Lets Chat: Competitive Versus Casual

[nanosquid]

I hate both "casual" AND "competitive" 40k. I want to play a strategy game with my opponent, not rock-paper-scissors like tournament players, but I _also_ don't want to splash around in the kiddy pool without any thought to rules or balance.

 

I think the distinction between Matched/Narrative/Open play has actually hurt the game quite a lot in this arena. Not the points differences, mind - though, as stated before in this thread, they're much less granular and bias space marine factions (what a shock) over things like Necron Warriors who can only ever take one option anyway. No, what really trashed this whole "three ways to play" thing for me was that it wasn't enough to ease up on the balance for listbuilding - you can spam any strategem or psychic power however many times you want in a Narrative Play game. This is so fundamental to the design of the game that it upsets the whole affair.

 

Whenever I can get someone to play a narrative mission with me, we always - ALWAYS - end up using matched play rules aside from the mission itself. I say "whenever I can" because the above issue with the core rules has biased anyone looking for a fair fight against ever trying anything in the narrative section of the books. This is a tragedy to me, because those missions are consistently fun and entertaining.

 

Speaking of core rules issues, the terrain system MUST be overhauled. The fact that ITC tournaments use their own separate ruleset and yet are used for the balance design of the official game is embarrassing for GW. The "any part of a model can be targeted if it has a base" ruling they use is also EXTREMELY PAINFUL when playing Chaos armies. I just love having lascannons pour into my Lord discordant because he stuck the tip of his spear over a shipping container.

 

I suppose my point is that the optimal fun of the game is to be had in the middle of the competition/casual spectrum, but GW's core rules have made it very, VERY hard to occupy that sweet spot.

[Kolgrim DeathHowl]

These threads kind of make me apprehensive to goto the local shops and try to learn to play. I played a few games in the early 2000's but I don't really remember anything about it, I just know all the stuff I've been reading in the rule book hoping I remember plus the stuff in my codex so much stuff to remember. Easier to learn by doing rather than reading. But I hope I don't run into super serious people, the couple times I went to the shops everyone was really welcoming and friendly. Just want to be a casual player.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’m sure you can find some fun people to play at a local shop.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Yeah Kolgrim I wouldn't worry too much just let your opponent know that your new, and your looking for a casual game. Alot of drama can be avoided with communication.

[jaxom]

It seems like it’s all about expectations. If both players know what they’re getting into then it reduces friction. Points, standardized force org charts, and similar “levelers” help with that.

[Kolgrim DeathHowl]

Ya that's normally my first thing I say is I'm just coming back to the game after a 20 year break and just go from there not trying to jump right into anything and make someone think I know more than I do.

[Rogue]

I came across something over on Goonhammer recently that I think sums up the casual/competitive divide for me quite neatly. It's from a roundtable discussion of KillTeam, explaining why the game hasn't been as successful as it could be.

 

But on the other hand, when you tell a casual player that they’ll need another four or five boxes of minis for their Space Marine team to be competitive, you can watch that spark of interest die. When you promise an hour-long demo game but have to spend 5 minutes explaining the proper use of multicharges, you can just watch their eyes glaze over.

 

To be clear, I'm not having a dig at Goonhammer - their stuff is great, but being fairly tactica and tournament report based, it tends towards a more competitive perspective. Which I think the quote above illustrates. To Pendulin (it's his quote), the thought of playing even a demo-game without fully exploiting the potential for a multi-charge seems unthinkable - you have to spend those five minutes explaining it, even at the cost of boring a new player out of the game, because it just isn't the game without it. Or, similarly, it's better to completely discourage a casual player by telling them how uncompetitive their team is than have them play at some sub-par level.

 

Again, not having a dig. Pendulin (and the rest of the discussion, pretty much) is clearly a competitive player, wanting to squeeze every point and tactival advantage out of the game, Nothing wrong with that. 

