On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/31 ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk>:
>> I wonder if you're the only nomic player who thinks that winning is only
>> good because of the political benefits you get from it? For me, I'm only
>> trying to get into positions of political power so that I can
>> subsequently win from them.
>
> People don't like winning at all: if you could just win like that,
> would you enjoy it? No. It's the effort that goes into a win that you
> enjoy, such as gaining political power. Actually I'd just contend that
> it's playing in general that we enjoy.
Honestly, I think what makes a good game work is "creative tension."
Around here, examples I've been in the thick of/in the race for:
1. A tight race to a win condition;
2. An attempt to reach and/or hold a pinnacle of political position
against an assault on it;
3. A tense economic bargaining session/deal with a time limit.
And in many cases, achieving the end goal of one of these results was
the result of being successful in one of the others. None are "more
worth playing" than the others IMO: it's often impossible to know which
will be more fun until you're into it, I'd take a contested political
position over an easy win, but I'd take a challenging win over both.
My move and comments on coppro and my win-by-proposal attempts were
mainly an attempt to up the challenge a wee bit.
One notable things are that scam wins are not really on that list; a
scam that comes out of the blue gives a thought of "how clever" (or
"how stupid") and some interesting discussions around the CFJs, but
it's not the same type of tension.
-G.
