Competitive Fun: It’s Not Whether You Win or Lose … Or Is It?

Knucklebones: July 2007This is a reprint of an article written in February, 2007 for first publication in the July, 2007 issue of the now-defunct Knucklebones magazine. Because of its origins, this article is more introductory and (hopefully) more polished than many of my online writings. Despite the original source of this article, this blog is in no way associated with Jones Publishing or Knucklebones Magazine.

For the original Mechanics & Meeples article that this Knucklebones article drew inspiration (and a few quotes) from, see: It’s Not If you Win or Lose.


Games are odd creatures. On the one hand they’re about socialization. You play cards with your family at Christmas, huddled around the dining room table with a fire going nearby. Or, you play Monopoly with your kids, crouched down on the living room floor. However games aren’t just social events, they’re social sports. They’re not just about gameplay, they’re about winning and losing.

And winning and losing can be somewhat tricky and sticky subjects. People can get upset if they lose, especially if they feel like other players are being too mean (or even too nice). Figuring out how to resolve fun socialization with overt competition — and how to play games that everyone enjoys — are some of the biggest challenges in gaming, especially when you’re playing with family and friends.

Fortunately, honestly talking about the issues — about why you’re playing, how important competition is, what winning means, and how to be good winners and losers — can often clear up any misconceptions or hurt feelings.

Playing to Win

Some people place huge importance in winning games. Vince Lombardi, who was the coach of the Green Bay Packers through two Super Bowl wins, famously said, “Winning isn’t the only thing; it’s everything.” It’s a clear and simple statement of winning no matter what the cost.

However there’s another aphorism that’s even more popular in American life. The American sportswriter Grantland Rice once wrote: “For when the One Great Scorer comes, / To write against your name, / He marks — not that you won or lost — / But how you played the Game.” In stark contrast to Lombardi’s statement, Rice implies that being a good game player — being honest, fun, and good-natured — is much more important than whether you’re a victor or loser.

As game players, which philosophy should we follow? Are games about demolishing our opponents or being fair? Perhaps a better answer comes from a popular game designer, Reiner Knizia. He says, “When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning.”

Clearly the object of almost any board game should be (as Knizia says) to win. Playing a game without trying to compete is ultimately unfair to the other players because you can off-balance the game. The true joy of a game, however, should be that you enjoyed the play, not whether you won or not. Victory is a simple tally mark that will probably be forgotten in a week, but the experience of the game itself is something that could stick with you for months or years.

Competing in Context

Just because you’re trying to win, however, doesn’t mean that every game should be a bloodthirsty head-to-head competition. Instead a game’s context can help define the appropriate level of competition.

Alan Moon’s popular railroad game, Ticket to Ride, offers an excellent example of the problems you can run into if players aren’t all on the same page as to the “acceptable” level of competition. In that game you’re trying to claim train routes that you need to complete longer trips — such as from New York to Los Angeles. Most players claim routes solely based upon what they need. They can sometimes get in other players’ ways, but it’s usually not intentional. Conversely more serious players might purposefully block their opponents, taking routes that they don’t need, simply to make life harder for their opponents.

They’re both legal and valid strategies. Blocking is more likely to win you the game (especially in 2-player play), while playing less aggressively is usually more enjoyable in a casual situation. In the online version of Ticket to Ride players sometimes mark games as “blocking OK”.

Talking about this sort of situation with your gaming group prior to playing a game can help ensure there are no hurt feelings as well.

Playing the Same Game

There’s another topic that you might want to talk about with your gaming group: what players should do if they can’t win.

The NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt said that “second place is just the first-place loser”. Going by his credo you should always try your utmost to come in first, even if that looks impossible. Unfortunately, whether you’re driving a race car or fighting for control of Spanish lands in El Grande, sometimes winning doesn’t just look impossible, but it is, and if you don’t have a plan for what to do, you can end up “kingmaking”.

Generally kingmaking is when you’re not able to win a game, but are able to select who the winner actually is. If you make such a selection it’ll usually feel unfair to one or more other participants in the game — especially if it was a totally arbitrary decision on your part. Unfortunately there are some games — usually ones with open scoring — where kingmaking can be a real issue. Vinci and El Grande are both examples of well-regarded games where it’s very easy to kingmake on the final turns. This is why it’s a good idea for players to talk about how they’re going to play if they can’t win. Then, even if they pick a king, at least everyone knew how they were going to do so.

Some players will play for “best score”, which means that they’ll always try to earn the most points in the game — however that’s determined. It’s a pretty safe methodology that probably won’t upset other players, as you’re not singling any one out, you’re just trying to optimize your own score.

Other players play for “best position”, which means that they’ll play for second place if they can get it, and if not that that third, etc. The difference between this and “best score” is that you might purposefully drive down someone’s score to get ahead of them. It’s thus more aggressive (and can result in you picking the winner), but particularly if players have already said this is how they play, it should be an acceptable method.