 

But by way of contrast, I had a few friend over this week for some garage KillTeam - four players, two boards next to each other on the table, a pile of rulers, markers and dice in the middle. Two guys had never played Killteam before, and one has only had a couple of games. Between us we had Deathwatch, two Ultramarines and a Cult. There was a brief rules recap, and then off we went. No optimisation of lists, no careful measuring to be exactly 2" from objective markers, or a fraction outside flamer range. We just played - aberrants rampaged, marines manouvered and fired, rules were misinterpreted or forgotten, command points were spent like confetti, fun was had. 

 

For the new guys, the approach tended to be "This is what I want to do - how does that work rules-wise?" Knowing about multi-charges or the best possible combinations didn't matter at all. we all had what we had and made the best of it.

 

In the end, i think that both casual and competitive players are looking to have fun. For competitive players, fun comes from pushing the limits, finding the killer combo, exercising tactical superiority over another player (who is having fun trying to do the same back). For casual players, fun comes from the playing in itself, ,the success of 'my guy killed your guy', the moment when the aberrant leader charges a Deathwatch frag-cannon because hiding behind a crate didn't seem very like a signpost-wielding rage monster thing to do (he got totally misted - frag-cannons are nasty). It's fun because my friends are having fun.

 

Neither approach is better or worse. Competitive feels more prevalent, but mostly because things like Goonhammer, or Nights at the Game Table, or anyone taking the effort to produce blogs and websites seem to be tilted that way. I guess casual gamers are less likely to write quality articles on how soft drinks and popcorn go well with KillTeam, or whatever. 

[Panzer]

I came across something over on Goonhammer recently that I think sums up the casual/competitive divide for me quite neatly. It's from a roundtable discussion of KillTeam, explaining why the game hasn't been as successful as it could be.

 

But on the other hand, when you tell a casual player that they’ll need another four or five boxes of minis for their Space Marine team to be competitive, you can watch that spark of interest die. When you promise an hour-long demo game but have to spend 5 minutes explaining the proper use of multicharges, you can just watch their eyes glaze over.

 

To be clear, I'm not having a dig at Goonhammer - their stuff is great, but being fairly tactica and tournament report based, it tends towards a more competitive perspective. Which I think the quote above illustrates. To Pendulin (it's his quote), the thought of playing even a demo-game without fully exploiting the potential for a multi-charge seems unthinkable - you have to spend those five minutes explaining it, even at the cost of boring a new player out of the game, because it just isn't the game without it. Or, similarly, it's better to completely discourage a casual player by telling them how uncompetitive their team is than have them play at some sub-par level.

 

Again, not having a dig. Pendulin (and the rest of the discussion, pretty much) is clearly a competitive player, wanting to squeeze every point and tactival advantage out of the game, Nothing wrong with that. 

 

But by way of contrast, I had a few friend over this week for some garage KillTeam - four players, two boards next to each other on the table, a pile of rulers, markers and dice in the middle. Two guys had never played Killteam before, and one has only had a couple of games. Between us we had Deathwatch, two Ultramarines and a Cult. There was a brief rules recap, and then off we went. No optimisation of lists, no careful measuring to be exactly 2" from objective markers, or a fraction outside flamer range. We just played - aberrants rampaged, marines manouvered and fired, rules were misinterpreted or forgotten, command points were spent like confetti, fun was had. 

 

For the new guys, the approach tended to be "This is what I want to do - how does that work rules-wise?" Knowing about multi-charges or the best possible combinations didn't matter at all. we all had what we had and made the best of it.

 

In the end, i think that both casual and competitive players are looking to have fun. For competitive players, fun comes from pushing the limits, finding the killer combo, exercising tactical superiority over another player (who is having fun trying to do the same back). For casual players, fun comes from the playing in itself, ,the success of 'my guy killed your guy', the moment when the aberrant leader charges a Deathwatch frag-cannon because hiding behind a crate didn't seem very like a signpost-wielding rage monster thing to do (he got totally misted - frag-cannons are nasty). It's fun because my friends are having fun.

