What Do You Recommend for a Thin-Skinned Gamer?

[Patrick]

Another hobby of mine is personality typing. In Myers-Briggs terms,
my type is INFP, and one thing I've read about INFPs (and the other
three varieties of NF too) is that they tend to be rather thin-
skinned, conflict avoidant, and prone to take things too personally.
One theorist, David Keirsey, advises parents to steer their NF
children away from games, unless they're cooperative games, because NF
kids are apt to end up hurt or traumatized by the gaming experience.

Well, despite my personality, I've loved games all my life. Can't get
enough of reading about them, shopping for them, discussing them, and
playing them. Yet, I find there's some truth to what Keirsey says.

Anytime I'm playing a game against another person--be it face-to-face,
by mail, or online--I find the tension pretty uncomfortable. I get
very self-conscious and a little stressed out. I worry that I might
do something stupid and be ridiculed; I worry that I might do
something devastating and hurt my opponent's feelings. I worry about
everything. If I lose, I feel like a worthless moron. And if I win,
I'm ashamed of having crushed a fellow human being.

These worries aren't that extreme; they don't keep me from playing
games altogether. I do play in spite of feeling that way. But I've
never been able to change that way of feeling or develop a thicker
skin.

So, what's an avid gamer to do when he's stuck with a thin skin like
that?

One thing I end up doing is play a lot of solitaire. Periodically I
get into soltaire (patience) card games; more often I play two-player
games against a computer AI. I still feel like a miserable worm when
I lose, but at least I can feel unabashedly elated when I win.

Keirsey suggests cooperative games. I've tried only one of those--
Pandemic. But I played it solitaire, so I still don't know what it's
like when played with other people. My wife is reluctant to play that
game, so I may never find out what it's like. I've heard, though,
that in cooperative games, one player usually takes the lead and
directs play for everybody. So, I suspect it'd take the right group
of players with the right kind of attitude to make a game like that
fun and interesting.

I've been roped into playing a couple noncompetitive games--the Ungame
and Lifestories. Didn't like those at all. They're not games really;
they're just structured devices designed to get people talking to each
other.

Games with a richly detailed theme and plenty of randomness seem to
help--wargames and probably RPGs. It's possible to enjoy being
immersed in the vicarious role-playing adventure and become
unconcerned (or less concerned) with winning or losing.

I do like interesting problem-solving challenges, though, and I get
frustrated or bored when a game's theme covers up or displaces the
problem-solving aspect of the game. I'm the kind of person who likes
reading up on games like chess and go, studying strategy and tactics.
I love figuring out how to make something work in a game--or at least
how to keep from falling into an opponent's trap. Right now I'm
reading a book on cribbage, studying the decision-making process that
most crib players learn via trial and error.

Yet, I'd never want to participate in a cribbage tournament. I did
that once, a number of years ago, in an online tournament. Came in
first or second too, as I recall. But I still remember the extreme
tension I experienced: my heart was pounding, and I was on the edge
of my seat, gritting my teeth the whole time. I found that so
unpleasant that all these years later I still get nervous just
thinking about it. The last thing I want to do is play games
competitively. But I would like to learn to play games well; and
sometimes competition is a necessary means of achieving or testing
one's level of mastery.

Anyhow, that's my experience, FWIW. Anything you'd suggest for a thin-
skinned gamer?

[Peter Clinch]

Patrick wrote:

> Anyhow, that's my experience, FWIW. Anything you'd suggest for a thin-
> skinned gamer?

A co-operative game might be the thing. There are various about,
more in recent years, plus old faves like Scotland Yard that can be
played competitively or co-operatively (unless you're the elusive
Mr X, that is).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Sukunai]

Hmm I 'think' I am sort of thin skinned when I look at my performance
of forums. I have a hard time dealing with people saying nasty things
to me directly.

But then I like to think of myself as a very decent gamer. I don't
mind losing, I like to have my fun when I win, but I am able to
realize I can't win all the time.

I'm ok playing poker for money, and I don't have a problem sitting
down to a 10 dollar limit game of nickel ante poker.

I like ASL mainly because the game is a hoot even if you don't win.

I tend to really enjoy parlour games like Chess or Backgammon even
though I'm not much good.

I don't mind playing multi player games like Civilization. I'm ok if a
person declares their game is toast and they want to concede. I've
done it often enough myself.

