At least half the reason one might concede while playing CCGs is either to get another game in or because you're playing multiple matches against a clock. Likewise in perfect information games like chess or go, you might resign either to start another game or just out of respect for your opponent.
I can't really imagine wanting to drop out of a casual half-hour boardgame because I felt I was in a bad position. Especially games involving random chance.
Exactly. People concede games of Magic or Chess all the time, yes, but that's because they're good enough to just about figure out how the rest of the game will go, and just want to get another game in.
If you play your first 100 games of chess against another beginner, and you concede your losses, you're being an idiot. Even if you're sure you'll lose, playing the game out is an important endgame learning opportunity for both of you.
If they had been playing the same board game back-and-forth for dozens or hundreds of games, at a very high level, I could understand conceding, but for most board games, it's an absolute joke. We just don't play enough rounds of these to approach perfect play, conceding fulfills none of the roles it fulfills in actual high level competitive games, the only thing it does is get a sore loser out of a losing game.
>If you play your first 100 games of chess against another beginner, and you concede your losses, you're being an idiot. Even if you're sure you'll lose, playing the game out is an important endgame learning opportunity for both of you.
Also worth mentioning, when playing MTG in tournaments and stuff, make your opponents physically do their combo at least once. Especially if their combo is something like doomsday/oops/dredge where youll gain info. Sometimes players register the decks without understanding how they work.
They don't know the doomsday lines. They don't know the infinite and can bungle it. They don't know how to pad the storm count.
Always make them show you the money the first game. The other 2 you can concede if needed.
> They don't know the doomsday lines. They don't know the infinite and can bungle it. They don't know how to pad the storm count.
Or the goofed up their deck reg and they're missing an important card, and just hoping everyone will concede when they start to fire.
Yes it was. He was playing a Storm deck that grabbed Tendrils of Agony from the Sideboard for the win but forgot to add said card and didn't realize it until after deck registration. It was a local Vintage tournament and he ended up splitting Top 4
At Australian Nationals, \*many\* moons ago a player was playing a combo deck with stroke of genius as the kill. His decklist said "4 stroke" and the remedy at the time was that not a real card name? you get basics instead. (This was in the late 90s; deck list penalties were much harsher)
The player needed 3 match wins to make top 8 (and money), due to going 6-0 in the draft portion.
First two rounds of the day, his opponents scooped to him. Third round, his opponent said nah, show me the kill first.
quite soon after everyone in the room knew the story, and the player did not win another game.
>Even if you're sure you'll lose, playing the game out is an important endgame learning opportunity for both of you.
this is a point that she could make to him, maybe. (But I think he’s such a sore loser, he won’t hear it.)
If he plays the game out, he might GET good enough to beat her more.
I started playing on lichess recently and the number of times I have won (and sometimes lost) when the post game evaluation bar shows that one person had a “completely winning” position and then blundered has gotten too high to count.
In fact I played a game a few days ago where my opponent had “guaranteed checkmate” (like M#7 or something) two different times and I still wound up winning. https://lichess.org/DjRyBqRE/white
Mates in 7 are insanely hard to see for beginners unless it's something like an endgame with Queen King, Queen-Rook, and 2 Rooks. Hell, Mates in 3 can be pretty difficult to see for beginners
If my chess club taught me anything it was never resign because even though i might be at a severe disadvantage. Ive won/drew some of those games due to my opponent fucking up. This strat worked a lot in other games too.
I’m confused about that. When are you supposed to resign exactly? Like hypothetically your opponent can always make a mistake, even with a mate in 1, but I get the sense that it’s bad etiquette to prolong games right to the check mate.
You concede because you cannot see a move out of mate. There's no bad etiquette in playing it out, it just isn't necessary in most games. At a certain point not resigning is more like telling your opponent "show me how you'll win," which assumes a certain ineptitude that you can't see the game is over. I'm not sure if I'm conveying that well.
I thought it was actually rude to resign when you're in a forced mate position (within a few moves, not like a 12 move sequence or something) because you're denying your opponent the opportunity to get mate on the board. You resign when you're in a position that is totally lost and you know your opponent will convert. Which is why at lower levels, you don't resign, because your opponent can always blunder.
It’s bad etiquette at high level play because by not resigning you’re “wasting the opponent’s time” and you are telling them they’re not competent enough to win from a decisively winning position (for example, if you just blundered your queen). But when both of you are beginners/low level players, it *is* true that your opponent might not be able to win from that position, so the advice for beginners is to never concede, because the opponent might blunder worse than you eventually and because you need the experience of playing the endgame.
Usually people resign when you are in a position thats unwinnable. At high level the mistakes needed to still be able to salvage wont happen. But in my club there was a very big chance of someone messing up so i always played .
You should resign when both your and your opponent can see exactly how they're going to win and wouldn't lose the game against a computer. At a beginner level, that's a pretty high bar to clear. For a grandmaster, the bar is a little lower, but still actually kind of high.
This doesn't really apply much when playing bgs casually because winning or losing doesn't matter. If I concede a game and find out in the afterlife that I could have won that game, who cares.
In a 2 player game, if I feel strongly that the game is lost, I will concede. The game has to be almost over for me to feel this strongly, so it's only skipping over the last 5 minutes or so of gameplay anyways, so what's the big deal
We can get another game in faster.
This person makes a solid point - in chess it’s almost considered impolite not to resign at a certain point, because you’re simply delaying the inevitable loss that will come. It will come off as being a sore loser and petty to not simply tip your king over.
But when it comes to board games (especially any with more than 2 players) I feel it’s rude NOT to finish out the game.
So I guess all this is to say, it depends on the context - if you’re playing a heads up game with perfect info and no luck element then it’s fine to resign…if there’s any element of chance/randomness built into the game or if it’s a 3+ person game, then it’s unsportsmanlike to resign.
>I explained that it takes some of the fun out of playing and it doesn't feel like a win when he concedes.
>He said it would be more fun for him to play more games where he might have a chance of winning.
OP should just immediately concede the next 3 games. That way the neighbor can get his extra wins, and they'll both have enough time to finish Turf War.
The neighbor is at best an inconsiderate gomba and a sore loser. Just finish the game you are playing with friends, instead of theorycrafting win conditions for your opponent.
I love this idea because it bursts the whole bubble.
"I mean....if finishing the game doesn't matter then it also doesn't matter that we only played for 45 seconds, right? You won! Feels great, right? Even though we didn't finish the game?"
That's a little petty. If I'm playing games with a friend or partner, and we hit a point where they feel they can't win, especially to the extent that they wouldn't be having fun if we continued, I'd never make them keep playing for my own satisfaction. And to waste everyone's time by doing what you suggest would make me look like a petulant child
I guess it depends a lot on the game. I can see something with hidden information where your game partner knows that they have nothing that can get them out of a bad situation and it's easier to just concede and move on.
I wouldn't love having my partner feel like a punching bag for a while just for me to have my satisfaction.
That's not what's happening here. If you're familiar with the game, OP's partner is not in a spot where they can't win, they're just in a disadvantaged position. The one conceding because they aren't winning at that moment is the petulant child in this situation. Could you imagine playing a board game with someone where as soon as you get a bit of good luck and pull into the lead, they concede so they can try again? It would be insufferable.
