Gaming etiquette

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

And on December 24th, Father Chaos brought us... A brand new army book for Daemon Legions!

  • I think it all depends on what expectations the players have for the game.
    If you realize during the game that your opponent has a different approach to the game than you I think you should stop and do something else.

    To avoid these situations you should really have a chat with your opponent about your expectations for the game. There’s tons of stuff you can’t put in the rules.

    Back in the day I often failed to reflect much on the gaming experience I wanted to have and accepted way too many games that I now regret.

    I play much less these days, but my games are much more satisfying.
  • JimMorr wrote:

    The game is supposed to be fun for both sides. A player should not be forced to play 6 turns if those turns will be only their opponents fun. Better propose another game instantly and get another extremely fast win. ;)
    the game is also supposed to improve skill for a tourney.
    Now, i dont know the level of players neither their exlectation from 9th age.
    But u are not supposed to rematch in important events.
    Eventually, if u take.note of battle reports u can take note about what mistake u did to not doit again.
    Maybe opponent was smarter and played better and rematch denied a deserved advantage. Not fun not right.

    But as i stated i dont know.the level of plying
  • Shukran wrote:

    JimMorr wrote:

    The game is supposed to be fun for both sides. A player should not be forced to play 6 turns if those turns will be only their opponents fun. Better propose another game instantly and get another extremely fast win. ;)
    the game is also supposed to improve skill for a tourney.Now, i dont know the level of players neither their exlectation from 9th age.
    But u are not supposed to rematch in important events.
    Eventually, if u take.note of battle reports u can take note about what mistake u did to not doit again.
    Maybe opponent was smarter and played better and rematch denied a deserved advantage. Not fun not right.

    But as i stated i dont know.the level of plying
    Test games are less valuable than “real” games. Hence the name. One player did not get anything out of the game, so he quit. It sounda like rhey havn’t discussed what they wanted from the game. Classic mistake.
  • New

    I think it is poor sportsmanship to quit a game that early, no matter the reason.

    I have both won and lost games that quickly, but I have always played on. I have also witnessed someone make a mistake going first and concede the game before their opponent even had a turn, which was the worst dummy spit I have ever seen.

    If you want to take your ball and go home that's up to you, but it is still bad sportsmanship.
  • New

    I am "one of those players" that will quit a game early if specific things happen that will most probably result in a big loss.

    Do I think that this is bad gaming etiquette? Hell no.

    In other games giving up when you cannot win anymore is considered good sportsmanship. And not doing this is a way of wasting time and hoping for the "enemy do make a mistake". Just an example how points of perspective can change.

    I know that this game is based on dice rolls. And those can go in either way. And therefore influence battles in both favours. Even when one is loosing in 99% probability there is still a slight chance you can kick his balls by just rolling against all odds.

    For me, this isn't fun. Neither waiting for those slight chance rolls, nor winning because of that.
    But for a lot of people this is part of this game. And part of gaming in general.
    I accept that.

    But people have to understand one thing:
    Not everyone defines "winning" and "having fun" the same way.
    For me, a 10/10 where both players did their best and the rolls is didn't go in one side too much is the best game.
    I don't care about winning. Especially not when it is because of my good rolling.
    But I am angry when I waste time because of bad rolling. Because loosing big because of rolling bad is not fun me. Even with a nice dude playing with.
    I can never feel fun with that. Even if I try. Really hard. Just pure psychologically not possible for me.
    And people have to understand and also accept that. Not everyone is the same. Sexually, visually and psychologicaly.

    BUT
    I tried to look at this from other players perspective: why do people get angry/disappointed when I give up?

    Well for a lot of them it is that they feel being cheated of the feel of being victorious.
    A lot of people need this feeling afterwards.
    Most of them are also people that like to complain about bad rolls.

    Well in general it is easier to complain about others and situations then looking for problems inside ourself. So pointing with fingers to "those players" is better then admitting something is wrong with you and your attitude.

    Ooooor that a "legitimate" 20-0/18-2/whatever just feels better then winning because your opponent gave up.

    Just try to think about that.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Ferkinason ().

  • New

    Ferkinason wrote:

    In other games giving up when you cannot win anymore is considered good sportsmanship. And not doing this is a way of wasting time and hoping for the "enemy do make a mistake". Just an example how points of perspective can change.
    Which games are those?

    Ferkinason wrote:

    I know that this game is based on dice rolls. And those can go in either way. And therefore influence battles in both favours. Even when one is loosing in 99% probability there is still a slight chance you can kick his balls by just rolling against all odds.


    For me, this isn't fun. Neither waiting for those slight chance rolls, nor winning because of that.
    I'm curious as to why you don't find it enjoyable.
  • New

    Fnarrr wrote:

    It wouldn't reward you skill at this point, just some stroke of luck. That's not really why many of us play this.
    ...but why?
    The game is decided by hundreds of little strokes of luck with almost nothing not being dependant upon dice rolls.