 

Neither approach is better or worse. Competitive feels more prevalent, but mostly because things like Goonhammer, or Nights at the Game Table, or anyone taking the effort to produce blogs and websites seem to be tilted that way. I guess casual gamers are less likely to write quality articles on how soft drinks and popcorn go well with KillTeam, or whatever. 

 

Yeah, it's really hard for competetive players to get into the mindset of casual players. Like REALLY hard.

I once was in a similar situation back in WHFB when I wanted to make my Tomb Kings be good because they were on of the weakest armies and looked into the tournament stuff and their attempts to balance armies. I slowly slipped into a very competetive mindset and at some point realised how hard it was for me to not take the best thing possible just because I like it.

On the other hand it's somewhat easy for casual players to understand where competetive players come from. They simply don't care about it though.

 

I'm not saying that's the case for everyone, but it's definitely common enough for me to notice.

[Schlitzaf]

I think; there are four groups of player. Well five but fifth group is weird. You have the Beardy Casual, Pretzel Casual, Competitor Competitive, and the WAAC Competitive.

 

Pretzel Casual is simply here for a good game, throw some dice and simply put to have a GAME. Win or lose, they want to feel they spent two or three hours playing game in a meaningful sense. This is the casual most or many casual players imagined themselves as being. These players are ones who have largest spectrum in them. They can not be most update on there rules, but they will have a solid understanding of there rules despite that.

 

Competitor Competitive, is here to play a game and playing to win. But the playing to win, is the endpoint not the goal. They are here to match wits, and ‘duel’ against an equally skilled player whose goal is also to win. They don’t want to lose, not because it means they don’t win, but because they want to play to win, so treat the opponent with respect. Its the reason to play, but their purpose is to play a game of wits against an equal foe. If their foe isn’t equal, and they won easily or lost badly, they didn’t play a game.

 

Beardy Casual, is the guy who walks into a game and throws whatever they want but also proceeds to incessantly complain. They will be the folks who complain about something in the game, without really understanding the game. A good modern illustration of that is folks complaining about Loyal 32. Loyal 32 and Rusty 17 = Cheap CP, is from a competitive standpoint much more complicated than around 200ish points. And why they are not AS universal as internet would like to claim. More often its a Loyal 800point Brigade for example or Rusty 17 in addition to screening is utilize for their ability to 4+ Deny. The other aspect is they can be nostalgic for good ol days and less well read on current rules. Their goal is, not to play but socialization. I know I made this group to sound toxic. But this same group can be the group of regulars at your LGS from bygone era’s, the area loremaster or the person who just gets excited about EVERYTHING. And as such that excitements will spill over to the community. And will proudly declare they are really only hobbyists, and when they do play is because they want an excuse to hang out with friends.

 

WAAC Competitive- These are players here to club baby seals, win with any little edge they get. They will be ones who will find something and break something. Proudly declare undefeated, and might be very let us say strict with rules enforcement, and at worst outright cheaters. They will bandwagon, and the tide of grey we read and hear. They give no quarter, and will not play down. But these same players, can be from some LGS the big whales whom spend alot. But at the same token, we all recognized the extreme. The other less extreme WAAC player whom many will associate with rules lawyers, will be our teachers, our mentors and if a randomly arcane rules come out they be the person in your LGS who know the answer. The worst version of this player, nothing more than a vile cheater, the best version is a player whom will crush a seal but also teach the seal. Telling the Seal “Your Nob unit is bad. Period.” Or “that dumb”. Their goal is simply put to win and show off that win. They will spend hours reading the rules, crafting the perfect list down to a percent and they come to win, nothing more and nothing less.

 

All four groups will have overlap, and everyone has elements of each. Some will and do identify with another more closely. In general I’d argue most players actually belong to fifth group.

 

I’d called Casuals playing Competitively. Or Competitive Casual. These are players whom are here to both game, but enjoy the social aspect too. They often to some extent build the “best” lists they can be made within some at times but understandable arbitrary or even arcane set of restrictions. These are players from past editions 1999+1 or no Formations. In 8th no LoW, but they are also the players who love stuff like Maelstorm. Whom have an army loyalty that is unshakable.