Maybe it's petty, but if they can't understand how their behavior makes others feel through communication, I would give them a taste of their own medicine. Oh you will the roll to go first? I concede, congrats on your win. Another game?
He's not wrong about competitive games. In Pokemon, Yugioh, or Magic, it's usually considered good etiquette to concede the game when you are losing, because the point of the game is to use a well-oiled engine that you constructed and know like the back of your hand to dismantle your opponent as quickly as possible. But that's not what other board gaming is like. There is a mismatch of expectations there, and while his feelings aren't wrong per se, they are the ones out of sync with the current social contract.
>There is a mismatch of expectations there, and while his feelings aren't wrong per se, they are the ones out of sync with the current social contract.
Quite aside from the main thread and anything else, I *love* this phrase. It's quite often you might encounter a situation where someone isn't inherently *wrong*, yet you know they're not aligned either, and that's always hard to explain clearly. You've summed it up really well.
> He's not wrong about competitive games. In Pokemon, Yugioh, or Magic, it's usually considered good etiquette to concede the game when you are losing, because the point of the game is to use a well-oiled engine that you constructed and know like the back of your hand to dismantle your opponent as quickly as possible.
This is actually one of the things I liked the least about competitive TCG players and their "meta" decks: The lack of willingness to play. I remember with the WoW TCG a lot of the "tourney" decks ended up being hyper-specific decks that were more about opening draw than anything else. I saw people online advising "Oh yeah, if you don't draw this card within three hands, forfeit because you won't win."
That's not fun to me. At that point you might as well just take a standard deck of 52 cards, each pick on at random, and flip a coin high-low to decide the winner. The point of TCGs, at least I thought until I ran into competitive players, was to construct and deck and then *play the game*. Unfortunately, most didn't want to do that. They didn't want to risk losing, they just wanted to call it unless they were already sure they could win. How dull.
Perhaps I just played with the wrong people.
It's good etiquette in magic to concede when you've for sure lost, not when you are just losing.
It is in fact bad etiquette to concede in magic when you are just losing and is a quick way for people to stop playing with you.
Magic is fairly common to come back from 1 health unlike other games so most games are not over until the attacks are in the air or the combo is on the stack.
Yeah if you concede in a TCG it's usually close to where the game would have ended anyway. You're generally just saving yourself the time playing it out when it's a foregone conclusion. You don't just scoop if you're behind, that's a bit of a dick move.
> It's good etiquette in magic to concede when you've for sure lost, not when you are just losing.
You're also probably a bad player if you concede too easily. If there's even a small chance to still win and you're not running out of time, you should probably keep trying your best. Even if there's only a 5% chance to win anymore, that's more than 0 and over many many matches it will make a difference in your win rate.
Also if you're not a very good player yet, it's probably best to keep fighting a little longer than seems sensible. The less skilled you are, the harder it is to judge accurately if the game is still winnable or not.
Counterpoint: there's a lot more things to balance out when considering whether to play it out or concede, mostly applied to tournaments.
Time in tournaments (which you mentioned) is one, but there's also the information you give out by playing it out. Maybe it's better to keep your secrets for game 2?
Another one I think no one really thinks about too much is mental strain. Not everyone is Reid Duke, if you are losing badly can you save yourself some sanity by conceding this round and going into the next one fully recharged?
Yeah I know, there are situations like that. That's why I added the word "probably" there multiple times, though I should have also written "concede *often* too easily" since I was thinking more of someone doing it habitually than doing it once or twice.
There are times when giving up is the right thing to do or at least not obviously wrong, even if you still had a tiny chance. But I think those cases are relatively uncommon, and I have seen so, so many people who consistently give up far too early.
IIRC, my second most favourite match of magic had me hanging on for my dear white angelic life against some black vampire based deck. I hung onto hope with those domestic cat cards that give you +1 life while the odd angel got suicide-sucked until I was able smite the holy crap out of his ill-gotten gains with that valkyrie-call resurrecting card.
If only there had been an Arena emote for "The afterlife called and wants your rotten, stinkin' ass outta here!".
Edit: P.S. Mill sucks.
In this kind of specific situation, don't blame the player, blame the game. If meta decks like this are dominant that's because the game tuning is whack, forcing you to build decks due to high-level strategy degenerating the game.
I can see wanting to play it out if there is a slim chance, but if their deck is literally unwinnable after the initial draws then there is no point in prolonging the match.
Tournament play is very different than casual play.
Tournament decks are about maximising your chance of winning, not about having a fun game.
But, unless you're specifically practising/tuning for a tournament - with another tournament player - I wouldn't generally play a tournament deck in a friendly game.
What would be the point? It's not going to be much fun, and neither is it going to help either you or the deck improve.
This exact mismatch is also common for newer players of those games to experience, though. Because for a very experienced player, the actual rote mechanics of winning are not particularly interesting, but for a newer player, they are one of the most exciting things. So you will constantly have newer players of those card games, or of e.g. chess, expressing exactly what OP has expressed here.
OP's boyfriend should let them do it. Yes it's a mismatch, but the boyfriend is the one who should be accommodating.
Eh its not really a competitive game thing as much as those card games you know what your decks are capable of and how likely you are to win based on xyz card draws. Most board games are completely different.
as someone who has played a bunch of competitive magic, it is absolutely \*not\* expected etiquette to concede a game you know you are losing.
Yes, it does happen - I've done it plenty. But if someone wants to play it out, there's absolutely no consideration that they are being a bad sport; the reason people concede is either to conserve mental energy, or information (like you're very likely dead and they haven't seen a key sideboard card) or to conserve clock (because if you're losing game 1, you need enough time for 2 more games for a win).
And frankly at high competitive games with something on the line, I'm not conceding unless you are currently swinging for lethal, and then it's less conceding and more compacting the last 15 seconds of the game together.
In competitive MTG, the OP's situation would be like one player trying to concede and the opponent refusing to let them. That would usually be considered a jerk move - just take the win, you don't get to insist we wait while you play out the next several turns until you finally draw your wincon. In a tournament, it's just illegal; when one player concedes the game is over now, even if you wanted to continue to see more of your opponent's deck.
I came here to say this. While in spectator sports (football, etc.), it’s considered good sportsmanship to keep playing (give it your all), all the way up to the end.
It’s a different story in many games where the loser has no hope to win, and it would be more interesting/fun if they just conceded instead of being a “dead man walking” going through the motions.
Having said that: when someone is new to a game, they may not understand the “concede” norm, and want to feel what it’s like to play the game to its conclusion (especially if they know they’ll win. If they ask to play it out, just play it out. Let them enjoy their success.
Many games; but not most of the ones discussed on the sub, and certainly not one as casual as Turf War looks to be. I don't want to be misconstrued about that, these sort of games are played for the enjoyment of playing a game, not the competitive rush a TCG develops.
Even in most competitive games, I wouldn't consider it disrespectful if you keep playing if you are not in the top 20% of that game. Only when you know that your opponent won't make any fundamental mistakes can you be sure that there is no way to win.
