The study uses psychometrics to examine a collection of personality traits as a driver for engagement in miniature wargaming. Six types of motivators are considered. They are, socializers, completionists, competitors, escapists, story-driven, and smarty-pants. In this exercise, I explore only the Competitor trait.
Why single out the competitor trait to begin this analysis? Curiosity mainly. I am interested to see the motivation behind competition and why we game. The survey includes three questions addressing the competitor trait. The three questions are:
- Winning is a big reason for me to play miniature wargames.
- It is important to me to be the strongest and most skilled person playing the game.
- I play to win.
All responses are on a seven-point scale from (1) Strongly agree to (7) Strongly disagree. Let's see what the survey data suggest.
The first two questions (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) show a decidedly skewed response profile with much of the response weight collecting into the “Disagree” categories. Broadly, winning and being the best player at the table are not so important to the majority of respondents.
 |
| Figure 1 |
 |
| Figure 2 |
 |
| Figure 3 |
A refreshing and encouraging result to which I agree and endorse. While we may give our best efforts in an attempt to gain victory by playing to win, seeing success on the table takes a backseat to the camaraderie that social wargaming offers. A result I see frequently reinforced at the gaming table among a wide cross-section of wargamers from all over the globe.
While this analysis focuses only on the overall assessment, are there differences between age groups or wargaming genres? Do historical and non-historical wargamers present a different competition profile? What about possible differences between gamer location or game type? I leave these questions for another time.
What about you?
In my early to mid-twenties I was in a club dominated by WRG ancients. I was more interested in the history and spectacle than the rules; there was also a social aspect. I was persuaded to enter a competition which was a demoralizing affair. My opponent sat on his baseline, attempted to dominate the game and I found it went on past the cut off point (which no-one told me about). I lost and felt cheated.
ReplyDeleteIn club games, I found I was losing most games. So I determined to work out why and realised I was not playing to the rules; my head was full of historical tactics, which usually didn't work.
I studied the rules and other players and began to win or draw games.
It happened that a childhood friend joined the club. We had stumbled through ancient games together in a remote area of the country. I proceeded to beat him in three moves.
It didn't feel good and was a contrast to the fun games we had when younger. I did not like the player I had become.
The crux came during a campaign, where the organiser stacked the deck in his favour (he played as well as ran it) and exploited the rules to win a game that ignored any logic or history and was not fun in the slightest.
What I realised was that is as much about who you play and what each of you want from a game. Winning is nice for the ego, but for me is secondary to the narrative and whether the rules give results that are historically plausible.
If you want to argue with and dominate an opponent, I suspect you need therapy.....
I have played such people, but would decline these days and certainly wouldn't enter a competition, however friendly.
I'd rather loose than exploit rule mechanisms, unless faced with such a person where I'd be tempted to try and beat them by outrageous exploitation of rules. I suspect however, I'd either decline or walk-away first or never play them again.....
Neil
Thanks, Neil, for sharing your own, detailed experience. Seeing Joe's comment below, your situation appears as neither an isolated nor singular event. I wonder if this gaming mentality is fostered from player age, the rules, tournament gaming, or a combination of all? For you and Joe, WRG ancients seems a common thread.
DeleteI don't think the attitude is confined to ancients.
DeleteWW2 has it's share of gamers who insist on fielding masses of King Tigers to stack things in their favour or Nappys has the man with more Old Guard than Napoleon.....
I think WRG were what I'd call "serious" rules - they were of an age when the old days of "playing toy soldiers" was sneered at and rules had to have tables derived from obscure reference books. For some reason , this brought out unfortunate traits such as knowing the rules better and in particular, knowing the quirks of the rules that guaranteed success. Feint charges to put infantry in square then bring up horse artillery. Often there was a high predictably in outcomes.
It seems things have moved to more "fun" rules with lots more chance, perhaps as a response to the serious 1970s and 1980s.