I do tend to find myself saying to myself, nah I will likely play all
day, and then lose, and I'd rather just work on a model instead. With
models, you don't need to worry about winning or losing :)

My biggest problem with wargames, played online, is so many of them
have designs soooo easy to cheat with. And while lots of people will
claim 'oh I would never cheat' frankly we are all human, and if
there's nothing to keep us honest, then there is nothing to convince
us the other guy wasn't cheating. And that's why I have nearly no
experience with wargames played online. I just don't feel like being
cheated, and I don't feel like worrying if I win, being presumed to
have cheated.

As such, the best games, for the thin skinned, are likelly the ones
where winning is not really a factor.
The only game I can think of offhand, is rolegaming. If your PC dies,
you just make another. The game essentially never ends, and thus,
there is no point where anyone ever 'wins'.

[David Kidd]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:59, Sukunai<sukunai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> With models, you don't need to worry about winning or losing :)

Oh, I dunno about that. You should see some of my models...

Back to the original question, I think this is an interesting concept.
In general, I suppose one-on-one symmetric games that are highly
adversarial with non-random mechanics (like Chess) are probably more
likely to sting when I lose, and make me feel good when I win. But I
think the context in which the game is being played, rather than its
nature, is just as important, if not more.

For example, if I'm experimenting with a new strategy or playing with
a new fun group, then I don't mind losing. In other words, you could
say my 'traversal' of the game was more fun (or more rewarding) than
the destination. However, in the same way that losing might not have
much of an impact, winning doesn't either. Playing the Catan card game
with my wife, to take a recent example, is a way for us to interact,
connect and learn about each other. I don't take as much joy in
beating her in a game, and losing doesn't really matter either.

So perhaps if losing is such a big blow to the psyche, you could seek
out or contrive (or reappraise) situations that are intrinsically
rewarding during play, whether it's the nature of the game
(co-operative, random elements, etc) or the situation (selection of
compatible personalities, or playing in familiar territories, or
taking an 'instructional' stance with new players, or knowingly
experimenting). Or, hell, just knock down a bottle of red wine, get
drunk, and see what happens!

[John McLeod]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, David Kidd <dave...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Back to the original question, I think this is an interesting concept.
>In general, I suppose one-on-one symmetric games that are highly
>adversarial with non-random mechanics (like Chess) are probably more
>likely to sting when I lose, and make me feel good when I win. But I
>think the context in which the game is being played, rather than its
>nature, is just as important, if not more.

I remember, back when I was a research student, I had a colleague who
would only play games with an element of chance. He would not play, for
example, Go, because if he lost he would have no option but to admit to
himself that he had played worse than his opponent. But playing cards
was OK because if he lost he could tell himself that it was only due to
bad luck.

So at seems that games of chance may be good for the thin-skinned, or at
least for certain kinds of thin skins.
--
John McLeod For information on card games visit
jo...@pagat.com http://www.pagat.com/

[Sukunai]

I have also found, that some people just can't take a game seriously,
if there is nothing to gain, nothing at stake.

Being a wargamer, I am inherently prone to like games of the Risk
sort. But I find official, original, unmodified Risk to be deadly dull
and ultimately boring.
It's because the game is like Chess in that there are certain key
opening considerations, and if you don't even know them, well odds are
you lost the game before you even began.

I also find, people familiar with a game, will play more seriously if
winning actually matters.
For instance, playing Risk, where you lose a dollar each time you lose
an army, will make your choices more well thought out. It's now not
just 'oh just throw some dice, I might get lucky', it's a whole
different ball game.
I played this way once in the army. Hmm several guys, one only winner
(wasn't me unfortunately) and the winner got every dollar surrendered
to the pot during play. Yeah it was a lot of cash.

Picture playing your wife Chess for chores. Lose a game, you do a
chore for a week or maybe even a month. Ah, now winning actually
matters. Because who wants to do all the chores with no option to
complain about it eh.

Of course, some people can't take losing even when their is nothing at
risk other than pride.
I recall playing Trivial Pursuit with a couple on a few occasions.
Alas the husband in the other couple was to be blunt, totally under
educated, and totally clueless, not to mention he knew almost nothing
about everything. Eeeeevery game, it was the same old lamenting, how
he wasn't going to win, because he knew nothing. Got to the point when
if the game Trivial Pursuit was offered as a choice, I flat out
refused as I wasn't interested in listening to the husband rant about
his established uselessness. It was easier to just ditch him onto the
sofa so he could sleep while his wife socialized with us after dinner.
He was a hard worker, and usually needed the sleep anyway.