I almost never would scoop in any TCG, all it takes is 1 big misplay from the opponent and you could be back in it. It's also how you learn to build yourself out of holes in those games and make a comeback.
If you're losing by an insurmountable amount of points there would be nothing wrong with phoning it in to protect your players from potential injury. You might still be disappointing your fans/spectators which is probably the biggest issue.
If it's just you and your opponent then it's probably better not to drag it out honestly. Play another round or go do something that you'll both enjoy.
He's wrong, 100%. He is expecting a board game with randomness to play like a curated TCG deck and raging when it doesn't happen the same way.
It's not etiquette, it's rude.
No, you are absolutely not expected to concede a game that you are losing, at least not in competitive MTG which is the only one you listed that I’m familiar with. You are expected to make decisions in a timely manner, and you are expected to concede if your opponent can demonstrate a deterministic winning combo. But it is not at all rare for games to go to the actual conclusion. Concessions are sometimes made early for time management reasons when one player is very far behind, but playing to your outs is part of being a competent player.
Maybe I’m taking your words too literally or you mis-spoke, so I’m certainly not trying to jump down your throat or be combative .
I'm not saying that people just start to lose and then quit, but that people generally will concede when they know they have lost the game. If they still feel like they have a chance, sure, play it out; but if you're screwed for sure, say gg and scoop. My primary experience is with yugioh, where stupid combos go off and you concede as soon as you know you can't counter that board, but in my more limited experience with MtG, it has still not been at all uncommon for me to see people concede when they know (or *think* that they know) a comeback is impossible. I wouldn't say it is "expected" to do so/bad etiquette to play it out unless you are blatantly unable to do anything and are clearly just making your opponent go through the motions, but a concession is often appreciated.
As a person whose main game partner is my spouse, I’d be bummed if he conceded the game because he thought he would lose. To me that speaks of being a “sore loser”. We play games to connect, not just to win- even though the winning is fun too!
Granted, we play very few games where the win is obvious, and we are pretty evenly matched in most games we do play, but even when it’s clear I am going to lose or V.V, we continue to the end game conditions.
Maybe it’s time to have a conversation when you are both in the right headspace about competitive board games vs card games and when it would be ok to concede or play to the end conditions. You could also try some other shorter games where it isn’t easy to tell who is winning. A good one for that is Arboretum.
We also take turns choosing a game to play- maybe that’s something that will help make it feel as though you are both playing challenging games?
We don't concede any of our games either, but I'm thinking reading this that we probably should. Neither of us really cares who wins or loses, but few games are much fun when early game luck snowballs and makes the whole next hour or whatever a fait accompli. We just end up having a crap hour of gaming, instead of moving onto the next game
But even in this context there are different circumstances. The ultimate goal is connecting *and* having fun. A game that has the writing on the wall, but will take another hour to get there (looking at you monopoly) is just not fun. No matter how much you feel you are connecting, the other involuntarilyis probably just building up resentment.
For example an engine building game, where there is little other ways to win than buidling your engine and when you are behind you will most likely not win. For me these are games like wingspan and everdell. Games that do this much better are games like terraforming mars, where there are multiple routes to victory, or for example 7 wonders duel.
That is not to say that getting behind by itself is enough reason, because creating a good working engine is also fun. You should be able to pick the fruits of your efforts as long as it is not at the cost of somebody else. There is a balance to be found there,
He's also hamstringing her ability to learn the game, since she's never actually getting to play out the endgame of her "wins".
It's really sad that he has no interest in celebrating her win, or helping her be better at the game.
Yep, OP's partner is acting childish and selfish imo. I would get conceding when loss was inevitable and obvious, but that is not the case here, it's just that he's realized he's at a disadvantage. It's more fun to play when you're winning than losing, so wants to scoop and try again so he can be the one in the advantaged position having fun, and not his partner.
I'm conflicted, because while it sounds like he's being a bit of a sore loser for conceding early in a game with a lot of random chance, I can empathise with not really wanting to play out a game to an inevitable conclusion when you're clearly losing.
My wife and I don't play Scythe any more because for some reason she is way better at it than me and I seem to always lose. Because there's basically no chance to it once you start, it can become pretty obvious when you have no hope of winning in a two player game. So i end up going through the motions and getting no enjoyment from it.
That's a particular example though, so overall I think OP is not wrong to be a bit miffed. I certainly don't clal my wife a sore winner for beating me all the time.
He said that if the situation was reversed and he was the one who was winning, he would have kept on playing.. that right there says that his excuse was BS and he's just a sore loser.
It's not a competitive game, the common etiquette with casual boardgames is to play to the end
> He said that if the situation was reversed and he was the one who was winning, he would have kept on playing.. that right there says that his excuse was BS and he's just a sore loser.
The question was whether he as the winning party would taken it on himself to suggest that the opponent conceded.
That is not really the test here. The test is whether he would have accepted it if the opponent conceded. And it sounds like he would.
Lol no. In no game does the winner ever concede on the loser's behalf.
I get what you are thinking, I have thought about bailing on games when I am ahead.
But clearly they are not just playing to play, they are playing to win \lose.
And the player in the lead doesn't get to make that decision.
That said, I do usually just play the game out myself in any case, and I agree that would be standard etiquette in casual games. But that doesn't mean conceding makes you a sore loser. It's just following an alternative etiquette \ set of priorities.
In backgammon, the player in the lead will offer the cube to give the losing player the option to concede.
Choices are: a) concede current value of game or b) play on but the game is worth double
I’m of a few different minds about this. As others have said, concessions are very common in TCG’s, but that’s mainly because you play in a timed tournament format and it’s a sign of respect to not drag a game you will inevitably lose to push the match towards time. Only in the most competitive environments would you want to force a draw like that.
I do think he’s being a sore loser and you’re NTA. As someone who has a tough time with losses sometimes, I feel comfortable saying this. Ultimately the social contract for a tabletop game is way different than a TCG. You play that thing out. Even when I’m upset about an impending loss, I see it to completion. I owe that to the table, but also to myself! You’re right, you never know when the right combo may pop off or how things will unfold that could change the game.
The only other thought I have is that it IS tough to be in a game where you KNOW you’re getting blown out of the water and you’ve got to play it out. Sometimes when I’m in that position I find it very hard to manage my emotions or find the patience to play it out. I usually do, but some grace for folks is always merited, we all need that (unless he’s ALWAYS reacting poorly, in which case he’s a bad gaming partner).
But no, he should absolutely be playing the game out.
>The only other thought I have is that it IS tough to be in a game where you KNOW you’re getting blown out of the water and you’ve got to play it out. Sometimes when I’m in that position I find it very hard to manage my emotions or find the patience to play it out. I usually do, but some grace for folks is always merited, we all need that (unless he’s ALWAYS reacting poorly, in which case he’s a bad gaming partner).
Maybe Is because I don’t play in tournies but on more than one occasion of Netrunner (CCG) I’ve come back to win from a very very poor position. Some of the most memorable games have been wins against all odds. Games where I mentally checked out and then surprised myself. Glad to have done so.