The character of the gamer is important however; even back in the Featherstone years, it seems there were heated moments over winning and losing, even accusations of cheating. Many wrote rules that favoured their favourite tactic, Tony Bath and his elephants for example.
But the key thing is (as Anthony puts it) about mutual expectations. Playing someone who only wants to win is my idea of hell, but they probably would yearn for someone more competitive.
Neil
You and I (and many of readers here) have been in this hobby a very long time.
DeleteI gravitated toward large and complex rules and games in my younger days ('70s and '80s) due to my ignorance that a designer does not need to throw everything including the kitchen sink into the combat engine to model combat.
Now, I recognize that abstraction and a parsimonious combat model are goals to which we all should strive in our designs. Of course, the model ought to be without bias such that favorite tactics or ploys do not tip the scale in the favor of those knowing the "tricks."
Good points, Neil! Keep 'em coming.
The late, great, Stuart Asquith commented once on the fact that Don Featherstone liked to win, to the point that in one ECW game, his 'Ironsides' were unstoppable due to the rules he had written, to the detriment of the game and everyones enjoyment. So even the 'great's had their flaws...
DeleteInteresting revelation about Featherstone. I wonder how common this trait is among rules’ designers?
DeleteSimilar results for playing in New England to Neil's. I bounced, or should I say was bounced about trying to get a handle on the WRG rules for ancients. From tournament players I learned that you could twist rules, claim completely false restrictions on how armies could work, and point to "interpretation " rulings by some shadowy set of self identified gurus of the rules. Eventually I tired of the tatmosphere and stopped playing the era. I saw a similar descent in sci-fi competition gaming. Basically the words 'competitive game ' allow me to smile and walk away. I have had short discussions with players who want to kibitz games they are not in, offering rules adjudication not accurate nor asked for by those playing. They smile and shrug when shown to be wrong . There are a few
ReplyDeletePlayers like this most places , it just takes awhile for them to be identified. Mostly I play with the old friends or the folk trying out 'new to them' games at the local store.
.
Interesting that WRG ancients produced a very similar outcome for you as it did for Neil. Do competition wargaming and rules' lawyering go and in hand? funny how behavior we tolerate and welcome in our youth is no longer tolerated in maturity.
DeleteMaybe the type of competitor is therefore a measure maturity?
DeleteThat is how I see it. For many, but not for all...
DeleteWhat's interesting is running games where people don't know the rules.
DeleteFor some types of games, such as most of the WRG ancients stable up to 7th edition if one player did know the rules and the other didn't......well guess who won.
Take the same players and put them in a different era, say 1980s moderns or Vietnam and often they would commit the biggest blunders!
Where players don't know the rules then they have to rely on tactics. If people have poor knowledge of the period this can be difficult, but there are some very basic tactical approaches to problems.
Some people know rules very well, yet have little grasp of tactics......
Neil
I like Too Fat Lardies mantra in that you should Play the period, not the rules.
DeleteIn the games I host, I try to emphasize that players need not know the rules since I handle all of the combat computations and act as a Guiding Hand if needed. Tactics and familiarity with the rules develop, naturally, over time. Rules should not be an obstacle or handicap for playing and enjoying a game. I recommend that new players use common sense in their decision making and if the rules are solid, they should have no problem having a successful experience. Period familiarity is a plus if the game engine is reasonably historical.
You are correct in that some never get a good grasp of employing proper tactics.
The Lardies mantra is one that I and my friends follow as that's how we like to play. I agree with your point that if playing a new set of rules, you should only need to know the broad tactics of the period, then the rules should give you plausible outcomes for any situation, guided by your 'opponent' so to speak.
DeleteSteve, I think taking this step with new rules is only possible with an umpired game.
DeleteI should have said for those playing the rules for the first time, so in a sense umpired and guided along, so they can get to grips with the mechanics as the play evolves. I found this useful as a player as I can ask questions as I go along, ditto running the game, providing guidance, ideas and explanations as required.