 

I think most “conflict” or issue in tabletop hobbies come from players misidentifying who or what they are. And then from communities becoming toxic to the other side. My two cents

[Claws and Effect]

I definitely fall into your 5th group.

 

I play Raven Guard and stick to the lore for the most part in building my lists. No tanks, lots of snipers, and some air support.

[Panzer]

Same. I play T'au as Dal'yth Sept with lots of focus on sneaky units like Stealth Suits, Kroot and Pathfinder. Nothing bigger than a Ghostkeel (and that one only because it has Stealth technology too). My Ethereal is my Warlord to give my Kroot the For the Greater Good ability as well instead of my Commander to boost surrounding units via Through Unity, Devastation.

 

Within those limits I try to build the strongest lists possible and play as best as I can though. I want to see how well this themed army can do against my opponents armies while we are getting drunk and have a few laughs.

[Wayniac]

I find a few things:

 

1) As someone else said, people equate competitive with matched play so much that you often see ITC rules or Rule of 3 or 3 detachment, whatever that is recommended for events, as gospel that is part of the core matched play rules.  This extends even online where you will often see people pointing out rule of 3/3 detachment to any "critique my list" post; it's ingrained that everyone just assumes it's part of the default rules, or should be.  Which maybe it should be, but since it's not it shouldn't be the default assumption that it is.

 

2) In an area where most gaming is done via pick-up games in a game store as opposed to a regular gaming club, it's often the expectation that games are competitive unless otherwise specified.  While this often doesn't mean that someone will turn up with an LVO netlist to game night, it does mean that most people are going to be bringing lists that are meant to do well, and if you turn up with a fluffy list you are likely to get steamrolled.  This extends to newbies who are often immediately pointed only at the 10% of a book which is deemed "competitive" and told to ignore everything else. 

 

To make things worse I have actually seen groups devolve simply because one person started bringing a powerful tournament-caliber list and it just escalated from there until everyone was bringing comp lists so they didn't get crushed, and at that point nobody ever plays casual/non-competitive games anymore.  It's tournament style games from top to bottom even after the guy who started it is gone because at that point every new person has been indoctrinated into playing competitive so nobody still going to that store remembers a time before everyone was playing competitive lists.  I have a fictional anecdote I like to use to illustrate this:

 

One day, Bob shows up to his local game store, that has a casual and laid-back meta, with a competitive netlist army because he wants to start playing more competitively (note: nothing wrong with this in and of itself). He plays Jim, a casual player, and crushes him in full view of a few others playing that evening. A few weeks later, Jim has reworked his army to be more competitive so he won't get crushed against Bob. As time goes on, the casual players move to more competitive armies so they don't get curb stomped when playing as more and more players swap to competitive lists. Tournaments start being run, which increases the competitive play and brings in other people from other, more competitive metas.

 

A couple of years later, long after Bob and Jim and many others have moved on, you only see competitive play going on at the store because nobody still playing can remember a time before that fateful day when Bob started the arms race by bringing a competitive list. A new player looking to get started only sees competitive lists and monthly tournaments and gets pointed towards that, so that's all everyone knows and casual play has all but stopped happening at the store. All because one day one person decided to start the domino effect.

 

 

While that is a bit of an exaggeration, I've seen that sort of thing happen.  That said, no one plays to lose, but I think the competitive style of 40k is very toxic and can get way out of hand very easily and it is much easier for a casual person to pick up a netlist and play competitive than for a competitive person to know when to tone down their list and when to go whole hog.  This seems more true in the US than say the UK where I've noticed from talking to people online that they seem to be more willing to not always play the best list they can.  On the flip side I've had arguments with people on other forums who legit took it as an insult for their opponent to not bring the best list they can, and took it as a personal attack to dare suggest that they tone their list down instead of their opponent "learning to use a good list"

 

I have been involved in GW games since 1996.  The game has never been really suited for cutthroat competitive play, even back when there were officially endorsed RTTs and GTs.  Even then it was sort of an unspoken rule to bring a good army, but not to throw all the background out the window and try strictly to win.  It's only been roughly the past decade or so where the competitive aspect has really taken off, with people even trying to turn Warhammer into a "t-sport" with an end goal of livable wages and paid sponsorships for playing.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Wayniac

[Panzer]

Yeah I've seen similar things happen to groups.