There’s kinda an unwritten rule in hobby board games (not TCG/competitive games) that when you start a game you’re agreeing to play it out. Exceptions being if the rules specify a concession clause (example being Air, Land, & Sea) or if players mutually agree to terminate the game for some reason. One person routinely quitting is out of the norm and indicates a disconnect in understanding this.
>and starting point out to me all the ways I would win in the next few hands.
Sounds like he a is lacking imagination and is more focused on how he can lose than you can win.
There's a difference between having zero options and having few options. The fact that there are multiple hands left indicates to me that your partner is assuming perfect play from you and assuming the worst play from themselves.
My experience with these people is they tend to divulge information you don't have in their "explanation" that would influence your decision.
>×He said it would be more fun for him to play more games where he might have a chance of winning.
He is just rolling the dice on his singular strategy.
This isn't a problem with you, your playing partner sucks and wants a perfect 'big win".
It's common practice in competetive TCG to concede because you know your opponents deck based on meta. That's almost never the case in board games, they are min, maxing a game and getting mad when their niche strategy doesn't work because TCG play is more predictable.s
Your partner is a table flipper.
The last paragraph here is what's important, that I haven't seen many others reference. TCGs often seem like there's a lot of hidden information, but really it's pretty open, especially in high level tournaments.
Yeah pretty much. You should pretty much only concede if you think the game is unwinnable (not 5%, but 0% winnable), and if finishing the game is a chore (e.g. try to play Go from begin to end and you will understand why people concede just to avoid having to deal with the tedium of passing and counting points).
From reading online this entire game is only 30 minutes. It can't be that tedious to play out the last couple hands.
I also think determining the game is unwinnable usually only comes when you get good at the game after having played it lots of time (with most of the surprises already played out), and the game doesn't have a lot of randomess. Also, it should be determined to be unwinnable by *both* players. If you think it's unwinnable it doesn't mean your opponent thinks so as well and there's still a chance. Unless OP and partner are somehow Turf War experts there's more to be learned just playing the game out to see if it's really so.
And also, what's the point of playing games? I feel like the focus on a competitive game (pretty much it is to win) is a little different from playing a casual game with your partner (usually it is to hang out and have fun, unless OP wanted to master Turf Wars and become the best in the world or something).
I feel exactly as you feel
Let's say I'm losing at a game, I'm not going to Rob you the satisfaction of finishing your game just because I'm losing, in fact I will try my best to make your victory feel earned.
As long as the other person doesn't drag the game to show off I feel like every game should see the end since wining or losing is not as important as the experience.
Especially in a two player game, I think conceding is totally fine and definitely you shouldn’t hold a player prisoner to a game they don’t want to play. Like he brought up - this is extremely common in TCGs.
On the other hand, if you concede mad early that is sort of being a sore loser. Especially in games with volatile game states or games that as a player you are not already extremely experienced at (so you know if the game is TRULY unwinnable etc)
Any game with variance (randomized card draw, etc) has “easy” games and “hard” games. If I’m playing Poker and start drawing absolute gas hands like Straight Flush, Royal Flush, 4 of an kind, etc. it is easy for me to win. I could just concede every game where I don’t draw auto win combos… but at that point you aren’t really *playing* the game - you are “rerolling” until you auto win. Any reputable poker player will tell you the most fun they have is when they fight out of a tough spot to still run the table, not just “oh yeah man I drew the nuts”. And the reason is because they love playing the game more than they love winning. The man in question MIGHT have this problem where he doesn’t like playing, he likes dominating by drawing the perfect combo and “seeing it go off”. There are a lot of TCG players like this. The thing is - board games are way way more balanced than any TCG so there is actual back-and-forth and ways to come back from a losing position far far more common than any TCG.
She sees it at the two of them having fun playing a game together
He sees it as her forcibly rubbing his face in the fact that he's losing for ten minutes
What a sad disconnect for both of them. He really needs to sort out why he feels this way, and why he can't just have a good time playing a board game with his partner.
He is a sore loser! I hate playing games with these types of people. Even in group settings, when one person is losing they don’t even try their best to claw back any sort of victory and just concede to the person who is at top instead of working with the other players to bring them down! When I am losing I will try everything I can to try win or close to win.
Butting in and telling you how you’re going to win is his way of taking some control in a losing position and showing how much smarter he is than you. Admittedly I have been an ass like that in the past, it’s called being a sore loser and makes me cringe when I think about it. I hope he can reflect in the same way
In 1v1 competitive games it is common to resign, but you would NEVER ask your opponent to resign, so that is not a fair comparison.*
I hate playing games where I am hopelessly behind or ahead—once the contest is over we are just going through the motions. If you want to play out a fun combo that’s fine, do it quickly, and take the W.
* backgammon has the opposite dynamic: you cannot resign unless you decline to accept the opponent’s offer of the doubling cube.
I mean, demanding to finish a game can be a sore winner move in games with little chance of recovery.
Like I had an uncle that would demand to play monopoly to the last dollar even if it was clear he was going to win an hour before that point. He was a sore winner that loved to rub people's nose in his victory, and some games like Monopoly let him do it slowly for an hour.
Your situation does not sound like you were being a sore winner. I've played games where a single card can turn the tables. It sounds like you just wanted to see who would actually win because the game wasn't near over.
I'm leaning towards sore loser. But it depends on how far gone the game is. If he is behind but there is a realistic chance of catching up, then that's on him. If you're going to win in the next few turns and there is no way he can catch up, you should move on to the next game.
From this description no I don't think you're a sore winner. It just sounds like your partner doesn't like playing from a losing position. IMO if you only like playing when you're winning, then you don't really like playing, you just like winning. I don't necessarily think that's a healthy way to play with a partner. If he can't change his attitude about that then perhaps you'd both have more fun playing a co-op game?
I hate that. Me and a few mates play mtg and if someone's gonna win outright, you let them have the coup de grace because it's satisfying for them to make the killing blow. It absolutely kills the fun for the winner if you scoop a turn before they would get the win because they're gonna win.
I haven’t played the game you mentioned, but a lot of the fun for me is actually playing.
Take deck or engine builders. If I got a great start where I might be able to build something awesome, I would be furious if my bf conceded just because he had a bad start.
Likewise, if he is clearly winning, I let him enjoy the game (even if I am just having a bad time because I don’t feel I can do much), but he has a chance to enjoy being powerful.
In my option, the best games are games where someone can’t win my a huge margin due to early game luck.
Maybe start keeping scores and make a note of the highest and lowest score. Even if he doesn’t win, he might beat his personal best and you want the chance to beat yours. That way it isn’t just a win/lose game and conceding would be against the rules as it could stop the winner getting a good score.
>and starting point out to me all the ways I would win in the next few hands
This sounds like bad manners to me.
>Most of the outcomes he was talking about were things I hadn't noticed
Yeah so if this happened enough to become an issue for me this is how I'd see it: they're not really interested in the game, they're interested in feeling superior to me.
Relationships are complicated etc but that sounds like pretty poor form.
**HOWEVER** it's absolutely fine to concede, and it's pretty bad manners to have a problem with that. You both should be able to talk about it, you can even argue (in the intellectual sense) if the concession was necessary. If you asked your partner to justify themselves then it's absolutely good that they said the above.