Another Possibility: Tournament Scoring

One way to resolve questions of winning, losing, coming in second, and kingmaking is to come up with a tournament scoring system. This works well in a regular game club that tends to have most of the same players from week to week.

Record the result of each game and give players points based upon which place they earned. For example, for a five-player game you might give the players 5, 3, 2, 1, and 0 points based on their placement, while for a four-player game you could similarly give the players 4, 2, 1, and 0 points. At the end of each month total up everyone’s scores and give the player with the most points some small reward.

The result is that players will always play for best position — because it earns them the most points — and thus there will never be a question of what the “best” way to play is if you can’t actually win.

Being Good Winners & Losers

Once the game is over, someone’s won and someone’s lost. How people act next can affect the enjoyment of the game just as much as the hour or hours of competition that preceded it. In other words, it’s important to be a good winner or a good loser.

The best way to be a good winner is to be humble. Bragging, gloating, and otherwise playing up your victory are the quickest ways to hurt other peoples’ enjoyment of a game. That doesn’t mean that you should be embarrassed about winning or silent about it. You should be proud about what you did to win. However you should also be quick to point out what other people did well and what plays they made that were particularly strategic. If you’ve played someone before and they did better than previously, you might want to point that out too.

Conversely the best way to be a good loser is to be gracious. Don’t blame the dice, other players, or the game design. Congratulate the winner and tell them about the things they did which were particularly clever. If you were surprised that some of your own strategies didn’t work, talk about that: explain what you did, why you thought it would work, and ask if the other players know why it didn’t. Not only might it improve your future gameplay, but it also signals to a winner that you’re happy to hear a little bit more about his victory.

Just as with figuring out the rules of what winning and losing means, and how to play for second, the secret of being a good winner or a good loser is honest and fair communication.

Because gaming is a social sport, after all.

Appendix I: Non-Competitive Games

If your group decides that they really aren’t interested in competition, there are many options, including non-competitive games, indirectly competitive games, and cooperative games.

The Ungame (Talicor Educational, $20) is a rare game that’s totally non-competitive. There’s no winning or losing, players simple move around a track and answer personal questions, continuing until they’re done playing. Because of the lack of competition some people wouldn’t consider The Ungame a game at all, but it’s still an example of an entertainment on the far end of the scale from pure competition.

Boggle (Parker Brothers, ~$16.50) is a fine example of a game that’s competitive, but in which players don’t directly compete. Each player simply writes down all the words he can find in the word cube. You’re trying to get more words than your opponents, but you can’t purposefully decrease their word score. Party games such as Trivial Pursuit (Hasbro/Parker Brothers, ~$38) and Pictionary (Hasbro, ~$32) fit into this same category, and that’s one of the reasons that they work for casual, party play. You don’t have to think (or talk) about how much direct competition is appropriate.

Reiner Knizia’s Lord of the Rings (Fantasy Flight Games, $40) takes a totally different tack. All of the players are on the same side — trying to deliver the One Ring to Mount Doom — and in order to do so they must work together and defeat the game system itself. The play can be ever bit as difficult as working against other players, but the result can be uplifting (or disappointing) for the group as a whole rather than an individual player. Arkham Horror (Fantasy Flight Games, $50) is a much more complex adventure game where all the players work together, while in Shadows Over Camelot (Days of Wonder, $50) the players are all trying to work together to save the realm, but one player may actually be a traitor.

Appendix II: Couples & Competition

Playing a game with a spouse can sometimes be difficult because of issues related to winning or losing.

Sometimes one member of a couple is much less interested in playing competitive games than the other. He or she may feel hurt and attacked if their partner acts aggressively in a game. If this is the case indirectly competitive games where the players don’t interact aggressively can be excellent choices. Lost Cities (Rio Grande Games, $23) is an excellent card game with no direct competition. Ticket to Ride (Days of Wonder, $40) can be a great game if the partners agree not to purposefully block each other beforehand.

Sometimes both members of a couple will refuse to attack each other in a game, and may even be overly nice to each other. This can be a serious problem if the couple is playing with other people who feel that the nice gameplay is unfair to everyone else. In these situations, partnership games are excellent choices. Many of the party games mentioned above are intended to be played as teams, precisely because they’re often played by couples. Mystery Rummy: Murders in the Rue Morgue (U.S. Game Systems, $12) is a great example of a more sophisticated card game that has well-designed partnership rules.

Liked it? Take a second to support Shannon Appelcline on Patreon!

3 thoughts on “Competitive Fun: It’s Not Whether You Win or Lose … Or Is It?

  1. I’ve read that what Lombardi actually said was: “Winning isn’t everything, but wanting to win is.” — i.e., that you don’t win at absolutely any cost, but the drive to be competitive is essential.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.