This tension is far from unique to EDH - it exists to some degree in many (if not most) games we play:
a) The internal goal of the game is to achieve victory (often by defeating our opponents)b) The external end goal for us in playing the game is to have fun and enjoy ourselves
Almost all "classic" boardgames are played this way - Clue, Monopoly, Scrabble, Chess, etc. These games are designed to be fun within the paradigm of everyone trying to win. Our competitive nature becomes the driving force that keeps the game moving forward.
The problem is that in discussion, the relationship of these goals is often misunderstood. Many people fail to realize that playing to win is something done in the service of fun, not an end in itself. Equally many can forget that competition itself is an important part of that fun for most players.*
So, understanding competition as means to achieving fun, what does this mean for the current EDH Debate? Well, players who are used to victory being the end goal of gameplay (as in tournaments) need to adjust their expectations and behavior to fit the end goal of an enjoyable game. However, it also means that casual players need to keep in mind that competition is part of that enjoyment, and for some people it is the most important part.
This doesn't mean that they'll be able to play with each other - their different ideas of "fun" may be too far apart to reconcile. In a format as infinitely customizable as EDH, I think the only solution is for people to find groups that enjoy a similar level of competition. But both sides should recognize that they're just playing in different ways, and putting more focus on victory is not a better or worse way of having fun.
*Obviously, this all breaks down if (b) isn't true. Sometimes we're playing for money, and sometimes we're just trying to put our little brother in his place. In these cases, we have a different end goal superseding "have fun."
Well, it does follow the fundamental contractarian idea that belies EHD, and in my opinion, gaming that adults do these days. I play with contracts in my pen-and-paper games. I am thus constantly forced to be fluid in my style of gaming.
ReplyDeleteAs a person with spikish tendencies in every game I play, I feel a little bit misunderstood. I like to win, but I don't like to win all the time. I just like to play at a level similar to my friends. For me, it's about winning some and losing some.
It's also about the stories we can tell about the time that I was almost totally hosed, but I topdecked three removal cards and had just enough land drops to cast my Decree of Justice for X = 3 and barely take the game.
I think it's also about wacky ideas. I for one was just in love with the UG commons deck that Jason made. It just made my heart pour out with giddy nerdiness.
So I think, for me, it's about egalitarianism (we all are "in there" every game, and nobody feels out of their league) and wacky shit happening. We can even have fun losing too if we care about the egalitarianism of the game. When I lose a close game of Magic, I think, "wow, what a cool game that was, where we fought tooth and nail over the scraps, and he get just enough of them to beat me."