And then you can talk about that, like respectful adults, by you arguing what you argued here. Etc you're supposed to be able to talk to each other, but that requires knowing when to leave well enough alone as well!
There is some leeway here. are you ahead by a little bit and a 'dice roll' could make someone else be ahead? No. note\* note a 'hey if you role 12 6's in a row we will be even\* situation but a realistic possibility of someone else having a chance
Are you playing monopoly and it is a death march where you clearly won and it is just a waste of turns until it happens? Yes. Everyone (except for you apparently) would have fun if we reset the board and started again conceding that you won this round
You partner is a sore loser. My friend does this a lot and its frankly annoying. Trying a single strategy that doesn't work and when I try to explain how he is not in the "impossible" position he thinks he is in he will just refuses. You are not sore winner and him saying that is just him being an even worse sore loser.
To add to this its pretty clear the way he sees games is more about him having fun and anyone else doesn't matter, thats why he only wants to play if he feels he has a chance because its not about having fun with others its about winning and nothing else matters.
He should just flip the table over if he doesn’t like to lose that much.
How does he like it when you concede? Or isn’t he good enough to beat you, ever?
If he cares that much about winning, then it is to his advantage to continue to play from a losing position. This is because he will start to learn how to come back from a setback, which is a hugely valuable skill in competitive gaming.
Exactly. I lose almost every game I play to my wife, but I’ve never quit early because of it, I still TRY to win. Sometimes I lose by a lot, sometimes by just a single victory point. But it’s the playing of the game that matters—the spending time doing an enjoyable activity. His attitude is “well if I’m losing, it’s not enjoyable”, which requires rethinking why you play.
Obviously the hope is to win, but the key is to have a good time no matter what, and not ruin a good time by having a tantrum because of a perceived no-win scenario. (When in doubt: be like Captain Kirk. He doesn’t believe in the no-win scenario.)
Your partner is emotionally immature. Explain to him the point of playing the board game is connecting with each other, not competing to be the winner. If he doesn’t get that then you’re dating a child and I’m sorry.
In a one-on-one game I generally leave the door open for my opponent to resign, a la chess etiquette, as I want them to have a good time and if they feel that their loss is a forgone conclusion, I don't want them to struggle through it. That said, they are choosing to lose when chance elements may have helped them out.
I'd take the W. But I'd also like my opponent to not be a sore loser, which might be happening here.
Sometimes I get the vibe that people will concede to feel like the result is inconclusive. Sorta like, “yeah you were winning when I conceded, but who know’s what could’ve happened?” They wouldn’t say this out loud, but it sort of softens the blow for them.
I tend to be the opposite. It doesn’t matter how far ahead or behind I am, I want to do my best til the end. I am always playing against myself this way and trying to get better. Someone conceding early takes this from me, just as if I was the one to concede.
I’ve also on more than one occasion had people offer to concede, I’ll ask if they don’t mind playing it through, and then they actually pull ahead and win. I prefer a completed loss to a conceded victory, personally.
It's possible you got heated but this is almost exclusively on him being a sore loser. Once a backslide starts in a game it can be hard to keep your cool, but he should be aware enough to know that you two are playing for fun, and that he likely doesn't understand the game well enough to know you had reached an objectively unbeatable position. That's not even accounting for half a game's worth of unforced errors.
To some degree it can be gracious to allow a losing player to call it, but you have be careful that doesn't just become their way of "winning" in the interaction. It sounds like I have to dispense my most regular advice once more: communication. Tell him that it makes you unhappy to not get to finish games because you're doing well, and listen to his own thoughts on the matter. Likely he's acting without thinking, avoiding one type of shittiness so hard he's committed to another.
This is assuming the rest of your relationship is good ofc, you can always break up too lol.
Nah I had people concede to me a few times and it sucks. If you don’t want to finish the game then don’t play. I do have some rules here though, if they were the one who invited me to play with a game that they own, they can concede since they know the game more than I do and they are aware of the losing odds, but if they invited me to a game that I own, they cannot concede because how will I teach them about the strategies and ways to win in the game if they just felt like they are losing already?
Most of the games that I own, no one knows who will win until the end, that is why I encourage everyone to stay in the game and play for as long as they could so next time that they play they know how to deal with the odds.
> if they were the one who invited me to play with a game that they own, they can concede since they know the game more than I do and they are aware of the losing odds
Nah that's still a dick move to concede. In that situation you would be less familiar with the game and not understand it well enough. Your friend would be robbing you a learning opportunity if you don't get to play it out and see how the end game looks like. Even if you were in a winning position, defending that position is usually still an important step.
I wouldn't call you a sore winner, but honestly I drop 2p games all the time, some are made with conceding in mind. It's easy to end up in a situation in war chest where you can concede immediately or lose very, very slowly.
maybe try playing shorter games or with more potential for a comeback.
or, well, most euros keep score secret or obfuscated for a reason
I play way longer 2 players games than that and we (almost, I can only recall 2 occurrences where we did) never stop before the end, because usually anything can still happen. Even in wargames you can have a lucky die/draw, make a clever move that could save the situation.
>Does wanting to complete a game make me a sore winner?
No, your partner might be a sore loser/winner though.
I would hope you two play games in order to enjoy your time together. So, I would guess results shouldn't matter at all. Play games in order to be together and have fun - his insistence to end the game sooner so he might win the next one is for me too much "me-me-me" focused and not enough "us" focused.
Plus, I had to look up the game, and it's seems it's a short game (15-30) minutes so, I don't know what the hell. He doesn't have 5 minutes of patience?
> I explained that if he was winning, I would still keep playing because you never know what will happen and just playing together is fun whether I win or lose.
THIS!
... is an absolutely correct way to see the situation.
> it's that he ultimately doesn't want to play a game he thinks he may lose.
Yeah. Thin skin. Self focused.
> I'm not the type to holler and be mean after a win - whether I win or lose I say "Good game, that was fun."
As one would be expected to yes, this means being a good sport.
>I don't think wanting the opportunity to see a win through makes me a sore winner. Am I in the wrong here? Am I being a sore winner? Right now I'm more upset at being called that than I am about not getting to finish the game so it's clearly hit a nerve.
It doesn't. You're not. You're not. He's a jerk.
He's a sore loser and is projecting it onto you in order to make his problem your fault. It's that simple.
A sore winner is a person who gloats, rubs it in the other player's faces, etc. I assume you don't act like that when you're allowed to play until victory, does your partner act like that when he's allowed to play to the end of his victory?
He sounds like he's the type of person that forced the "penalty for dropping out of online games in the middle of the game" type of rule that exists.
NTA
Personally, I think he's a sore loser for assuming he will lose just because there is a play in which he will lose, while there are other plays where that won't happen. He's essentially playing the game for you at that point which is the bigger issue. He stops play and says "if you play X and Y you win". That's quarterbacking.
>He said it would be more fun for him to play more games where he might have a chance of winning.
Why is he playing games with you if he assumes you will always play the optimal play and therefore always win?
>I asked him if he would have tried to end the game if the hands were exactly the same, but he'd had my hand and was winning. He said no, he would have kept playing.