It's basically a real world example of the experiment where monkeys get trained to not take the banana because they'd all get punished if one does so eventually they stop new monkeys in the group from taking the banana even though the punishing already stopped happening and so the new monkeys in the group adapt thar behaviour without even knowing why.

[Wayniac]

Yeah I've seen similar things happen to groups.

It's basically a real world example of the experiment where monkeys get trained to not take the banana because they'd all get punished if one does so eventually they stop new monkeys in the group from taking the banana even though the punishing already stopped happening and so the new monkeys in the group adapt thar behaviour without even knowing why.

 

I had forgotten about that experiment, but yes pretty much.  And I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with competitive play.  Just I find, and again this is colored by being in the USA where it seems things are more competitive, most people don't know when to draw the line.  There is no "I'll bring a toned down list to game night unless I arrange a tournament practice game" it's "I buy one list that's deemed competitive, only ever play that one list and expect others to git gud and also play good lists"

 

While I like the fact that GW is trying to balance 40k (still doing a terrible job at it IMHO) I think the influence that the ITC and tournament organizers have on it has been detrimental because it sort of reinforces the idea that matched play good, other play bad.  I have never even seen anyone who would touch anything labeled open or narrative play with a 10 foot pole because even bringing it up gets immediate hesitation based on "well it could be unbalanced since it's not Matched".

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

Yeah I've seen similar things happen to groups.

It's basically a real world example of the experiment where monkeys get trained to not take the banana because they'd all get punished if one does so eventually they stop new monkeys in the group from taking the banana even though the punishing already stopped happening and so the new monkeys in the group adapt thar behaviour without even knowing why.

I had forgotten about that experiment, but yes pretty much. And I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with competitive play. Just I find, and again this is colored by being in the USA where it seems things are more competitive, most people don't know when to draw the line. There is no "I'll bring a toned down list to game night unless I arrange a tournament practice game" it's "I buy one list that's deemed competitive, only ever play that one list and expect others to git gud and also play good lists"

 

While I like the fact that GW is trying to balance 40k (still doing a terrible job at it IMHO) I think the influence that the ITC and tournament organizers have on it has been detrimental because it sort of reinforces the idea that matched play good, other play bad. I have never even seen anyone who would touch anything labeled open or narrative play with a 10 foot pole because even bringing it up gets immediate hesitation based on "well it could be unbalanced since it's not Matched".

I agree with pretty much everything you say, ITC in particular has way too much influence on the game overall.

 

However, I would say that it’s not a case that narrative or open play could be imbalanced. It’s that Narrative and Open play IS imbalanced. Power Levels, Stratagem Spam, Psychic Power Spam and unit Spam all make it imbalanced.

 

Now I’m not saying that those two modes can’t be fun, but if you’re not particularly competitive but still want a balanced game, those are not really viable alternatives.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

GW eternal war missions with rules for matched play is great.

[Son of Sacrifice]

But the only people who would play a narrative game to spam psychic powers and strategems are competitive players! This argument is really going around in circles.

[Vermintide]

It all really comes down to the fact that is you want a) a truly balanced game and b) you want to use (and expect your opponent to use) the best lists possible... You simply get to enjoy less of the hobby.

 

I think that's why this discussion is even here in the first place. You get a more restrictive version of the game, your favourite units might be useless, half the book is redundant, your scope for imagination is limited... Nobody's saying you can't use a certain list or you can't play a certain way, but the omnipresent pressure of the meta is always nudging you in that direction simply in order to have fun.

