Conceeding?

[WhiteAlien]

It is incredibly selfish to concede. The game is not only about the end result, it is also about participation. I run a yahtzee games website where we ban people from tournaments if they do not finish at least 70% of their games. Players complain that this is not strict enough; a minority think this rule should be scrapped.

The thing is, it's a board game. Imagine sitting down with your friends, falling behind, and then just walking out half way through the game because you happen to be losing.

Ok, it could be that if you play very competitively then the 'win' matters more than the game to specific groups, but if it's a mixed group of players with different attitudes you're likely to fall out with a lot of them.

That makes me think actually, conceding in a tournament should be permitted but conceding in friendly games should only be permitted if your house is on fire or somebody is physically there requiring your attention in a real life matter, which is of course more important than a game.

[Ceaseless]

It is incredibly selfish to concede. The game is not only about the end result, it is also about participation. I run a yahtzee games website where we ban people from tournaments if they do not finish at least 70% of their games. Players complain that this is not strict enough; a minority think this rule should be scrapped.

The thing is, it's a board game. Imagine sitting down with your friends, falling behind, and then just walking out half way through the game because you happen to be losing.

Ok, it could be that if you play very competitively then the 'win' matters more than the game to specific groups, but if it's a mixed group of players with different attitudes you're likely to fall out with a lot of them.

That makes me think actually, conceding in a tournament should be permitted but conceding in friendly games should only be permitted if your house is on fire or somebody is physically there requiring your attention in a real life matter, which is of course more important than a game.

It is incredibly selfish to prevent someone from conceding. The quality of the game's remaining turns to reach the end result matter. As a game about participation, when there is no meaningful participation to be had, conceding is a reasonable option to look at. If there are no meaningful things for a player to actually do in the game, why should they be forced to continue making empty moves? Conceding is finishing a game.

The thing is, it's a board game. Imagine sitting down with your friends, getting far ahead, and watching the bored looks on their faces as you take your turns, steamrolling them with your unassailable advantage.

Ok, it could be if your friends really have nothing better to do then sitting there watching matters more than having fun to specific groups, but if not this is not going to be a great time.

This makes me think that actually, conceding should be permitted, and we don't need silly checks for friendly games over if someone's house is on fire or not. If a player wants to concede because the game is over, that's fine. Now the players can enjoy starting the next game, where more interesting things can happen. A game is about interaction, and when that part is over, there's no need to drag it out, people didn't play to watch someone play with themselves the rest of the game.

[calvaria]

I'm going to add my $0.02 as well.

I feel there's almost nothing wrong with the current state of conceding.

At the end of the day, games are supposed to be fun for all players. If the game stops being fun for one player, it seems to me quite selfish (as others in this thread put it) to force them to be part of the game, just so that you can complete your satisfaction.

It's a matter of understanding and putting yourself in the other persons' shoes - the conceder could respect the opponent's desire to fullfill their win (and not concede), while the opponent could accept the conceder's desire to stop playing (and take the win).

Thre main argument in favour of conceding is that things also happen in the real world. If you have a delivery, or your kids come home and require your attention, or you're playing during a meeting and you're asked to share your screen (definitely did not happen to me, no sir), then conceding is there as a great option to apologise and end the game, without ghosting the other player and making them timeout you.

The only small argument against conceding is the act of conceding out of spite, close to the end of the game, just to deny the winner their satisfaction of seeing their final score add up. For that I'd say that you shouldn't be able to conceed psat 85% of the game's progress (That should be roughly 5 minutes of play).

All in all, be nice and respectful through the use of the in-game chat - it makes a whole lot of difference if you say at least a 'gg' when you conceed.

And if the other person conceeds on you and you feel dissapointed, just imagine that their annoyance of playing the losing game is bigger than your annoyance of not finishing it. In the end, you still got the win.

[TryWhite]

There's nothing wrong with conceding. Have some grace in winning. I've literally never heard of people being mad about something so strange.

[ceilatomato]

Clearly people have strong differing opinions about this. Personally I very much prefer people don’t concede, and that’s coming from someone who mostly loses. There should be an option to allow concession just like there are options to exclude powerful cards and language-dependent bonus cards.

[detlefchef11]

I don't think I would ever concede just because I always feel like I have a chance and/or have some stupid desire to see how well I can make an otherwise bad game turn out. Can I at least get to 80 in a game where everything went wrong from the start? Things like.

That said, I'm also convinced that all your bonus cards are maxed out regardless of how few birds you have because I'm paranoid. So, if you want to do me a solid and put that notion to rest by conceding, that's fine with me.

[slimy_asparagus]

Can't we/you prohibit conceeding with just say 2-3 turns left? Or even better, let the plater ask for permission to conceede like you do to abandon a game. Just as you can't conceede until 50% is played I don't think you should be able to when you played ~95% of the game.

I've had it happen at last 5 times that people concede as I'm finishing my last turn (just to rob you of the satisfaction of seeing your end score). This is not against the rules of the site, and I have NO problem with it in the majority of games but in Wingspan I think seeing your final score and compeeting against your own high scores is a big part of the attraction of the game, at last for me.

Anyone who agrees?

I want to second this. I don't sympathize at all with the comments of those who disagree. However I should thank for expressing those opposing opinions none the less.

[psychomike]

I don't have a problem with anyone conceding a game. It's right that the option should be there.
However, when you concede a game, out of politeness you need to tell the other player, or better still ASK the other player if it's ok before doing it.
What gets me is the conceders who never say a word and concede on your last turn or somewhere near that. That's just very bad manners.

[PaulB-UK]

I had a game today where I'd finished and my opponent played their last turn. Instead of confirming their move, they conceded - which must have taken them longer as they'd have to find the button. A win is a win, so not bothered at all, but it did seem rather pointless - and petty, as the only reason to do it would be stop the bonuses being calculated.

[detlefchef11]

I had a game today where I'd finished and my opponent played their last turn. Instead of confirming their move, they conceded - which must have taken them longer as they'd have to find the button. A win is a win, so not bothered at all, but it did seem rather pointless - and petty, as the only reason to do it would be stop the bonuses being calculated.

petty is exactly the word for that