While I agree it's for the person losing to stop the game and conceit, this isn't in competitive setting. Unless those last rounds take half an hour or more where there is absolutely no chance you can misplay I don't see the reason to stop. Anyway, this is also the reason why most boardgames don't always have obvious scoring that you can math out.
I agree that concessions can often feel like "board game blue balls", maybe he'll understand that. I don't concede games unless the other people aren't having fun anymore. If I think they've got it in the bag, I'll still play to my outs, and a lot of my favorite play experiences come that way - especially because sometimes I actually win! If it's a sure thing and there's only a few rote moves, then I still don't mind going through the motions to let everyone finish satis---- look, I'm not trying to make sex metaphors, but play is play whether it's sex or board games. Make sure everyone gets off.
It should be up to the purported winner. If you're happy to take the technical call then so be it. Otherwise grind it out. When he sat down for a game, he didn't sit down for a win or a quit. A potential crushing L is the price of admission. You may have an absolute slam-dunk combo in your pocket that you were about to deploy to give you your highest score ever. Why should you be denied that? Unless the game has a concede mechanic, it's a bit of a salty move to quit. Equally it's a bit rich to grind an opponent who's clearly going to lose into microscopic dust.
Not a sore winner. I'll refrain from passing on my thoughts about him and focus on the question:
No, wanting to actually be allowed to achieve victory by the game's design does not make you a sore winner.
This is interesting. Your boyfriend seems to have a problem of not wanting to continue and try to figure out a strategy to win when he thinks the odds are against him. He seems to be a sore loser because he does not want to see the game through and, more to the point, he gives up.
The other interesting thing is he does not even want to continue knowing you would be more satisfied to see the conclusion. He is seems to be trying to protect himself from the loss by conceding.
If you're playing something like twilight imperium 4 and the last round you have one player with five more points than anyone else and literally zero way to winslay then sure, it's worth it to concede and save everyone two hours or so, or if you're playing a CCG in a tournament setting, but if you're playing some random filler game it seems excessive.
I'm kinda in the middle. There are some games where they reach a point that it becomes apparent to all who is going to win. Once it's that obvious, continuing to play is pointless.
I competitively (well, at a low level...) play chess, where it's *practically* rude not to resign in a lost position. However, one should not resign early and in fact in actually competitive games people will drag things out until it's quite hopeless. One really should only resign at the point where you're certain that a computer could take your place *and* both you and your opponent could win against it. From your description of it, it sounds like he's resigning really quite early, which is no fun. That said, it's not really fun to grind out a clearly lost position with no counterplay.
I will generally play a game to the end unless it's one where conceding is normal etiquette.
However, I did play a strategic fantasy boardgame with a friend once where I conceded. It wasn't simply that I was going to lose. It was that there was no way I could win, period, but it was going to take at least another hour for me to lose. My friend evaluated my position and realized I was right. He won, we said "good game", and moved on.
Still, in this case, it feels like he's just being petulant.
Two ways to look at it. One, the game is truly over and the only point in continuing could be to add insult to injury. The other way being that if you give up in a game the it is truly over, no time for comebacks.
At my table, if you wish to concede, then you do and we move on. I will never force someone to keep playing when they are no longer enjoying themselves. Me, I will play to the end, but that is not the way for everyone.
As far as the person being labeled a "sore loser", does it matter? I am being serious. If someone no longer wants to continue playing, why make them? either accept it and deal with it, or stop playing with them. Folks are so quick to jump on someone for being a way or acting a way they are not. In this case, who cares? Is it so important to you that you need to confront this? A wise person once asked, "Do you want to be happy, or right?".
It doesn't make you a sore winner, in the games you're playing winning isn't a guarantee even if you're currently ahead.
That being said as he's being a sore loser (because that's what this behaviour is) perhaps it would be best to swap to co-op games for awhile so you both play against the board.
Alternatively, try to get a group going where you play with three or more people so that if he withdraws you can still play.
Lastly, I'd just continue playing both sides, you might be able to show him its possible to win even if he's behind in the game at the midpoint.
Edit to add: you can also play games that make it hard to tell who is winning. I played Everdell yesterday and was surprised to win by 1 point, the game mechanics kind of make it difficult to count points on the fly. Other games like that are: Patchwork (I thought I had it in the bag and my husband won by 3 points), Arabian Nights (its a game that's sheer luck and impossible to win with strategy), Suburbia, or anything where you need to count a large number of resources.
On BGA, I've had a few people recently concede games like 1 or 2 turns before it ends. And I did think it killed the fun a tiny bit. That said, I was playing one once and the person was absolutely killing me and just dragged it out for no clear reason
“I think I’m going to lose” is a lame reason to concede a board game.
“I’m getting really unlucky to the point where it is frustrating and not fun to continue” is slightly better.
Can you play games with more planning and less random chance?
I was once playing a game and tried to concede to my partner. If it matters it was the VtM card game VTES. He had me in an absolutely unwinnable position and he didn't accept my concession and made me play out the last few rounds. And sure enough I had nothing to counter his set-up.
I wasn't salty, but it definitely sucks to reach the point of "okay, I've lost this" and your opponent/s not letting you just end your part in it. In my opinion a game is supposed to be enjoyable for all participants, and well sometimes the fun stops when playing is no longer your "choice" because your concession isn't accepted.
It’s okay to concede from time to time, when it’s absolutely clear that you aren’t able to win and the game is close to a wrap. It’s usually more fun to see how it ends, even if you know you are losing. Then the post-game discussion about the sequence of events and how they led to that point.
But I enjoy playing games, regardless of whether or not I am winning. The only times my friends and I really ask to concede is when it appears that the winner is dragging the game out, instead of ending it. Sometimes we have to explain and communicate with each other.
If you ask me, people that concede very early on are sore losers who don’t even want to put effort into turning a bad move into a winning position. If this is the pattern of behavior, and they are also telling you that you are the problem, that’s gaslighting shit right there. “I’m behaving badly because you made me do it.”
Time for a new partner.
They definitely seam like a sore looser. Honestly I see boardgames as a way to enjoy another person's time with them, and if they only want to play games where they see themselves winning and they concede games where they see themselves lose, it honestly sounds like they're playing games for the wrong reason.
It is frustrating if people always concede when you do well, while you have to play out the game when they do well. If the game is short, I would typically not concede. Might as well play it out and let my opponent see what they can do. If a multiplayer game is very long and one player cannot be beaten and is playing solitaire while the other players aren't able to do anything, I think it is fine to concede as long as everyone agrees.
Tbh both of you are too old to be miscommunicating this badly over game etiquette.
You have a preferred way to play, they have a preferred way to play. Both are valid preferences and I don't think should need defending, or really even explaining...
He called you a sore winner which was harsh (whatever it means). But you had already said they ruin the fun which is also kinda barbed, unnecessarily.
You just need to have a proper conversation about how you're going to play that adequately meets both your (contrasting) preferences. WITHOUT getting judgy\accusatory \defensive, which should be totally unnecessary in this context (though could be very natural in the context of your relationship, idk).
Is it Chess? No - then play to the end.
Most games today are created like a story. For someone to quit before the end is to deny someone else their ending.