DeleteHaving a guiding hand is useful, indeed. I like to relieve players from the drudgery of game mechanisms so they can concentrate on play.
DeleteThe mention of psychographics puts me in mind of the three player profiles which the designers of Magic: the Gathering use: loosely, Timmy plays for fun/to experience something, Johnny plays as a way to demonstrate creativity, and Spike plays to win. Most players are a mix of the three to some extent.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dean! I agree that players fall into some combination of your classifications.
DeleteInteresting Jon but I wonder how accurate the self selected answers are? We are pre conditioned in Anglo Saxon society to be humble and not openly aspire to being the best at anything...so "admitting" you want to win every wargame you play would not be " the done thing", I suspect? Playing i Competitions has never held any attraction to me...but perhaps that's because I am worried I would lose every game?
ReplyDeleteHow do we gauge the accuracy of any survey, self-selected or not? In this case, not only are survey respondents self-selecting but they were not forced into answering these psychometric questions at all. So, we may have a self-selecting self-selection!
DeleteDo respondents answer survey questions honestly without bias or thoughts of denial in how they actually behave? Always a difficult question to score. We rely on large sample sizes to form tendencies from those that choose to respond.
I think I ought to say in defence of competive ancients games that modern competition players all affirm that the "bad old days" are behind them and everyone now has a much more enjoyable time. Still doesn't appeal to me though. I'm much more into the historical side and the creativity - we are creating fictionalised narratives and creating enjoyable spectacles for ourselves and others to enjoy.
ReplyDeleteSomething I've said elsewhere in the past is the importance of matching expectations and motivations in a game. If one person just wants to win by any means and the other wants a fun social encounter, it won't end well.
Anthony, perhaps the "Bad Old Days" of WRG Ancients need someone in their corner!
DeleteIs the matching of expectations and motivations something that is age dependent (that is, the bad old days are still there just not present in our demographic) or have wargamers, on balance, evolved into a higher level of social understanding and interaction?
There is a degree of matching expectations with increasing gaming experience, I think. About knowing what you want out of a game and judging who else wants the same/similar. But also context - pick up games with club members as against playing with groups of old pals, for example.
DeleteAs to old WRG Ancients games, most were no worse than any other game, I suspect, if you avoided the rules lawyers and the gamesmen.
Not necessarily age-dependent but time spent in the hobby ("Duration" as measured in GWS)? We do tend to gravitate toward gamers with similar interests and motivations in a sense, our own self-selection.
DeleteI think Keith has made a valid point about the accuracy of the self selected answers. Having been compelled to take two personalty tests at work, I'm inclined to reflect that a degree of unconscious bias appears in surveys that require self judgement. In the results even I could see the results reflected an idealised version of me regardless of my "honest" answers.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, I do believe that the social aspect has become, over time, more important. Although, there are some in the group who love winning. I like winning! But the competition I have is against myself. It is about a self judgement on my tactics and problem solving. Sure I like to win a game. The competitor in me has just evolved with time from wanting to defeat others to beating my own wargaming shortcomings.
Richard, thanks for weighing in on the discussion. In your field of work, these types of tests and assessments are not uncommon. Do we tend to answer these judgmental questions honestly or aspirationally? That is a very good question.
DeleteHas the importance of your time-varying, social wargaming outlook evolved through your time "in grade", through general societal changes, or through the company that you keep?
Of course, many of us enjoy a victory at the table but enjoying a game with good friends is the key. Good dice help!
I'm not sure that I have the answer to your questions Jonathan. Perhaps all of them. One has to avoid thinking in mono-causal terms. At least I have had the pleasure of pondering on this.
ReplyDeleteThese analyses always churn up some interesting discussions, dialog, and grist for further thought. Thank you.
