The Desire to Win

Consider today an editorial. Well, more of an editorial than usual.

Today’s article will inadvertently drift off the subject from time to time, because I am passionate about this subject and it extends to all layers of life and society. I am unapologetic for my views, and if that offends any of you then it needs must offend. With that said, I will do everything in my power to keep the wild tangents to a minimum.

Our society has made it a mission in recent years to avoid offending anyone. While sensitivity to the positions and conditions of others is a valid and noble undertaking, life will invariably create situations where emotional response will be triggered. In our pursuit of making all things conflict-free, we’ve created a generation that would rather “play for fun” than “play to win.”

There it is, I’ve strayed into the “WAAC” vs. “FLUFF” argument. I put both in all caps, because in our Internet society nothing can be said without raging at the opposition. The intent here is not to choose sides, but rather to bring greater exposition to the subject of “playing to win.” This is not an argument on the pros and cons of WAAC play and FLUFF play, but rather an attempt to establish that our error is one of thought process, rather than approach.

For a moment, I’d like to return to the societal side of the problem. In a survey done with cricket players in a youth league, children seemed okay with the idea of no longer keeping score. They’d like to just “play for fun.” My problem with this response isn’t so much the idea of not keeping score; rather, it is the unspoken assumption that competition and struggle against opposition are bad things. However, without this continual competition a society cannot become great. Individuals must continually strive to better themselves and their society, otherwise that society will stagnate and eventually be replaced.

When I read this story, my mind immediately went back to wargaming, because it has infiltrated our thinking on the tabletop as well. I’m not referring to list construction, that dead horse has been whipped into a stinky puddle. I’m also not referring to poor attitudes and sportsmanship at the table; I’ve covered those points elsewhere on my blog, and they do not represent the sum total of competition for the purposes of winning. My point is that competition can be turned bad by those who handle it poorly, but competition in and of itself is not inherently bad.

In essence, I’m trying to speak to a mindset that thrives on the desire to win. The goal of this ideal mindset is not to cheat, for such a thing would nullify the efforts of besting an opponent on equal footing. Likewise, this ideal mindset refuses to yield because things look tough.

We have all been on both sides of the table. On the one hand you have the cursed player. Half his forces are shattered. There is no easy or apparent way forward. On the other hand you have his opponent. All of his shiny models are intact and wreaking vengeance for some perceived slight. The day is grim for the first player, victory almost assured for his opponent.

The purely “play for fun” mindset will choose to bow out when put into the boots of the first player. Let’s face it, the game is going poorly and you aren’t having much fun. It is easier and less stressful to shrug your shoulders, bow out, and shake hands at a game well-played by your opponent.

The ideal mindset will push on through. I’m obviously not talking about forcing your opponent to slay your last three Grots. I’m referring to those games where nothing had gone to plan, and no apparent way to victory remains. In those situations, we should all strive to hold our head high and carry on. Muster your forces, and drive on in an attempt to make the sacrifices of your little plastic men mean something!

There’s an aspect of tabletop generalship that cannot be actualized until these situations are experienced and worked through. Lateral thinking becomes imperative, and you have to read what your opponent is planning next. Even though it is your force enduring the casualties, your opponent will usually be getting weaker as well. Most players can sense when a game is in their hands, and they lose some undefinable edge to their play. I’ve snatched tournaments from the jaws of defeat in these situations, and I’ve also lost tournaments because I fell into a false sense of security. On top of all this you gain a deeper understanding of your warriors’ capabilities. As the battle turns against you, every effort will be made to squeeze the last few ounces of efficiency from your dwindling survivors.

When the going gets tough, it’s easier and more convenient to lay down and quit. However, you will learn much more about your army by pushing through the lopsided endings. Even if you lose, in the end you will be a stronger player and a more complete commander for your efforts.