Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[tbhp]

Just because some things are constructed, doesn't mean that it's meaningful in an abstract sense. Look at the endless Soviet style apartment buildings that are built in the exact same way with the exact same colors and proportions. Do we consider those buildings on the same level as a Frank Lloyd Wright building? Of course we don't as those buildings were built for efficiency. Games are the same way, particularly for board games. The goal is to be as efficient as possible with getting the max benefit to win. I'd be shocked if there was a board game out there where the goal was NOT to maximize efficiency in order to win.

I wanted to add: the beautiful thing about humans is that they'll tend to see art even in places where art wasn't intended.

One could even say that the whole idea of art originates from this human inclination: art seeks to manually replicate this feeling of "art" or "beauty" that we are naturally designed to feel, from nature, from people, from life situations...

But that doesn't even apply to board games, as board games obviously can have a lot of intended artistry in both their mechanisms and designs, so it shouldn't be surprising that people would attach a lot of artistic importance to a board game.

Now, obviously, when you play a game your first concern is probably to win, but at the same time, the artistry of games is also a big reason why people play them in the first place.

[BarnardsStar]

Completely agree with every point you made.

Ugh ugh ugh, this thread was finally dead until you had to come back and revive it with a post essentially saying “I agree and wish to add nothing!”

Now we are going to be doomed to fruitlessly and endlessly hashing this out until TI4 is finally out!

I think all these fluff arguments about "art" and stats is really masking the real reason: they want the euphoric feeling of winning as big as possible.

Oh wait, you do have something to add: gratuitous insults and painting the entire opposing side as vicious and vainglorious. Nice.

Lest we forget, the original topic was conceding at the last minute. There’s conceding as good sportsmanship (as soon as it’s clear the game is won)m and there’s conceding as bad sportsmanship (just doing it to spite the other player). I draw a clear line between these two and have no problem with the former. But the latter is just poor, poor sportsmanship.

[Shivaware]

I don't mean to repeat myself, but I do.

NOBODY is "forced" to do anything. Want to stop playing? NO ONE CAN MAKE YOU OR FORCE YOU TO CONTINUE.


In a 3+ player game, It is NOT possible to "concede". Why are the pro-conceders not upset about this ???????

Why in a 3+ player game are players "FORCED" to keep playing ?

??????????

I'll try to explain my perspective on the difference between 2-player games and 3+ player games. To me, games have an underlying pure mathematical representation, and determining the winner of a game is very fundamental. Conceding a 2-player game is a completely well-defined operation that decisively determines the winner. On the other hand, trying to concede in a 3+ player game does not generally determine a winner. At best, you are forced to come up with special procedures for each game to deal with the player that left, or just accept an invalid outcome.

Conceding a 2-player game feels more like an alienable right, whereas conceding a 3+ player game feels more like the "right" to play with your food in a fancy restaurant.

Putting all that aside, this thread has shown me that some people are intensely bothered by conceding, so I've created a special group that they can join, and then they will be able to restrict all of their games to only like-minded players. I genuinely hope this group can grow and be successful, and I'll do my best to make it a concession-free oasis. (Yes, my game history here has no concessions, and I guess I will have to keep it that way from now on.)

Edit: So far, not a single player has joined my silly group. Since I'm not actually against conceding in general, I've decided to loosen the group's "rule" about having a concession-free game history. Just don't concede any games that are restricted to this group!

[tbhp]

I don't mean to repeat myself, but I do.

NOBODY is "forced" to do anything. Want to stop playing? NO ONE CAN MAKE YOU OR FORCE YOU TO CONTINUE.


In a 3+ player game, It is NOT possible to "concede". Why are the pro-conceders not upset about this ???????

Why in a 3+ player game are players "FORCED" to keep playing ?

??????????

I'll try to explain my perspective on the difference between 2-player games and 3+ player games. To me, games have an underlying pure mathematical representation, and determining the winner of a game is very fundamental. Conceding a 2-player game is a completely well-defined operation that decisively determines the winner. On the other hand, trying to concede in a 3+ player game does not generally determine a winner. At best, you are forced to come up with special procedures for each game to deal with the player that left, or just accept an invalid outcome.

Conceding a 2-player game feels more like an alienable right, whereas conceding a 3+ player game feels more like the "right" to play with your food in a fancy restaurant.

This is all very right, but what I don't understand is, when people concede in a 2-player game, they don't seem to care about the harm they might be causing to their opponent. But now you are saying that when it's a 3-player game, suddenly they care that conceding would lead to an unfair situation for the remaining players?