DeleteI think the competitive aspect loses is importance the older one gets. Mind you, it wouldn't be much fun to constantly be on the losing side. I remember there was a gamer who used to roll up each week with his Spanish army, and can only remember him having a win once in several years of gaming. I used to admire his patience and tenacity, but eventually he stopped coming.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we tend to lose that competitive drive as we age, Lawrence? Do we simply mellow with age or do we emphasize sportsmanship and camaraderie over cutthroat competition?
DeleteWhatever became of your friend’s Spanish army?
Nothing really surprising here (thankfully).
ReplyDeleteEven when I played “competitively” in tournaments or game stores with games like 40k, Lords of the Rings, Flames of War, Saga and whatnot where the format was bring X amount of points and roll for scenario; I cannot recall ever running into anyone who characterized the 1 and 2 statements.
Even the “really good players” were nice as hell. Maybe I’m unique but I also never recall having a rule argument either.
But everyone plays to win. Not in a “by any means” kind of way but by trying their best with strategy/ tactics and hoping to roll high. 😀
I have never gamed in competition. Not sure I would enjoy that. Never witnessed a rules' argument in a game? To me, that is extraordinary. I vaguely recall discussions on interpretations from Fire and Fury which I am sure you have played since ACW is your preferred period.
DeleteReally? Version 1? I found that RFF and BFFv2 are so well written that there’s never a question about what was intended as written. But yeah, I’ve placed RFF so many times I barely need the QRF anymore. 😀
DeleteYes v1. Your group must have been much more well-versed in the rules than we although we were young and impressionable and ready for a could debate if we thought it would help the cause. Angles of attack and the two-stand rule were often grounds for disagreement.
DeleteWhen I belonged to a club many moons ago, there were some competition players who used to go to GW tournaments and would pour over the latest Codex release to look for those killer combinations or units that were a waste of time. By and large they were not fun to play against as winning was the most important thing to them. Other members were more mellow and were there for the fun of it. So we teneded to play with like minded people, which is not a big surprise really.
ReplyDeleteI think the rules and periods played have an important part to play too. So for example if playing the Franco-Prussian War as the French player, generally I know I'm in for a bit of a beating (been there done that!). But and it's an important but, taking the performance and outcome in the context of the campaign can alter the perception of both players as to who has 'won'. Was the Prussian victory a Pyrhhic one or did the French hold out long enough to gain time for units off table to form a better position further back? So a loss on the table might be a win in the context of the campaign, if that makes sense?
For me, winning is nice and the icing on the cake, but not at the expense of a good game with friends. Choosing the scenario and forces involved helps immensely with regards to this, as I've seen too many one-sided games in my time that were not fun for one side and possible not for the other too.
As I've got older and have played mini-campaigns, often narrative driven ones, the setting of the games and how they related to the bigger picture is more important to me. Rarely do I play stand alone games nowadays, with the exception of the OHW scenarios.
Thanks for your insights and personal anecdotes, Steve. Like you, winning is a nice result but not the main purpose for playing. I have yet to tramp down the mini-campaign route. I still rely on one-off scenarios, usually historical, with repeated playings. While I have considered tackling a campaign, I have yet to muster the energy to put one together. I do have several campaigns in mind, though, and have made progress on a few. Setting up and running a campaign is something I would like to try. Some day.
DeleteCampaigns and mini-campaigns can be tremendous fun or disastrous. Having played in both extremes, there are some common rules, like scenario games:
Delete(1) Each and every player needs to able to win. While it's possible to have a side where everything is stacked against them, unless both players are party to this (playing a historically doomed expedition) it's not much fun to play when you are at a huge disadvantage from the start.
(2) Players need to be fully engaged and kept engaged. This may mean accelerating set-up turns where conflict is unlikely. It also means keeping momentum going and turning turns around quickly.
(3) If a player gets killed, utterly defeated or similar, consider ways of bringing them back into the game unless...
(4) Weed out argumentative players or those who fail to give in orders or who outright cheat...
(5) Have a campaign newsletter or similar and try to get players to participate.