    Ferkinason wrote:

    I just don't enjoy winning big/loosing big because of bad rolls either side
    ...but why?
    What makes it not enjoyable?

    Maybe I should put it this way:
    Why does the dice result (which you have no control over) have such an effect on your enjoyment of the game?
  • New

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Fnarrr wrote:

    It wouldn't reward you skill at this point, just some stroke of luck. That's not really why many of us play this.
    ...but why?The game is decided by hundreds of little strokes of luck with almost nothing not being dependant upon dice rolls.

    Ferkinason wrote:

    I just don't enjoy winning big/loosing big because of bad rolls either side
    ...but why?What makes it not enjoyable?

    Maybe I should put it this way:
    Why does the dice result (which you have no control over) have such an effect on your enjoyment of the game?
    Because they want to win or lose because of skill, not luck.

    A little randomness is part of that. Planning around that element of uncertainty and adapting to slight twists of fortune are what make these games interesting compared to games like chess.

    If luck has too much influence, especially early in the game, it replaces skill as the deciding factor.

    Losing because your opponent outplayed you is ok, losing because you gambled on a risky action which didn't work out is ok, losing because your opponent took full advantage of every little bit of luck IS being outplayed.

    But losing because your opponent got really lucky repeatedly, or you were really unlucky repeatedly, that just isn't fun.
  • New

    As everything in this life, there is a big scale of grey in why people feels bad when the oponent concedes:

    - Some people can play an small amount of games, lets say 1 each month, because life sucks. So, they want to bave as much time in battle as they can, and conceding after one hour means he has to wait 30 days till his next game.

    - For some people, the narrative is important. The what is less important than the how. Yes, they know they have win (or lost), but expanding the imaginerie and background of his army is more important than winning. How many units has my lord slayed? Which duels has win or lost? Could that unit whitstand the asault of that monster?

    - Sime people doesn't care about winning or lising. They care about rolling dice. No more, no less.

    - For some people the important is the time. Socialitzation. Where did you got that miniature? Which producer it is? What was his best battle? How long have you been playing wargames? Where do you work? We can play and know each other even if you are winning/loosing. Do you want a beer?

    Personally I can understand people leaving a game. Personally what I like to do is putting a limit time, avove normal round tournament time. I have withdraw some games, but those are 10/10 games in tournaments when both players didn.'t want to engage enemy. But I find that I learn way more from a 0-20 than for a 20-0, so I wont surrender due to bad luck stroje.
  • New

    How should that work in practise?

    Player A loses the first important unit in turn 1 and says "Well, I can quit or do you want to keep playing?"

    It goes all downhill from there, since the questions itself is quite a motivational killer as far as I´m concerned.

    Again, if it´s turn 4 and you are way outnumbered I could understand it. But, as I mentioned in my opening post,
    quitting after unit is lost is bad sportsmanship in my opinion but I can accept other point of views.

    When I go down big time early on, I change my perspective (Can I do better than 5:15 ? Can I get his General ?
    Can I try a manouveur I haven´t tried before? )
    Gotta kill those elves
  • New

    Like I said before, respect needs to go both ways.

    Just quitting as soon as the game turns against you is poor sportsmanship IMO. However, so is expecting someone to play a game they aren't enjoying, just so you can enjoy crushing them..

    If players use some common sense and respect each other's enjoyment of the game, you can usually find a resolution which works for both players.

    You might agree to call it, and set up again for a rematch, if there is time. Or you might agree to "officially" call it, but play out the rest of the game anyway, taking it less seriously, especially if there isn't time for another game.

    I've had great games where I had effectively won or lost on turn 2, and we agreed the "official" result of the game, then gave ourselves new objectives and played out the rest of the game, with the losing player having a new, achievable objective ("the battle is lost, now the general and his Guard must break free and escape to rally other forces to continue the war" or "the orc invasion has been stopped, but if they can kill the Duke or break a unit through to sack the village, it will be a pyrrhic victory for the humans").

    Even if you can't agree a satisfactory conclusion for both players, at least you have tried, and have shown respect for your opponent.
  • New

    As long as beforehand expectations are told, there shouldn't be a problem.

    Personally, I also think that it isn't the same saying "well, I lose, gg" than explaining why. Do some sort of theoryhammer like "You charge here, kill chaff, I try this, you go here... Let's roll this future combat where I can have luck and call it the game?"

    But then, everybody is different and expecfs something different, therefore ones find ofensive saying gg and others find ofensive forcing to continue playing.
  • New

    Ferkinason wrote:

    My point was that you cannot declare a person as a bad sportsman because he doesn't enjoy loosing or rolling bad.
    I disagree here. I think I can call somebody a bad sportsman when he only enjoys a game if it goes the way he wants it. Being a sportsman doesn´t mean you enjoy losses but you take it with dignity and don`t whine.

    That doesn´t mean I say quitting is by definition without dignity or whining.
    Gotta kill those elves