How is it possible that they are showing consideration for others in one situation, but not the other? Even though the natures of the concerns are different in the two cases, you would expect them to care about both, if they are able to care at all.

[Archisian]

Ugh ugh ugh, this thread was finally dead until you had to come back and revive it with a post essentially saying “I agree and wish to add nothing!”

I was talking to another person, not to you. How about you grow up and mind your own business? You didn't have to come back to this thread.

Oh wait, you do have something to add: gratuitous insults and painting the entire opposing side as vicious and vainglorious. Nice.

Right, so I'm supposed to take that I'm literally harming someone, ruining art and I'm a selfish person for conceding in an online board game as NOT an insult? Lol. That's what the anti-conceders are saying.

Lest we forget, the original topic was conceding at the last minute. There’s conceding as good sportsmanship (as soon as it’s clear the game is won)m and there’s conceding as bad sportsmanship (just doing it to spite the other player). I draw a clear line between these two and have no problem with the former. But the latter is just poor, poor sportsmanship.

If you know it was to spite the other player, then I agree. But if you don't know that, I'm not going to take your assumptions as the gospel truth.

[Archisian]

Just because some things are constructed, doesn't mean that it's meaningful in an abstract sense. Look at the endless Soviet style apartment buildings that are built in the exact same way with the exact same colors and proportions. Do we consider those buildings on the same level as a Frank Lloyd Wright building? Of course we don't as those buildings were built for efficiency. Games are the same way, particularly for board games. The goal is to be as efficient as possible with getting the max benefit to win. I'd be shocked if there was a board game out there where the goal was NOT to maximize efficiency in order to win.

I wanted to add: the beautiful thing about humans is that they'll tend to see art even in places where art wasn't intended.

One could even say that the whole idea of art originates from this human inclination: art seeks to manually replicate this feeling of "art" or "beauty" that we are naturally designed to feel, from nature, from people, from life situations...

But that doesn't even apply to board games, as board games obviously can have a lot of intended artistry in both their mechanisms and designs, so it shouldn't be surprising that people would attach a lot of artistic importance to a board game.

Now, obviously, when you play a game your first concern is probably to win, but at the same time, the artistry of games is also a big reason why people play them in the first place.

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=801383240

Here's one of my Wingspan games. Describe to me the art and beauty of it.

[Andrei3009]

Why are the pro-conceders not upset about this ???????

I know this sounds like a cheap comment bait on some random forum, but you don't want to look at how my opinion about conceding in board games was formed during my life, without arguments for and against, purely my personal experience with examples of game names and some specific stories. This will include answer on your question .

I'll probably write it anyway later , but it will take a lot of effort (I usually spend a long time writing good posts, especially in a non-native language) and your desire will give me motivation . I would also like to hear something similar from you or somebody else.

[MarkSteere]

All I'm seeing is just opinion and nothing of actual substance.

You noticed that too

Some of these guys have trouble distinguishing between subjective experience and objective reality. I tried to help them with that, but I don't think I got very far.

No, you're not literally "forced" to keep playing, but you are subjected to whining, nagging, sniveling, insults, and falacious arguments about how you have some kind of ridiculous moral obligation to keep playing.

My "harm" caused by continuing in a game I've already lost? I'd rather gauge my eyes out and barbeque them. But don't worry about me. Let's just keep chipping away at your statue of David until I completely lose my mind.

[tbhp]

In fact, I think I'm being harmed more because at least the winner has the satisfaction of winning. I receive literally no benefit from playing out an already lost game.

It's not about what is gained, it's about what is lost. When something that you cherish is destroyed, the fact that you won is not much consolation.

However, your desire to ban conceding is imposing your view onto me. This is different than simply allowing conceding.

Except the ability to concede precisely means the ability to impose a game termination on someone. So you are imposing something too.

My logic is that no one is all that affected by not being able to concede. They aren't gonna lose sleep over it, the memory isn't gonna haunt them for the rest of their life, so why should I rate the concern very high?

[tbhp]

Some of these guys have trouble distinguishing between subjective experience and objective reality.

Yeah, because the feelings of boredom and frustration that pro-conceders feel are not also, well, subjective feelings...

At least anti-conceders are trying to protect something that has value beyond their own experience, something of cultural importance. Your feelings of not wanting to be bothered when you want to concede are purely your feelings. They exist only in your head, so they are the further from objective reality.