None of your other candidates are the point either. The point that can be named is not the true point.
It’s an important observation that most, if not all, human activities have more than one benefit, often at different levels of abstraction and on different timeframes. “the point” is an ambiguious framing—you should think more like “one point of most boardgames is to win”. Another point is to practice a specific mix of zero-sum and non-zero-sum subgames, to learn about optimization, cooperation, and competition. Another point is to have fun with people and grow your bonds. Another point is …
There is no “real objective”, there are only different weights (over time and across participants) put on the many reasons to do something.
I’ve played a fair bit of 18xx (“train games”, but more about stock-manipulation) games with a specific group of friends. These games contain zero external randomizers, beyond the initial selection of turn ordering (which then changes based on in-game effects). We played to win, and it would be un-fun if we didn’t. That includes competitive aspects like blocking others’ routes and “thushing” their stock. Optimizing one’s outcomes in the absence of smart, motivated, adversaries does not excercise the same learning or enjoyment.
But we certainly did not play because each of us expected to win, and certainly saw good value in the game even when not winning (which sometimes could be known early, and certainly felt like it to all of us, even the winner, at various points in the course of a game). But the details, strategy, conversation, and experimentation toward winning was the driver for most of the other value.
I’ve also played a lot of cash and tournament poker, with friends and strangers. It’s hard to claim that winning isn’t the primary goal of the game, and my primary motivation for playing in public cardrooms (where I don’t know the other players well enough for bonding and shared joy to be the motivator). But even then, there will be plenty of losing hands, too many losing sessions, and not enough immediate feedback to make “long-term profit” the only element of the game that matters. It matters on one level—if I lost consistently, I’d make the financial choice to stay away. On another level, the analytic and “what-if” optimization of individual sub-hand decisions, as they affect both later streets and later hands, are fascinating and fun, regardless of outcome of that hand.
Yeah, I guess by “the real objective” I mean “the real objectives you all share/mutually understand.” Those tend to be pretty easy to learn. Of course for an individual player, the true ultimate real objective will be inarticulably complex because it’s just the human utilityfunction.
Optimizing one’s outcomes in the absence of smart, motivated, adversaries does not excercise the same learning or enjoyment.
I’d be curious to hear more about that. I’d kinda expect there to be a semi-cooperative version of the game that could be rebalanced a bit so that just as many insights come out of it (some of which weren’t accessible in the original), but it would require The Mindset.
Poker specifically seems like a situation where there might be a blend of people who genuinely wouldn’t love the game without the financial incentive and are really there to Win Now, funded by gamblers, who’re either doing a pathology or, perhaps, in some cases, getting something out of play itself.
I get the impression that Mahjong is the kind of game where the monetary incentive needs to be there for the game to function (it’s a score game, not a binary win/lose game), but it’s still enjoyable even if you’re losing.
My friends enjoy co-op games as well—Pandemic (though more fun with the bioterrorist IMO ;) ), Forbidden {Island,Desert,Sky}, etc. They tend to suffer from the quarterback effect, as you say—one player often has stronger opinions and is telling others what to do (and often why), turning it into a group-consensus exercise rather than individual optimization.
I’d need to expand “The Mindset” to understand what you mean there, but for myself and the groups I game with, the risk/reward/learning-feedback elements are simply nowhere near as strong in pure cooperative games, as it is in competitive games with cooperative elements.
None of your other candidates are the point either. The point that can be named is not the true point.
It’s an important observation that most, if not all, human activities have more than one benefit, often at different levels of abstraction and on different timeframes. “the point” is an ambiguious framing—you should think more like “one point of most boardgames is to win”. Another point is to practice a specific mix of zero-sum and non-zero-sum subgames, to learn about optimization, cooperation, and competition. Another point is to have fun with people and grow your bonds. Another point is …
There is no “real objective”, there are only different weights (over time and across participants) put on the many reasons to do something.
I’ve played a fair bit of 18xx (“train games”, but more about stock-manipulation) games with a specific group of friends. These games contain zero external randomizers, beyond the initial selection of turn ordering (which then changes based on in-game effects). We played to win, and it would be un-fun if we didn’t. That includes competitive aspects like blocking others’ routes and “thushing” their stock. Optimizing one’s outcomes in the absence of smart, motivated, adversaries does not excercise the same learning or enjoyment.
But we certainly did not play because each of us expected to win, and certainly saw good value in the game even when not winning (which sometimes could be known early, and certainly felt like it to all of us, even the winner, at various points in the course of a game). But the details, strategy, conversation, and experimentation toward winning was the driver for most of the other value.
I’ve also played a lot of cash and tournament poker, with friends and strangers. It’s hard to claim that winning isn’t the primary goal of the game, and my primary motivation for playing in public cardrooms (where I don’t know the other players well enough for bonding and shared joy to be the motivator). But even then, there will be plenty of losing hands, too many losing sessions, and not enough immediate feedback to make “long-term profit” the only element of the game that matters. It matters on one level—if I lost consistently, I’d make the financial choice to stay away. On another level, the analytic and “what-if” optimization of individual sub-hand decisions, as they affect both later streets and later hands, are fascinating and fun, regardless of outcome of that hand.
Yeah, I guess by “the real objective” I mean “the real objectives you all share/mutually understand.” Those tend to be pretty easy to learn.
Of course for an individual player, the true ultimate real objective will be inarticulably complex because it’s just the human utilityfunction.
I’d be curious to hear more about that. I’d kinda expect there to be a semi-cooperative version of the game that could be rebalanced a bit so that just as many insights come out of it (some of which weren’t accessible in the original), but it would require The Mindset.
Poker specifically seems like a situation where there might be a blend of people who genuinely wouldn’t love the game without the financial incentive and are really there to Win Now, funded by gamblers, who’re either doing a pathology or, perhaps, in some cases, getting something out of play itself.
I get the impression that Mahjong is the kind of game where the monetary incentive needs to be there for the game to function (it’s a score game, not a binary win/lose game), but it’s still enjoyable even if you’re losing.
My friends enjoy co-op games as well—Pandemic (though more fun with the bioterrorist IMO ;) ), Forbidden {Island,Desert,Sky}, etc. They tend to suffer from the quarterback effect, as you say—one player often has stronger opinions and is telling others what to do (and often why), turning it into a group-consensus exercise rather than individual optimization.
I’d need to expand “The Mindset” to understand what you mean there, but for myself and the groups I game with, the risk/reward/learning-feedback elements are simply nowhere near as strong in pure cooperative games, as it is in competitive games with cooperative elements.