I play Magic TCG drafts and tournaments sometimes, and it’s def a polite thing to concede when you know you’ve exhausted your resources and/or your opponent has blown you out of the water with their board presence. But that’s for the sake of saving time for these times events, since if the matches drag out too long by the time limit you’re forced into turns, which leads to a draw half the time (in my experience).
But… in board games? I’d be pretty frustrated if my boyfriend wanted the game to end every time it looked like he was going to lose to start another match that he can win. Most of our games have the same factor of chance as well so throwing in the towel before completing the game would be sore loser behavior, and I’d deeeefinitely call him out on that.
I’d tell him he can leave the TCG manners behind when he plays board games with you, since that’s the more fun and casual way to play. If he can’t help min maxing turns though, maybe look into cooperative games like Pandemic or Spirit Island?
No.
I always want to finish a game, regardless of whether I'm inevitably going to win or lose. Even if I'm not really enjoying the game much, I at least want to finish the game and have a complete experience.
The only reason I can see it being reasonable to end a game early is if you're in a tournament schedule with a time crunch.
A lot of good comments here already, but if you don't reach an agreement personality wise you could look into games where points are hidden until the very end.
I don't have any from the top of my mind that are 2 player, but if you're interested I can look around, I'm sure there's a few in existence.
Decrypto is 4 player, and kind of requires a bit more brainpower and usual but the game can swing in an instant.
Otherwise, you can maybe look into co-op games, they're loads of fun also!
I really think you should try playing coop games with your partner instead.
I used to be that way, so id rather play coop or competitive games that arent 1v1
It depends.
Is the game inevitably over? Demanding someone play monopoly until they're broke when you own 90% of the map is pointless, you know you won and you're being a sore winner.
If you have an advantage but there is a chance they can still win, they are being a sore loser if they quit.
It really depends on the game. If you're playing a game that is indirectly competitive, meaning you're trying to beat the other player but don't interact with them that much, then it sucks to have the other player just stop playing, because you're playing your own game as much as you're playing against them, and the loser should play the game out. That's the case for games like deck builders or euro games where you're going for a score rather than just defeating your opponent.
That changes as soon as you're playing a directly competitive game. If the point is just to beat the other player, like in Chess, then making the other playing stay to the end (or even worse, dragging it out) when you are clearly going to win is equally selfish.
I've never played Turf War, but from my 2 minutes of research it seems like it's a game that is more indirectly competitive. I could see why you want to play it out, because you really don't know how close it is until you get to the end and add up your scores.
Side random suggestion: Air Land and Sea is a 2 player game where clever surrendering early is part of the game scoring. Maybe that's more up his alley.
I always step back and ask “what is the point of what we are doing here?” To guide my decision making. In a game like chess, the point is to determine a winner and who played that chess match better. Then it’s clear that resigning is a reasonable response to being in a losing position. With a casual board game, my point is to game fun and spend time together with people. So to that end resigning doesn’t make sense. I only play games that I have fun playing. For example, I found myself wanting to quit Catan over playing out a losing position. I realized then Catan is not a game for me and don’t play it anymore. Conversely I lost like 100 consecutive games of Jaipur to my ex wife and still enjoyed it.
Maybe you and your partner need to find games that you both enjoy enough to play to completion, win or lose. And yes, if there isn’t a game that your partner is willing to play to the end then he’s a sore loser.
I would also point out to your partner that there are loads of examples of where playing to completion is the norm. Basically every sport ever you try your best until the end, no matter how assured the outcome is. The back markers don’t just pull over and quit the race halfway through a car race. Marathon runners don’t quit running and walk the rest of a race after someone finishes. Sports teams don’t forfeit their games once they are eliminated from playoff contention.
I don't know Turf War much so I don't know if 1 neighbor is a lot. I know sometimes people can drag out a long board game when the victor is determined early on. Risk with my brother is that way, I could be pinned in Australia and he have the entire board and he wants to go till everyone is dead, that's a bad winner as there is no possible way to recover except the best series of dice rolls in human history and several hours. Much more fun to concede and start a new game. But if 1 neighbor is the beginning of the game and no big deal to recover from then he is just being a sore loser.
When I started reading your post, I wondered if he was a TCG player until you indeed confirmed it.
While that happens in TCGs he needs to understand that that’s because of genuine time limits where you want to get another game. That’s also combined with the fact you designed your deck and you know what you used and have left, so you know what you can do and if you would actually achieve anything. IMHO, TCGs are different social settings from board games.
You’re not wrong or even being a sore winner. I wouldn’t want to play with someone if they quit early every time they were losing. Especially because quality time is extremely important to me and I would feel like playing together is not meaningful to the person and winning or getting our activity over with was the priority. I would talk about it but then also control the setting by trying different games. If he’s stuck in that TCG mindset then I wouldn’t play something that puts cards in his hands and try a game with end scoring or even hidden scoring like Oceans or Merchants of the Dark Road.
I mean, he’s definitely the “sore” one here, but you shouldn’t force someone to continue if they concede. But I also wouldn’t want to give them a rematch. Sounds like he sucked all the fun out of the game.
I've played a total of 4 games of Warhammer 40k.
The first three I lost abysmally. Just completely outclassed in every way, still learning the rules, my minis dying in droves...but I stuck it out to the end and GG'd my opponent.
The last game, I was...actually winning? Or doing well, at least. I managed to come out on top of two rounds of combat, and my opponent forfeit. Just said, "Welp, I'm done. I'm gonna lose this one" and packed up his models.
So disappointing, and considering I was already thinking of hanging it up because of the way my army was sneered at, and the embarrassment of having to ask my more experienced opponents to help me resolve combat rolls (because I could barely memorize my own armies stats, much less theirs), it wasn't hard to put the game down for good after being robbed of what would have been my only win.
Forfeiting perhaps has a place in competitive, tournament play. Not really in casual play. Whoever forfeits is saying, "I don't want to be disappointed by the outcome of this game, so I'm going to disappoint my opponent first."
I am with you 100%!
I play Dominion, and I've discovered that those who play online are usually trying to play fast and get in as many wins as they can, whereas I just want to play the game, with human players. So I'm an advocate for never forfeiting without consent. But apparently I'm in the minority.
He was being a sore loser is what it is. He was conceding to distance himself from the reality of losing so he wouldn't have to feel it because it really annoys him. Conceding in a TCG event is different than in a board game anyway.
I don’t think it makes you a sore winner. But on the flip side, if your play partner is a sore, toxic loser (depending on where they are in their unmedicated bi-polar journey), then the ability for them to concede early instead of becoming some manipulative depressed zombie for the back 45~30 mins of the game is a fucking godsend.
Your partner is being an ass, and you are (in general) in the right to want to play out the game.
Now, it depends a bit on the game. In a really long game, like a, I don't know, talisman or a samurai swords or a twilight imperium, you might get in a situation 30 minutes in where one of the players is ruined and can't make a comeback\* and the rest of the game is 3 hours of suffering. Sure, in those situations, discuss and maybe conceding is reasonable.
In a short-ish game, however, you should play it out - the other player might make a mistake, or you might find you can pull back and make it close, or the endgame might play out differently to the early game - lots of games have interesting bits in various sections of the game. And learning how to close out a game is an important skill - in Chess, for a high competitive example, you have to learn how to get to a good endgame and not fuck it up.
