Let's compare. I'm have two groups of friends with whom I play games.
One group are RPGers. There are maybe ten of them and so there is an ever changing field. The games played are varied, from Board games like Settlers and Rummikub, to D&D style engines, like Apocalypse and Blades in the Dark.. Everyone is up for a new game and everyone encourages everyone to take a lead. They are huge nerds and are proud of it.
The other group is a small group which doesn't change. The games played are either Munchkin, Goldenye, Pokemon Stadium, or Mario Kart. The game dictates who will play, since players refuse to play anything other than the game they like. Also there is very clearly a group of winners and losers within that group. They are huge nerds and are proud of it.
A larger variety of games is one thing. Being able to use my mind instead of relying on hand eye coordination is another. Playing games where losing is not a thing versus losing is a thing is yet another. No one likes losing, and I am not that big a fan of winning either. Winning is overrated unless there is a real world benefit. This goes back to my gambling problems. And so, my winning would have a real world consequence to my competitor. Which means, when playing with friends, they suffer when I win and I am not a big fan of that. Playing in the seance group is cool, because losing with friends is a bonding moment. I am proud to see my friend lose, suck it up, when he is obviously pissed, jog on and find some way to have fun.
My major issue is players who do not want to play games. I am talking about the player who suggests one game, and only That game. I'm talking about the player who refuses to play any other game. I'm talking about a player who owns one game, and pWns all who try to play against that person, and tells them it's okay because they are just really good at this one game. When you have someone who only wants to play one game, and it is a game at which they are dominant, there are multiple gripes I have.
Firstly, you're limiting the player pool, so your refusal to play limits the enjoyment level of your friends. More people playing varies the texture of the game, allows people to take a break, and gives champions a chance to bow out gracefully.
Secondly, you're dismissing the other games, thus reducing the other players' life choice values. When you say I don't play that kind of game to someone who wants to do that, it's dismissive. You're saying that you are better than that game, and therefore you are better than those people who want to play that game.
Thirdly, when you dominate one game and you only want to play that game, it suggests an id issue. You define yourself as a winner. You do not want that definition to be brought into question. When you only do things you are good at, when you shy away from things you are not the best at, you are placing yourself on a pedestal. No one gets to be on a pedestal. I regularly do things that I am not good at. I do them because I enjoy being with people, and that is more important than being the best with people. Of course that's my id, and I am recognisant of it. That's why I also try to try new things whenever I can. It led me to roleplaying, which I am so thankful for. It led me to sports I would never have played otherwise. Softball and Ultimate Frisbee both gave me a lot of pleasure. If I had never played because I could not be the best, or in the high percentile of great players within a small pool, then I would have missed out on becoming a more rounded human being. I would have stunted my growth within and without.
Losing sucks, but only for a while. Winning all the time is fun, but only for a while. Try new things, especially when suggested by your friends. They're suggesting them for a reason and if they're your friends, it is probably a valid reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment