Please Let Me Concede

[Michael Keating]

Some games you can easily see your opponent has a winning hand from the very get go and no matter how you try to catch up, like 'fetch', it's just not going to happen. For a game like Terraforming Mars, where it can take over an hour to get to 50% in a 2 player game, please just let me concede early. Right now the options are: hang in there but suffer for an hour when you know it's pointless or quit the game and get a massive karma penalty. If you let me concede, I'd do it and take the elo hit; the karma one seems unfair when there isn't another option and it impacts joining other games.

Just let the player enjoy the game and victory. I would not quit a game in real life and I would not do it here

All the while you are bored and unhappy going through the motions, rather than trying another game again that might be more enjoyable?

It isn't the losing player's job to give the winner the win they feel they deserve. If a winner player feels they are owed that, that says that their ego matters more to them than the actual outcome of the game. Enjoyment is self-derived. Expecting another person to entertain you until you are satisfied like they are a miserable dancing monkey is peak selfishness.

Wow! Absolutely unbelievable! Lol. I bet you're a joy to play with! Listen, it is your responsibility be be decent and uphold the unwritten rules of sportsmanship. Wanting to rage quit a game because it's not going well for you is the attitude of a spoiled child.

[tbhp]

The title of this thread could easily be turned around: Please Let Me Play.

[Archisian]

Just let the player enjoy the game and victory. I would not quit a game in real life and I would not do it here

All the while you are bored and unhappy going through the motions, rather than trying another game again that might be more enjoyable?

It isn't the losing player's job to give the winner the win they feel they deserve. If a winner player feels they are owed that, that says that their ego matters more to them than the actual outcome of the game. Enjoyment is self-derived. Expecting another person to entertain you until you are satisfied like they are a miserable dancing monkey is peak selfishness.

Wow! Absolutely unbelievable! Lol. I bet you're a joy to play with! Listen, it is your responsibility be be decent and uphold the unwritten rules of sportsmanship. Wanting to rage quit a game because it's not going well for you is the attitude of a spoiled child.

Wow! Absolutely unbelievable! Lol. I bet you're a joy to play with forcing people to continue to play a game where they are unhappy and miserable!

Listen, it is NOT my responsibility to sit around in a hopeless game just so your ego can feel good. I am NOT your dancing monkey. I DO NOT exist to entertain you. I'm a human being who also likes to play and enjoy games as well. Games where the outcome was decided halfway through are not fun to continue playing. I lost. I accept it and give you the dub. Why MUST I stay when the outcome is already determined? When the game gives me the option to concede at a certain point, why do you want to take that away?

When the game is so far out of reach that you have no chance to win, players should be allowed to acknowledge their loss before the final turn. The only reason for them to stay is so the ego of the winner is satisfied. The loser gets nothing out of it. It's up to them to decide if they want to do that. I don't. If I don't want to stay in a hopeless game, then I'm going to concede at the point where I know it's hopeless. If I have a chance, I'll stay. If not, I'll go. Why do you want to force people to continue to stay where they are unhappy and miserably going through the motions all so the winner can feel good?

Stroking the winner's ego is not "sportsmanship", it is ritualistic capitulation. And really, that's what most people who talk about "sportsmanship" really mean.

[FrankJones]

The only reason for them to stay is so the ego of the winner is satisfied.

This is your opinion, and perhaps you realize this, but I'm not sure, because you repeatedly state is as though it is undisputed objective fact, which just is not the case.

Personally, I prefer a game be played to completion, whether I win or lose. It has nothing to do with ego-stroking. This discussion usually arises when people quit right at the end of the game, which, in my opinion, is poor sportsmanship.

Is the game half-way through and one player just has a very obvious insurmountable lead? Sure, in that situation, it's a reasonable discussion to have: "Hey, do you want to just start another new game?"

This can generally be avoided by having 2 players of similar skill play.

That said, If my IRL board game opponents were to "quit" the moment they realized they couldn't win, some of them would quit before we start the game, because some of them know they cannot possibly win. They're just playing for fun because they enjoy the game. And generally speaking, rage-quitting late in the game is akin to flipping the table over in frustration.

Now, suppose it's a 3-player game among friends. Each person is making a commitment, in my opinion, to play the game to completion. One person rage-quitting a game of Terraforming Mars adversely affects the game for the other two players. The sportsmanlike thing to do is finish the game, enjoy the food and drinks and music and conversation. In my opinion.

Archisian, you personally are a known quitter who quite Wingspan games that are not even always out of reach for a comeback win. Consequently, your end-game skills at Wingspan do not get as much practice as they could.

Then you sometimes post strategy questions, and people take their valuable time writing lengthy responses to you to help you, only to watch you just quit games.

Going forward, if you ask any strategy questions about any aspect of Wingspan, I'm just going to politely respond with, "Finish your games and learn end-game strategy."

[Archisian]

The only reason for them to stay is so the ego of the winner is satisfied.

This is your opinion, and perhaps you realize this, but I'm not sure, because you repeatedly state is as though it is undisputed objective fact, which just is not the case.

Personally, I prefer a game be played to completion, whether I win or lose. It has nothing to do with ego-stroking. This discussion usually arises when people quit right at the end of the game, which, in my opinion, is poor sportsmanship.

Is the game half-way through and one player just has a very obvious insurmountable lead? Sure, in that situation, it's a reasonable discussion to have: "Hey, do you want to just start another new game?"

This can generally be avoided by having 2 players of similar skill play.

That said, If my IRL board game opponents were to "quit" the moment they realized they couldn't win, some of them would quit before we start the game, because some of them know they cannot possibly win. They're just playing for fun because they enjoy the game. And generally speaking, rage-quitting late in the game is akin to flipping the table over in frustration.

Now, suppose it's a 3-player game among friends. Each person is making a commitment, in my opinion, to play the game to completion. One person rage-quitting a game of Terraforming Mars adversely affects the game for the other two players. The sportsmanlike thing to do is finish the game, enjoy the food and drinks and music and conversation. In my opinion.

Archisian, you personally are a known quitter who quits Wingspan games that are not even always out of reach for a comeback win. Consequently, your end-game skills at Wingspan do not get as much practice as they could.

Then you sometimes post strategy questions, and people take their valuable time writing lengthy responses to you to help you, only to watch you just quit games.

Going forward, if you ask any strategy questions about any aspect of Wingspan, I'm just going to politely respond with, "Finish your games and learn end-game strategy."

And that's okay. It's fine to have a different opinion than me, and I respect your opinion. There are even some things I agree with you on, like 3+ player games.

The main reason I responded this way to that person is that what they said didn't simply represent a difference of opinion, they made a universal claim about what is sportsmanship and responsibility in a game. They then tried to tar and feather me because of my difference in opinion with them. That, to me, I feel is unfair and uncalled for. So, I responded to them rather harshly, which I apologize for. But my overall response them still stands to the specific points they made in the way it was written.

There are some things where I can change my mind on and I have, particularly in my discussions with you. I have started playing my Wingspan games further when I feel there is still a chance. I do get frustrated from time to time, that is my weakness, I admit. I have been trying to improve, little by little.

[tbhp]

When the game gives me the option to concede at a certain point, why do you want to take that away?

That's the thing though. Most games don't. A game like Chess does, but that's the exception.

The only reason for them to stay is so the ego of the winner is satisfied. The loser gets nothing out of it.

Wanting to be able to complete your game to conclusion is not an ego thing. And the loser should get something out of it, they should be happy to see how their opponent is going to wrap up their game. Not being able to enjoy a good game anymore just because your game is not the winning one seems rather self centered. If you care about games, you should be able to appreciate them from a general perspective rather than throw a tantrum because of your personal situation. Also, sometimes our boards are impressive and beautiful even though we lost. And sometimes we have to admire what our opponent came up with and admit that they did better than us, or that it was a well fought battle and a great game.

I love the 2022 world cup final even though my team lost. I think it's the greatest football game ever played. There's also important games I lost here which I personally rank very highly. While winning is always the goal, winning is not all that games are about. Otherwise they wouldn't have all the mechanics and aesthetics they have.

[yodamus]

Above, Wow. I am stunned. I completely agree with the above comment. And we rarely agree. But in this case. Well said. Play to the end. Learn from losing. Pay attention to what the winner is doing. Enjoy the playing of the game. Win, lose, or draw. Games will be much more fun to play. Thanks tbhp for making my day. Seeing that we can agree on some points.

[tbhp]

Haha, I'm glad to hear that. I don't think there's any user here I never agree with, it's just that my discussions usually focus more on the disagreements than the agreements.

[FrankJones]

Doesn't the entire "ego-driven" argument fall apart under its own weight anyway?

The argument (one I vehemently disagree with, obviously) goes like this:

"The only reason someone would want/expect the opponent to play the game to the end is the need for personal ego-stroking. There is no other reason, so why should the losing player do this?"

Is the flaw not obvious here?

Why would someone with such a severe emotional issue ever playa losing game to completion rather than just conceding, so as to see a simple 0-1 instead of the "ghastly" losing score from actually finishing the game?

And yet, the people objecting to conceding are not players who themselves do the very thing they are objecting to. Which means, they see value in playing the game to completion, and they even see this value in games they are losing, thereby defeating the entire "ego-stroking" argument.

[tbhp]

Pretty much. The ego argument seems to apply much more to the person who, in their own words, describes pushing through a losing game as a ritualistic capitulation. If they want to avoid that, that means they are trying to preserve a personal sense of ego or something along those lines.

The funny thing is that to the anti-conceders, finishing a losing game is not something that affects a person's ego or dignity, quite the opposite it is a rather honorable thing to do. So people like Archisian are themselves creating the idea in their head that being in this situation must be degrading, and therefore are hurting themselves over nothing. It's also not surprising then that they imagine the situation must be ego stroking for the winner, because they look at the reverse position and apply to their opponent the idea that they believe in, that the losing player is being degraded. So they picture their opponent as taking a sort of egotic pleasure in making their opponent play on, when in reality they just want to finish the game, and would probably have preferred a more suspenseful ending as well.

It seems that Archisian has a worldview where winning and losing are the only things that can possibly drive people, which then causes him to make some antagonistic assumptions. He also has a problem with the phrase "gg", because to him it can only be said as a way to either submit to the winner or assert dominance over the loser. Like he can't picture that people just sincerely think it was nice to play or that the game was good or even just that they think it's always good to acknowledge a game when it's over. That's because to him it seems to be all about win or lose, like the whole culture around games and the enjoyment of them that is not directly linked to the result is non-existent to him.