(6) Keep it fun and fast moving as attention spans are short.
I've played in all sorts of campaigns. Been on the periphery without any idea what was happening elsewhere. I've been set-up with a hopeless no-win situation, I've had interesting ideas for campaigns fall apart because the start is tedious and interest has fallen so it's wound up before it even begins. I've also riled opponents by scurrilous attacks in word and picture (anonymous of course) and made the newsletter a propaganda tool. I have written battle reports in period prose. I have decided the fate of kingdoms and made strategic moves to preserve mine. I've also fought a mini-campaign over two days where decisions made influence the course of the campaign.
Marvellous tool, but create with care....
Neil
Neil, you present a handy checklist for keeping a campaign going through thick and thin. I have played in a few campaigns including WWI aerial and a two-player FIW campaign with Peter from Gridbased wargaming. They can be very fun if executed correctly.
DeleteA few points or remarks . . .
ReplyDeleteFirst, I wonder about the peer-reviewed status of an academic paper that employs "smarty-pants" as one of the categories when assessing the competitive and other natures of wargamers. Certainly, there has to be a more scientific name or term.
Second, interesting analysis and review as always.
Third, I wonder to what extent or if at all, this competitive analysis can be applied to the smaller population of solo wargamers? It seems that, by default, questions 2 and 3 might be acceptable, but more research needs to be done.
Your going back several years brings up even more questions. For example, can the basic nature or identity of a wargamer (historical or otherwise, or perhaps just historical) be fairly painted? That is to ask: is there such a thing as the typical historical wargamer, who will tick most if not all the boxes? It might be interesting to look at or consider occupation, race, religion, political leaning, marital status and other categories as well to better illustrate what or who wargamers are.
Good question on the use of "smarty-pants." When I originally read the paper, my thoughts were much as yours. That is, the term did not seem a standard psychology term. Maybe it is but I marked the use down to a translation from what I expect is the authors' native German.
DeleteYour question on solo wargamers is interesting. Unfortunately, that analysis is not possible since the question of group size was not present in the 2020 survey. As a part time solo gamer, only (3) fits my experience.
The survey does not ask many personal questions beyond occupation and age.
I reckon I am pretty much non-competitive, though of course you want to do the best you can! Winning doesn't matter too much, 'it's only a game' after all.. I am much more interested to see how the game and rules unfold, and whether the results feel 'right' for the period.
ReplyDeleteInterested by the six types of motivators - sounds like 'story-teller' is me?
Is a 'smarty-pants' the guy who says "I think you'll find they didn't have that colour turnbacks until 1812?"
David, I enjoy watching the battle narrative development more than winning as well.
DeleteYou could slip into the "Story-teller" trait easily. The "Smarty-pants" trait holders think games make them smarter and that they play games to enhance their intellectual abilities.
I play to win (playing a game with someone who doesn't put forth a reasonable effort is bit unsatisfying, but I am fine with losing, and am well aware I am not the best player. The spectacle, the narrative, and the fellowship are the important things. Competition/Tournament gaming is not my thing. I too had a very negative experience with WRG Ancients back in the 1970's. The only tournament I might consider someday would be with To the Strongest, assuming we could maintain the collegial atmosphere of the UK events. I suspect "Smarty-Pants" might be more charitably labeled as "Subject Expert", which could appertain to rules, uniformology, and/or history. The negative aspects of that are the dreaded "button counters" and rules lawyers. None of US would be guilty of anything like that, right? :-)
ReplyDeletePeter, we are of like mind. Of course, no one in our sphere would consider such behavior.
DeleteAt one time in my wargaming 'career' I was highly competitive winning National and local titles on a number of occasions. I enjoyed winning and being part of the club scene. But as time passed I moved to playing in a private group that focused more on scenario gaming that a gaming competition, and while it is always nice to win, scenario gaming allows you to win without winning the battle, because you are playing to an objective.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day I find the latter far more satisfying. There is no need to pour over army lists to build the perfect army or to manipulate rules. In most cases it is not even necessary to know the rules as any good rules should reflect the period being played, so if you play to historical tactics the rules are only a mechanism to regulate play. It also means that you can be on the winning side even if you do fail to achieve your personal objective.
