Nerd Pride Radio

Dear Miss Nerd Pride,

I had one of my first real negative game sessions tonight and the first time I've raised my voice to a stranger over a boardgame. Well, it was over how he spoke to me, not necessarily the game itself.

Long story short, I took a move in Viticulture very close to the end of the game that cost him 2 points where I could have gained myself one point. He was in a close race for first place. I was in faraway last place.

He had been acting like a real jerk and sulking for about 1 hour of the 4 hour game session when another player (the one also in the race for first place) took back a move. Nobody else had played yet and we all agreed she could take it back, except for him. He had wanted to take a move back previously but others had played after he decided he wanted to change his move. So he didn't end up taking back that move.

Anyway, that's all backstory to my decision, I guess. I honestly was just thinking "Okay, hitting one of them for 2 points is like a 2 point gain for me and potentially I could hit the other one later for the same 2-point loss" But I definitely chose him as the first victim because of how he had been acting. He had been ruining a fun meetup event by berating the other player, pulling faces and complaining every time one of us was "taking too long."

He got super pissy, accused me of "kingmaking" and saying I was making a suboptimal move and therefore costing him the game. He did end up losing. I won't lie and say I wasn't happy he lost. He later made some more snarky remarks at me and it was then I responded by making it clear I wasn't there to get in a pissing match with him. I had just wanted to share some fun over a boardgame and winning just isn't important to me as it clearly was for him.

Was I a jerk for taking away his two points? I guess so. I didn't really do it on purpose, but I was still happy to have done it because of his behaviour. Is penalizing a jerk fair play for a game? Is there some unwritten rule that how you behave at the table won't affect how the other players will treat you in the game?

tl;dr I had no chance of winning and cost a poorly-behaving player a victory with one of my moves. Was that wrong?

Sincerely,
Endless Wanderer

[This is lifted from a . I thought the answer was obvious, but the generated discussion was interesting. Post your own thoughts before being colored by their opinions.]

I love this question so much.

That's not wrong at all. I would have gone out of my way to make that play, and I would have also gone out of my way to make sure that the person who was pissing and moaning all the time knew that I made that play to punish them for being an asshole.

I REALLY don't react well to people who take games to a level of competitiveness that is out of balance with what the rest of the group is interested in doing.

The very first time I ever played Settlers of Catan, a friend of mine from college was teaching the game to several of us who had never played. He very cleverly assisted us in resource management, game play concepts, and then completely obliterated all 3 of us with a card that he knew was in the game that the rest of us did not. I did NOT react well to that. Winning games has always been a BIG deal with this guy, but I really didn't believe that he would have set us up to be beaten by a card that he was waiting for when it was the FIRST time we ever played.

If you want to play a game for money, bragging rights, whatever, fine, lets do it. If you're trying to teach someone a game, and you're going to tell them they can't take back a play or purposely set them up for failure, I really don't ever want to play that game with you again.

Really interested in hearing everyone else's thoughts.

All of these people sound like a) sulky pooheads, and b) people who wouldn't survive a single hour of board games in my household.

You say that like it's one example rather than a way of life.

Through Monopoly alone we have hardened our children's psyches and prepared them for dealing with assholes they will encounter in life. The cutthroat machinations of Risk and UNO have merely been a little icing on the cake.

Who are these tame herd animals who think it's foul play to viciously punish someone in the game for taking the last beer out of game? How else are you supposed to force that person to do the beer run? If someone took, say, your last favorite beer without asking, I think targeting them for in-game destruction is about the gentlest response they should hope for.

And Ron is always the enemy even if he's in 5th place right now. The kids are starting to grasp this. Their problem is that they keep.trying to be "allies" with him on the assumption that might afford them better treatment. It's like hoping the hostage takers give you better crusts than the others, if you cooperate in making the "we're all doing fine here" video. No, kids. It only means mom targets you next.

But yes: it's a dick move to win because you've exploited your opponent's lack of understanding of the game. Your win is meaningless unless you beat someone who knows what they're doing, preferably very well. This is why it becomes increasingly more enjoyable to win family games.

That first example you gave seems totally fine to me - you're playing in an event where people want to compete with good players, yes? It's like when I play internet bridge from time to time with unknown Chinese players who clean my clock. I'm trying to get better, so I want them to show all the methods for beating me. I'll use it myself, just like others will learn about that card you can use.

The dick move is, like, playing Monopoly with someone who doesn't get how to buy a hotel, not telling them, and then feeling like you won something. Nah. (BTW I loathe Monopoly and only play it because my kids like the suffering.) Or playing Risk and not helping your opponent understand what they would get for turning in cards at different points. They might still make stupid decisions in the game, but players at least have to be firing on all rules cylinders or it's not a game! I mean, you need to know what's at stake before playing.

You are missing the key point: someone hypothetically took my last favorite beer without asking, and now mercy indicates merely crushing their soul and draining out all the blood within a game vs irl.

Otherwise, I agree with you - my own style of playing varies completely according to who I'm playing with and what the game is. I'm so much more laid back about games than Ron, but he would say the opposite because if Ron is there, it's on. My parents encouraged intense competition but always in a very laid back and light hearted way. Nobody was going to be stressing outside the moment of decision in the game itself. We played games all the time. It's an interesting crucible for observing character, just like one hears said about golf. I used to take my boyfriends to play cards with my grandma as a kind of vetting procedure for just this reason. You get a window. A lot of people also think they're good at pool who didn't grow up with a table in the house. The reactions can be edifying. There's one person I hope to someday probe in this medium.

Badminton is always played for blood, though. Is any other game like this? Always full stop vicious badminton for blood.

Mike, you're bringing Sushi-Go to GenCon, right?

I like all the game ideas - in particular I have been wanting to get Carcassonne for a while. Lately we've been doing more chess and card games than table top or board games, but as the year rolls on that tends to switch over.

Usually Monopoly and Risk are like you say, but with the 5 of us there is a lot of wheeling and dealing that makes the game unpredictable. It's basically like being in a legal motion hearing if there were no judges, jurors, or any sane outside party to keep things fair and reasonable.