Casual players, or narrative players, or whatever you want to call them. They just don't want to be caught up with all that. Whereas a more competitive player feels like keeping up with the latest trends and meta shifts are what make the game feel alive.

[Panzer]

But the only people who would play a narrative game to spam psychic powers and strategems are competitive players! This argument is really going around in circles.

 

Nobody is talking about playing a narrative game with the intend to spam them. You can do it so it will happen eventually. Just like summoning units for free. The argument is really only going around in circles if you don't understand the argument in the first place.

[Dragonlover]

=][= Keep things civil folks, we've got a good thread going here it'd be a shame if it went off the rails =][=

 

Dragonlover

[DuskRaider]

My friends and I play with free summoning or replenishing troops such as Poxwalkers and Gants. None of us agree with alotting points to something which may never even appear.

[Panzer]

I wish we had some kind of ingame currency for stuff like summoning like GW introduced for summoning in AoS (no, I'm not talking about CP).

[nanosquid]

But the only people who would play a narrative game to spam psychic powers and strategems are competitive players! This argument is really going around in circles.

It's not circular at all - the outlook you just expressed is precisely what keeps people around me from playing narrative rules. In my area at least, we have multiple "boogeyman" players who are well known for being powergaming, exploit-seeking "munchkins" who only find fun in breaking the game entirely and never hold back, even when playing a teaching game. With such a threat looming, there is almost a prey animal mentality in the community that keeps watch for anything that can be exploited and stays far away from it on principle. Is that GW's fault? Hardly. But it is a problem that could be avoided by reworking the "multiple ways to play" section of the rulebook.

 

I think things would be better if narrative/matched merely described the mission types, and there was a separate category for rules variants. I mean, as of now they kind of do already: matched play features symmetrical layouts and both players have the same goal, wheras narrative often features aysmmetrical layouts and may give players differing goals. Separating these elements in the main rule book would go a long way to helping people realize they can mix and match. As of now people are very reticent to depart from the main rulebook (except for itc for some reason... ugh) and making a "buffet" style of rule variants would make people who aren't used to coming up with house rules more comfortable leaving the current 2 monolithic forms of play. Yes, 2. No one plays Open Play, come on.

Edited January 7, 2020 by nanosquid

[Panzer]

 

But the only people who would play a narrative game to spam psychic powers and strategems are competitive players! This argument is really going around in circles.

It's not circular at all - the outlook you just expressed is precisely what keeps people around me from playing narrative rules. In my area at least, we have multiple "boogeyman" players who are well known for being powergaming, exploit-seeking "munchkins" who only find fun in breaking the game entirely and never hold back, even when playing a teaching game. With such a threat looming, there is almost a prey animal mentality in the community that keeps watch for anything that can be exploited and stays far away from it on principle. Is that GW's fault? Hardly. But it is a problem that could be avoided by reworking the "multiple ways to play" section of the rulebook.

 

I think things would be better if narrative/matched merely described the mission types, and there was a separate category for rules variants. I mean, as of now they kind of do already: matched play features symmetrical layouts and both players have the same goal, wheras narrative often features aysmmetrical layouts and may give players differing goals. Separating these elements in the main rule book would go a long way to helping people realize they can mix and match. As of now people are very reticent to depart from the main rulebook (except for itc for some reason... ugh) and making a "buffet" style of rule variants would make people who aren't used to coming up with house rules more comfortable leaving the current 2 monolithic forms of play. Yes, 2. No one plays Open Play, come on.

 

 

Fully customisable game modes would be nice, however not really useable for pickup games. The advantage of Matched Play for pickup games is that everyone knows it'll be somewhat balanced. Everyone will be playing the same game. And honestly, if you want to adjust things then nothing is stopping you from simply talking with your opponent about it and houserule things how you feel like for that match. It's basically the same as having a buffet style ruleset which would require communication with the opponent anyway. ;) 

[ERJAK]

GW eternal war missions with rules for matched play is great.

You misspelled 'dull'.

 

Maelstrom 4evah.

Edited January 7, 2020 by ERJAK