[Patrick]

On Jun 10, 2:18 am, John McLeod <j...@pagat.com> wrote:
> I remember, back when I was a research student, I had a colleague who
> would only play games with an element of chance. He would not play, for
> example, Go, because if he lost he would have no option but to admit to
> himself that he had played worse than his opponent. But playing cards
> was OK because if he lost he could tell himself that it was only due to
> bad luck.
>
> So at seems that games of chance may be good for the thin-skinned, or at
> least for certain kinds of thin skins.
> --
> John McLeod                      For information on card games visit

> j...@pagat.com                  http://www.pagat.com/


That does seem to be true for me as well. I have several traditional
games on my Palm PDA, including chess, gin rummy, go, cribbage, nine
men's morris, backgammon, checkers, dominoes, and solitaire
(patience). During my lunch break, if I'm in the mood and have a few
minutes to spare, I'll pick one of those games and play it.

I haven't kept a close tally, but I know the games with randomizers
(gin, backgammon, crib, dominoes, and solitaire) get played MUCH more
often than the others. Sometimes I make the excuse that such a game
will be quicker; but nine men's morris or 9x9 go doesn't take very
long to play. The real problem is that the "deterministic" games will
make me think harder; if I play according to my hunches or whims, I'm
very likely to overlook something, blunder, and lose. But in any of
the games with a randomizer, I can get away with less thinking and
more intuiting or even some impulsive play.

Because I play the "random" games a lot, I do end up thinking more
about the moves, though--just because certain patterns become familiar
to me over time. I may start out disliking the need to deduce what
cards my opponent may be holding, so at first I might decline to do
that; I'll just play by whim and try to make good guesses. But after
many games (and many losses usually), it gets to where pausing to
think something through and deduce my opponent's holding feels more
natural--so I do it and even learn to enjoy doing it.

In the non-random games, about all I can do is set the computer to a
low difficulty level and watch for my opponent to make a mistake.

When I'm *studying* a game (from a book) rather than playing one,
however, I usually prefer a non-random game like chess or go. Then I
can just focus on combinations of moves or on principles of play.
When studying a game like backgammon or gin rummy, there are always
odds and probabilities to calculate, and that tends to feel like too
much work.

So, I end up studying games like chess and go but playing games like
cribbage and backgammon. And never getting very good at any game,
much as I'd like to.

--Patrick

[Patrick]

On Jun 9, 8:59 pm, Sukunai <sukunai.ni.y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm ok playing poker for money, and I don't have a problem sitting
> down to a 10 dollar limit game of nickel ante poker.

I never could get into gambling. My dad was something of a gambler,
and he taught me to play craps, poker, and blackjack when I was just a
little kid. When I grew up, at times I toyed with the thought that
gambling might be fun or interesting or fit my image, so I made some
abortive attempts to get into it. It just never grabbed me, though.
I didn't like putting that much attention on money, and without money
the games seemed simplistic and boring.

> I like ASL mainly because the game is a hoot even if you don't win.

I've been there and done that. And yeah, it can be a hoot. I just
lost my patience for memorizing or looking up rules, and for jumping
through so many hoops and rolling so many dice each turn just to
simulate two minutes of imaginary combat action. I think my
imagination became saturated too: it got to where I was thinking so
much about probabilities and how to get from point A to point B
(without being shot to pieces) that I couldn't stop and enjoy the
simulation. After a while, it didn't even feel much like tactical
WWII combat anymore; it was just a chesslike game with dice, thinly
disguised as a military simulation. When it got to that point, I
decided I might as well be playing a simple, abstract strategy game
instead.

> I tend to really enjoy parlour games like Chess or Backgammon even
> though I'm not much good.

The more games (of all kinds) I play, the more I admire traditional
board and card and dice and domino games. After so many generations
of refinement, they're usually just about the right size and length
and pace and complexity level and everything. About the only thing
they lack is the glitz and glamour of newer, shinier games; many
people consider them boring just because they're old.

> I don't mind playing multi player games like Civilization. I'm ok if a
> person declares their game is toast and they want to concede. I've
> done it often enough myself.

I've pretty much concluded that's my least favorite type of game--
*unless* my aim is just to socialize. If it's just a matter of having
people over and gathering around the table to do something fun, I'm
delighted to play Merchant of Venus, Advanced Civilization, History of
the World, Settlers of Catan, or whatever. Even Monopoly is OK. I
like the company, and I've enjoyed some good times that way.

But if my goal is to really get into a game--study it a bit, "own" it,
and strive to get good at it--a multiplayer game is the *last* thing
I'll consider. Why? Because optimal play always involves
negotiation, and I hate having to negotiate. Trading (in games like
Settlers or Civilization) is mostly annoying to me; power-brokering
(as in games like Diplomacy) is anathema to me.

