It’s fine to only play games without interaction, sure, but that skirts around the discussion. It was rational for Zach to minimise Xavier’s score during the game, otherwise Zach would have lost. That’s not “picking on someone”, that’s playing an interactive game. The situation becomes interesting (potentially confrontational) when Zach claims Xavier “should” choose a final move that benefits Zach, because it’s the “rational” choice that nets Xavier the most points. As Xavier, I probably wouldn’t make that choice, and if Zach made such an argument, I might even try to point out why I think it’s a poor argument (or I might not, because such discussions can end poorly, due to everyone having a different perspective on what actually occurred during the game).
I’m sure we’ve had this discussion before, but this is the difference between a game and the metagame.
I’m not sure if it’s an accepted concept or not, but the “meta” is the game that occurs around and outside of the game itself. Alice bought Bob pizza: Bob is more likely to be nice to Alice. This has nothing to do with the game itself, but Alice knowing that Bob tends to think kindly towards those who bring snacks can be a significant part of a game.
In miniature wargames, the meta is often defined by what you expect people to bring or play, rather than what is actually “allowed.” The meta might be heavy on Palpatine + Snowtroopers, for example, and therefore people have to be ready to “counter the meta” if they want to do well in a tournament.
Right, all that aside: the metagame is a part of a game. It’s unavoidable in any multiplayer game. But I think the significant element is the belief that the metagame shouldn’t determine the winner of a game, outside of an acknowledgement that it exists.
My brother beats me every time we play chess: he verbally insults and berates me until I lose focus, and then exploits that to win. Is that “allowed”? Sure. It’s part of a game that the people playing it are humans.
But the social contract that many people make when they play a game is that the winner should be chosen by the utilization of the game, and not the meta. Alice buying Bob pizza might make him more inclined to be nice to Alice, but if Alice wins because she bribed Bob with pizza, that feels like a violation of the game, regardless of what the game is.
King-making within a game’s systems is fine: the Bene Gesserit in Dune are factual King-makers, and I think that’s one of my favourite factions in any game ever. King-making outside of a game’s systems feels icky to me. It feels like it shifts from a “I’d like to win this game” (good!) to a “I must win this game at all costs and will use any and all tools available to me to win” (icky).
But obviously this is a highly subjective perspective, and there are people who ignore any concept of meta (that is to say they play with no regard to what the community or opponents are doing: you will optimize your own systems and moves, and let your opponents do the same with whatever tools they have).
Calling interaction that is wholly contained within the game part of the metagame just muddies the waters, in my opinion. Just about everyone is opposed to bringing meta considerations to the table, except for the specific meaning of deck/army construction that you highlighted.
Edit: oh, I get it. You are saying that some people consider even their opponents to be external factors, outside the game? That’s getting a little too solipsistic for me, but it is certainly an approach that exists. I still think it’s a stretch to lump the existence of opponents in with “meta” considerations though.
I guess the end of John Company could be considered a bit weird, if you went for the deliberately crashing the company option (I’ve only ever done it accidentally)
Bankrupting yourself in an 18xx game is valid to end the game. It’s obvious you lost, and so the social contract is no longer valid for the entire table, and thus, you end the game.
I’ve heard sone people dont like that but I thought those people dont mind dragging their friends through misery while they keep on winning.
Modern Euros are such a pisstake at this when the losers have to play another hour or two. This is why designers use every trick under the sun so no one at the table would know who is winning. It’s quite telling when you ask a table who is winning and they couldnt tell because there’s so much blinkers in place
I agree.
On the other hand, please have a “valid” assessment of the gamestate before you declare “I’ve already lost” on turn 2. (I know you do. I just heard those words too often after minor setbacks…)
I don’t mind losing on turn 2 so long as I’m having fun and usually that means not knowing I’m losing on turn 2–ignorance is bliss, after all. This assumes that the game itself is fun. If what I’m doing in the game, both mentally and mechanically, is interesting and engaging, then it’s not so bad.
I ran into this recently in a game of Thunder Alley. It wasn’t turn 2, but maybe turn 3 or 4, I realized that I had had made an error that would take a lot of effort and luck to recover from. As it turned out, my card draws sucked (seriously, a hand full of Lead and Solo movement, not so helpful when you’re behind) and I lost, but I made a good go of it.
One of my friends is so negative if they’re not obviously winning by a mile are convinced they’re losing and loudly states so over and over. It’s actually quite funny after a while. However I find it a little annoying with new players who believe him and then effectively hand him the win by avoiding attacking his strong positions. He’s really smart but emotionally fragile so someone once described playing games with him as ‘like playing games with a high end robot that gets upset’. That emotional aspect stops him winning many games and has led me to conclude that it plays a big part in how most people play games. One person I know uses too much maths so it doesn’t apply that much to them and they win more first games than anyone else I know. So being dispassionate seems like cheating to me now. This was a discursive round the houses of me sharing your pain. It’s annoying.