We played a game recently where we had to pick troops from a points system and I didn't enjoy the experience because it took me back to a place I have left long ago.
So for me, yes winning is important, but it pursuing an objectives is often more satisfying that pursuing a total victory.
Thanks, Mark! Many of us here seem to have common interests and goals in our gaming. I don't think I have ever played a game wherein I picked an army using a points system.
DeleteI suspect that wargamers are generally nice people thanks to wargaming needing a lot of goodwill, for two reasons:
ReplyDelete1. Most rulesets require give-and-take interpretations, especially free movement systems (no grids) where millimetres count (ZOC and all that). Whenever I make an important move I ask my opponent if he's happy with where I've put my stand.
It's easy to cheat in the grey areas but it's obvious this is dishonest play and so quickly becomes unpleasant. Gamers end up shying away from those kind of players. The ability to bend the rules creates a necessary modus operandi of NOT doing so if the hobby is to continue being fun.
2. The effect of chance. Bad dice throws or useless cards mean a player is never fully in control. His brilliant plan can fall apart from one turn to the next and he must rely on luck as well as his scintillating intellect if he is to win. This creates the necessity of losing with good grace as wargaming becomes impossible otherwise.
Notice how different things are with a yes-not chance-free game like chess. Impossible to flub the rules and nothing interferes with one's mental prowess. So people play chess to win and demonstrate their ability. One's chess rating is important - how good one is compared to other players. Whoever heard of a rating in wargaming?
Introduce a wargame with unambigious rules and gameplay where chance plays no part and the field will be wide open for the Bobby Fischers. Not sure that that's an improvement though.
Justin, this is a good summation. Based upon your points, does wargaming necessarily foster a compulsion toward good sportsmanship?
DeleteSure. A wargame by its nature is a contest in which one side wins and the other loses, and any wargamer is playing to be the winning side (as the data shows). But the lack of total control works against a player's ego since winning to an extent depends upon circumstances beyond his control. You make a simple plan and hope for the best, unlike chess where you make an ingeniously intricate plan and win on pure ingenuity.
DeleteI always play to win but rarely do😂
ReplyDeleteYou are not alone, my friend!
DeleteJust catching up on posts I have missed……..loosing in a good game is so much more fun than winning which I rarely do 😀
ReplyDeleteGood to see back! When I host, you routinely give me a trouncing!
DeleteI have never played in a competition and don't have the desire to do so. Perhaps the phrase should be "I don't play to lose". On occasion I will play badly (it's usually a flawed set up but I'm sure we all have our own frailties) and that to me is disappointing as the game tends to be less exciting. At times the dice lords favour one side ridiculously and that can lead to a frustrating game perhaps because it doesn't follow historic likelihood or that we have been cheated of a nail-biting finish. My usual opponent has been a skilled competitor in the past and has an encyclopaedic rules memory - neither make him a "win at all costs" man but he is tough to beat! Isn't that quite a lot of what it is about? That and the pleasure of thinking the rules are historically accurate, the spectacle of a "full" table of well painted troops with realistic scenery (well sometimes) and, and...
ReplyDeleteWhat a great hobby!
A
Well said, Andrew, well said!
DeleteI believe they are some rather irrelevant questions, certainly for myself and the Rejects (not including Surj....sorry Surj) Yes I like to win, who doesn't, but its really not the be all and end all. I prefer to have a decent and enjoyable game and no matter what the result and have a great time with my mates!! Who are these people?
ReplyDeleteI am with you, Ray, and the survey backs up your assessment! We play to win but winning is not important to our enjoyment and satisfaction.
Delete