> I do tend to find myself saying to myself, nah I will likely play all
> day, and then lose, and I'd rather just work on a model instead. With
> models, you don't need to worry about winning or losing :)

I'm no craftsman or modeler. I put together a few plastic models when
I was a kid, but that's about it. I've made a few abortive attempts
to get into miniatures wargaming, but only because I wanted nice-
looking game pieces instead of all the paper and cardboard; yet I was
unwilling to paint figures or make terrain.

What I tend to do when I decide against playing a game is read. I
could play that wargame I've got set up on the table, but I'd be
looking up rules all the time and getting a headache trying to work
out strategy and tactics, so maybe I'll just pick up the novel next to
my chair and read that instead. Or I'll surf the Internet and post a
message or two.

> My biggest problem with wargames, played online, is so many of them
> have designs soooo easy to cheat with. And while lots of people will
> claim 'oh I would never cheat' frankly we are all human, and if
> there's nothing to keep us honest, then there is nothing to convince
> us the other guy wasn't cheating. And that's why I have nearly no
> experience with wargames played online. I just don't feel like being
> cheated, and I don't feel like worrying if I win, being presumed to
> have cheated.

I'm playing a wargame by e-mail right now. I don't think either of us
is cheating, but we're using the honor system for dice rolls, and it
has been awkward at times. One of the dice lands on a sheet of paper,
and I wonder if it should count or not; so I reroll, then decide maybe
it should have counted, so I roll to randomly decide whether or not it
counts. Finally I started rolling in a box lid and counting only dice
that land flat in the box. Still, it's embarrassing when I get lucky
(as I just did yesterday), because no one else but me knows for sure
that everything was fair and square.

My opponent and I both seem to be thin-skinned, though. Neither of us
has played a wargame for years, and we're both finding it a pretty
tense experience. I suspect we'd both be content to give up and go
back to dabbling at wargames solo instead of playing competitively.

> As such, the best games, for the thin skinned, are likelly the ones
> where winning is not really a factor.
> The only game I can think of offhand, is rolegaming. If your PC dies,
> you just make another. The game essentially never ends, and thus,
> there is no point where anyone ever 'wins'.

And that's the downside. True, no one ever really loses--but no one
wins either; and so it feels like kind of a pointless, endless
exercise. I may be thin-skinned and thus averse to competition, but
I'm also determined that a game should have a beginning, middle, and
end so that it can mean something.

Besides, anytime my PC dies, it feels like a loss to me. (And if my
PC is practically invulnerable, then I feel I'm being pampered, and
that's boring).

For a while, I thought Roguelike games might be just the thing for
me. It's a single-player RPG that you play on the computer. You roll
up a character, venture into a dungeon, fight monsters, gather
treasure, and try to make your way to the deepest level of the dungeon
where you finally win. But it's next to impossible to get to that
deepest dungeon level, partly because of "permadeath"--if your
character dies, you start from scratch.

I soon got tired of dying all the time. It felt almost masochistic.
But if you think this sounds fun, go to:
http://www.roguelikes.com/

--Patrick

[Sukunai]

Life is a game of chance. You may die walking across the street, or
driving on the highway or be mugged while going to a movie.

Chess has next to no chance. I guess it comes off feeling too much
like playing a video game against the AI and winning is so utterly so
what like. Oh I won, what a complete shock.
If I am better than the other player, it will feel like I am playing a
wargame against a kid. Oh I won, boy that felt good.

That's the attraction of games with either enough detail load, or
variability to make winning uncertain. You can't know, and being well
versed on the rules would be nice, but won't impress the dice any.

Some games are merely dull because the design doesn't allow for much
else. I don't mind playing Monopoly, but will refuse to play it past
the point where all the properties are bought, if no one is interested
in aggressive trading for advantage. I certainly won't indulge playing
it while no one does any better than wait to see if another is
eventually eroded down by nickel and diming rent payments.

That's why I like newer games of Risk where the game has a deliberate
finite turn duration. Risk 2210 has just 5 turns for instance. Might
be a long involved 5 turns, but you won't be playing all day. Lord of
the Rings Risk is the same.

As for rolegames, well it's all about the guy running it making it
fun, and the players being willing to aggressively get into playing
their character, otherwise yes it won't be much to get excited about.

Every game can be let to go astray. I have as have been mentioned
elsewhere, resolved to re invent, and return it to it's roots of
simplicity, my ASL game. I don't think I will have any complaints from
my non existent group of opponents though :) I am really just ensuring
my solo experience is more amusing to me.