That's a part of the fun in many systems. Of course, it varies from system to system: Paranoia, FATE, d20-systems and OWoD all have their own styles and emphases. E.g. in Paranoia it's mostly about the misadventures of hapless troubleshooters dying in horrible ways and doing things that felt like fair ideas at the time, and most importantly making each other die in horrible ways or even worse, be uncovered as mutant-commie-traitors. In 3e D&D it's mostly about building characters for full 10 hours, experiencing an open, interactive world, poking a dragon and dying horribly in a fire. Well, most of our games regardless of system tend to ultimately end with horrible deaths by fire: gotta respect the classics. Of course, in d20 or Paranoia, death is mostly a minor inconvenience. And in FATE it's unlikely. More of a narrative system.


Anyways, long story short, it depends but shades of both anyways.

[DracoknightZero]

It depends on the onset from the getgo where you have to make sure what the group is going for in the first place and it really depends on the game.

In D&D i dont see the point of "competetive" other than your "Gimli and Legolas" style where you compete for kills, but if you mean "optimized" builds its dependant on how deadly and hard the encounter is compared to the players.

Other games i have a tendency to be competetive and take on a bit of a patronizing swing at people if its teambased such as Dota, CS or similar team games where a bad team member can in fact pull down on your fun. On the other hand its about how much time you invest in something. I personally dont get competetive in a game i only play every blue moon, but in a game i play all the time i have the tendency to "up the ante" and bring a bit of pride into the picture.

So yeah, the "competitive" and "fun" aspects of games really depends on the group and game you are playing, in "team effort" games you really have to wonder what "fun" there is for players thats sole purpose is to halt the progression of others. Some argue its for "fluff" and "RP", but here i talk about people who made a character to be as much as stick in the mud as humanily possible you just have to wonder... why did they even join in the first place?

In the end: you have to balance the note of "competitive" VS "fun" ofcourse, but on the other hand... are you willing to sacrifice others "fun" and halt others "competitiveness" just so you alone can have your "fun"?

Its weird how much bitterness you can avoid if you just make sure that the party/group is fine with your setup. "Ofcourse you can play attack speed on a mage, then we others can pick something weird too" or "You want to play as a non-violent priest? Sure, but then we have to reform the party a bit and make changes to the encounters"

The thin line between being a **** and suggesting something fun is whenever you make sure the rest of your group agree to it or not.

[Crow]

As long as we're just talking about games; I don't think that I prefer things to be competitive, but I certainly prefer things to be challenging.

Usually the best challenges come from competive play against human opponents. There are some examples of genuinely challenging games, but with those there is a fine line between artificial challenge and real challenge.

[Seto]

I'm pretty competitive, but I have enough control over myself that I can usually lose and still be a good sport. (It wasn't that way when I was a kid). When I play with more competitive people than me and they're at each other's throats, I calm them down. When I play with less competitive people who just wanna have a good time and mess around with the rules because why not (I have some friends who do that), I take a deep breath, tone it down and just try to have fun without caring too much about how the game's supposed to be played.

[Aedilred]

yeah, I'm a little taken aback by the apparent assumption that the discussion is about roleplaying games - and the associated implication that competitive roleplayers are a fairly common phenomenon - whereas I would have thought such games were mostly cooperative by nature and honestly I'm not even sure how you'd play "competitively" without ruining them, except in an abstract sense. (Crow's distinction between competition and challenge is also a useful one).

For the sake of clarity, I was referring to traditional games where there's a defined winner or the like and competition between players is a major if not integral part of the game.

[Scarlet Knight]

yeah, I'm a little taken aback by the apparent assumption that the discussion is about roleplaying games - and the associated implication that competitive roleplayers are a fairly common phenomenon - whereas I would have thought such games were mostly cooperative by nature and honestly I'm not even sure how you'd play "competitively" without ruining them, except in an abstract sense. (Crow's distinction between competition and challenge is also a useful one)...

I believe the RPG competitors that people hate are "rules lawyers" and " Minmaxers". I am a roleplayer and enjoy that portion of D&D.

As for other games , I am competitive. For example, with Magic the Gathering, a well played tight game brings me a lot of joy; but I hate getting stomped on because someone plays a broken deck with cards that cost a fortune. So sometimes I am a sore loser rather than admire the other guys deck as just being better.

[TurboGhast]

I prefer no-stakes games, because I fall into the trap of missing the fun for the potential to win things very easily. I temporarily quit MtG because my desire to win FNMs made the game less fun. Even now, I still don't play standard.

[Liquor Box]

I am competitive at games that are supposed to be competitive, and in particular in sports. I find being competitive and playing with other competitive people more fun than playing in a non-competitive way. The exception is if the other people are not as good at the game, in which case I don't play competitively and find the fame less fun.

DnD and similar are not supposed to be competitive though, and I am not competitive in those games.

[Vizzerdrix]

Are you a type of person who enjoyed having fun at any type of game or are you a type of person with a competitive personality who like to win at any type of game? I'm a type of person who always play competitive at any type of game (including Dungeons and Dragons).

Ditto. Ive always considdered my D&D characters to be failures if they cant wipe the rest of the party. On that same note, failure can be fun too.

[Smitemeister]

If I'm playing I'm playing to win... but that doesn't mean I am a sore loser. Unless it's a game Dead of Winter!

[Jay R]

Are you a type of person who enjoyed having fun at any type of game or are you a type of person with a competitive personality who like to win at any type of game?

Yes, I am. I'm the type of person who wants the most fun, and who wants the best chance to win.

Playing a game is trying to win - that's the fun of it.

But I'm also academically focused on it. My dissertation used game theory to solve a scheduling problem.

I've studied game theory, and try to make the best possible play at any given time, and I know the difference between trying to win an adversarial game and trying to win a co-operative game.

D&D is a co-operative game, and trying to win means trying to help the entire party achieve the collective goal. That's why I try to make sure (for instance) a magic item that my character could use well and another character could use better goes to the other character. I'm too fierce a competitor to want it in my hands instead of hers.