Inspired by the current Dutch fad for Wordfeud, Scrabble for smartphones. Everyone plays it, and my husband and I are no exception.
My husband loves games, has a fierce competetive streak when it comes to gaming, and enjoys beating the game and getting really good at it. With the longer time to make a move, my husband has become an absolute fanatic slayer at Wordfeud. He goes for the maximum points and the maximum strategic advantage.
There are only two of our friends who were a match for him, and they have lost interest in the game by now. The random opponents the game yields are usaully no match for him.
So that leaves me to play with him.
When my husband and I play Scrabble as a word game, we are an even match. I have a larger vocabulary, he has the killer strategic eye. But in the online game, with the longer time to think about a move, he is is too good a player for me.
I admit I don’t enjoy losing by too wide a margin. I don’t mind losing, and I don’t want him to let me win, but I don’t see the point of keeping on playing a match to the end, if halfway through there isn’t even a theoretical possibility anymore that I might win. I put the line at 150 points difference. If the difference becomes more then that, I resign and invite my husband to a rematch, hoping for better chances.
He thinks that is bad sportmanship.
So who is the worse sport here? Me or my husband? Or both? Should one play out a game if there is no chance of winning anymore, for the enjoyment of the winning party?
Yes, I said it was a silly etiquette question.
I think quitting because you are too far behind is rather childish behavior. Wah! Me no win! Me take toy and go home!
What I don’t understand is why you play with him at all if you can’t enjoy with game without winning. From what you say, you know you’re going to lose when you start, unless he makes some sort of enormous error.
ETA: I would hold out that quitting during the game because you are losing, is quite different from not playing to begin with because you won’t find it fun to lose.
But we’re not children here, are we? I don’t let my kids quit something, because I’m teaching them that there is value in work and that you need to learn how to lose and deal with frustration (and I like to torture them, in some cases). In addition, particularly when younger, there ability to determine a lost cause wasn’t great.
Maastricht has either learned these lessons already, or not. She’s playing a game and has the ability to see she is in a hopeless position (I assume 150 points is a big number). Her husband gets the win, and then they both get to enjoy a new game.
Do you hold the same position for resigning in chess?
The Mercy rule seems to be something externally decided, i.e. by a referee, or by a preset score difference known by both teams going into it.
What you are simply doing is conceding defeat. It is a common and honorably tactic and i see nothing wrong with it. Sometimes in chess the one conceding will simply place their king on it’s side and offer to shake the other’s hand. I generally believe it is unsporting not to accept a victory in this way and shows a over competitiveness in the opponent that is detrimental to friendly and even competitive game play.
Though ending the game early can be used as a disruptive unsporting strategy also by the one conceding, this does not seem the case as expressed by the OP.
Are you playing to win or playing for fun? If you’re playing to win, then pre-set up an amount that would be an agreed upon stopping point. Without that, it seems that it would be a hollow victory for your husband.
On the other side, I wouldn’t want someone who was winning decide that it was suddenly the end of the game. It’s like playing poker with friends, if you start winning and then get up and leave, you’ll have more money but less friends.
Personally, I’d rather play to the end and lose horribly while still trying than give up. And I’m a competitive person.
IMHO, there’s nothing wrong with surrendering when defeat is inevitable in these sorts of games. Why the need to play it to the final conclusion? Unless you’re letting down paying spectators, or somesuch.
To concede a game that is clearly unwinnable does not strike me as poor sportsmanship per se. To offer a rematch, as opposed to pouting and refusing to play at all, strikes me as good sportsmanship. I think it would be gracious of your husband to accept the concession and take the win, then proceed to the next game if he wants to play some more. While he’s not necessarily being a poor sport to push for playing the game until the end, he’s perhaps being a poor husband to insist on making the defeat so lopsided that it ceases to be any fun for you.
I would just talk to my husband about it. We have games that I consitently mop the floor with him at and he has games that he can win, too. We try to mix it up. I don’t like always winning either. (In fact, we just got rid of two games becuase they were no fun since I kept winning.)
Maybe the next time he asks to play just tell him that it is no fun since you always get creamed. Ask if he will spot you some points or institute a preset mercy rule.
Not finishing the game is bad sportsmanship IMHO. These things should be laid out in advance and if you start a game, you finish it.
Conceding a game where you are obviously losing and going to lose just strikes me as cutting to the end and moving on. It’s not as though you’re flipping over the Monopoly board and insisting that you didn’t lose because the game hadn’t ended.
I could only see being offended by it if I was particularly vested in running up a giant score and proving how winneriffic I was. You called it, let’s end it and see if the next game is more competitive.
Conceding defeat and suggesting a rematch is not the same thing as refusing to play. You’re not denying your opponent a victory; instead, you are acknowledging that he has won so thoroughly that going through the motions would be a waste of time (during which he could be scoring another victory). I don’t see why one would refuse a concession of defeat, except possibly out of an unsportsmanlike desire to run up the score.
Games are supposed to be fun for both participants. If you’re a little behind there’s still fun to be had in the struggle to catch up. But if you’re so far behind that the other person’s victory is a forgone conclusion, then playing ceases to be fun and becomes a chore. At that point, gracefully conceding is not bad sportsmanship.
However, demanding that a defeated opponent continue to go through the motions just so you can relish trouncing them more thoroughly IS bad sportsmanship.
BTW, one of the hallmarks of a good *casual *game is that it includes mechanics that allow players who are really far behind to catch a lucky break and stage a comeback. That way they have an incentive to keep playing all the way to end. It’s why Mario Kart has blue turtle shells, for example.
But the Mercy Rule is invoked by a third party, generally a referee or a previously-agreed score difference which indicates an insurmountable routing. It is not at the discretion of the losing side.
Games which permit surrender and have an established framework for doing so are one thing, but other games are designed to be played until their conclusion. In that case, you should see the game through unless you have previously agreed to a surrender framework with your opponent.
Also, flipping the board over onto the floor is only acceptable when you’ve been drinking.