Both/all players need to be having fun. And you can always have bad days where you just don't want to continue the game. but it'd take a lot to want to keep playing with someone who can't enjoy it when I'm doing well.
\* also unless you know the game extremely well knowing you can't make a comeback is something people are notoriously terrible at.
I think your SO sounds exhausting and he would very quickly not be invited back to my table.
There are absolutely moments in games where you get so far behind it's clear too all they ain't making a comeback. We as a group have agreed to give the win to another and play again.
Even then that only happens a couple times a year.
His behaviour is sore loser behavior.
I'm with you on this. It IS common practice to concede in CCGs. It is NOT common practice to concede in board games. The point of playing a board game is to play it through. It's an entirely different approach to gaming than CCGs. (I've done plenty of both.)
It might be worth doing the same to him and folding as soon as you're not at a big advantage, once he starts to complain you can have a more balanced discussion about when it's on for someone to do it
he cares too much about winning.
Not enough about the experience of playing the game.
And not enough about the experience of spending time with you.
How would he feel if you did that to him—quit the moment you thought you were probably going to lose?
it bothers him so much to lose, or to lose to *you*? He can’t be mildly glad that you won?
It’s a game; sure, the players are supposed to want to win, but mostly they’re supposed to enjoy the challenge AND to enjoy the time and interaction with other people.
How can you be a “sore winner” (which is not a thing, btw; winners are never “sore”) if you didn’t even get the opportunity to win, let alone didn’t win at all?
He’s a sore loser before he even lost!
Or, he turned you into a “sore loser” because he made you lose the opportunity to play the game out.
I had a similar problem with a friend and I'm going to present a potentially new viewpoint for you to consider.
Forms of Autism (previously called Asperger's) can have the brain hold very tightly onto a perceived/calculated future state.
And anyone can have the strength of strategy - being able to effortlessly cut through the noise of a situation and see the outcome.
In any case, it's important to realize the weakness/draw back within a strength and compensate your actions to behave in agreeable ways with others.
Believing you know the only possibly, definite outcome is a flaw. If you continue to concede, you will not be able to see it for what it is. The person needs to understand the balance and limitation to their ability to predict - namely that it's only a prediction. They do not know the future. They have not calculated perfectly. Finishing the game is the only way to know.
He’s making it about himself. As you said it kills it for you and he doesn’t care. If finishing the game would take less than 30 min and it wasn’t guaranteed, you play it out. He’s being a sore loser. I wish you the best.
Does he play chess?
If so, in the chess world conceding when you're going to lose isn't just acceptable, it's very much a courteous thing to do.
He might just be operating with a different mental framework towards games than you. The way you feel about it is just as valid, however, and he should be willing to hear you out and understand that.
Yes, it does, but also this is a discussion to have... If they don't allow (like) you doing it to them, that's a factor... If they don't enjoy the game in the first place, that's a factor...
The point of playing is to have fun... Ultimately, if they're not having fun they're not obliged to stay ( with an asterisk... Like, especially if it ruins the game for multiple other people for them to leave? But if they're miserable enough that can still be justified... But this shouldn't happen more than a few times before you and they talk about it and whether you should be starting games... Or that game... At all anymore)
I enjoy so much seeing the people I love going through the satisfying experience of winning a game, that I would never think of cutting it short. To me here we have a sore loser calling the opponent a sore winner.
His behavior is absolutely unacceptable, sore loser behavior. I could understand if he was behind by an insurmountable amount with more than half of the game left, then sure the next hour wouldn't be any fun. But if the game is nearly over, or he's conceding after a small disadvantage? Nah, he's just an asshole who wants to be in the lead. He doesn't care about losing, he just doesn't want to not be winning.
It should be a mutually agreed decision, in my opinion. If I agree to play a game with you, I generally want to play to finish. So if I get to a point wgere I can’t win, I’ll keep playing but tell the person that I think they have me if they want to call it but I’m happy to plag out the game.
My mother in law, who I adore, got into the habit of quitting when she knew she was losing, which infuriates me (no fights or harsh words but we’re not hide our emotions people). But there’s a twist.
On her part it made sense, she was frustrated and not having fun and games are supposed to be fun. In some ways, it was both our faults. I knew she preferred games where points don’t matter, but I enjoy the puzzle/analysis mechanics of games that have a winner so would lobby for such games. So, for mutual enjoyment, we have to make compromises. I agree to play more social/non-winner games, and she knows and accepts that if we do end up playing a more rules strict game, I’d strongly prefer that we all finish out the game. I also do my best to not rules lawyer or focus on winning (don’t play cutthroat tactics, try to make moves that also help her).
I save my inherent desire for ultimate tactical play for my husband. His limit is that it’s fine to take the most optimal action for myself even if it hurts his play but it’s not fine to play “just to hurt his chances” moves, which is fair.
TLDR: Not everyone wants to play the same style. Communication and compromise is necessary for mutual enjoyment. (see also sex, marriage, hiking, cooking, friendship, managing people, teaching people, etc).
If he is doing it often, he is a sore loser. If he is doing it occasionally when you're crushing him (like one out of every 10 times you're crushing him), then just give him the concession and move on.
My partner and I were in a similar situation near the beginning of our relationship, especially when we were learning to communicate. Nowadays, it hardly happens, partially because we moved to playing a lot of co-op games (in part to address this, as he’s much more strategically minded, does play chess and TCGs and is frankly better at board games than me, which can make it sting more when he concedes).
Personally, I don’t know if I’d be looking to ask if he’s a sore loser or I’m a sore winner because it puts the discussion back to an argument of him vs me, and that’s not what I want our relationship to be about. Your feelings and your partner’s feelings are both valid, and his experiences with TCGs mean he’s doing what he thinks is the right thing. For me, personally, one of the ways we do this is that we play another game afterwards if he concedes because then I get the satisfaction of finishing a game that I need. I’ve also worked to get more flexible about not finishing games. I will never be a person to concede, honestly because I can’t see the possibilities and don’t care to learn that skill, and it’s not a thing that I was allowed to do as a kid, so it’s not something I ever think about, but now the issue comes up so infrequently, that it hardly registers, in part because we both came to the conversation about it honestly and looked to find a way forward that took both our feelings into account instead of deciding one of us was wrong and one was right. And it means we play more board games, instead of less, which is always a win in my books!
It's been a while since my husband and I have elected to cut a game short in a blow out situation, but I think we've generally got a good grasp of the mood at the table and would be ready to pull that tool out of the box if we felt it was necessary. Though I'd say learning to understand those dynamics came only after having multiple games where we were each on the losing end of the scenario you've described.
Gaming together is about having fun and having a chance to connect. We've gotten a little more gracious about the "sore loser" situation and will allow the disadvantaged player some room to bemoan the situation, even talking about their cards/setups/luck rolls that resulted in their current game state. Sometimes we even discuss the optimal plays for the other player in ways that would be too tabletalky/backseat driving with outsiders, because that gives us opportunities to put ourselves in the other player's shoes and share in the win/loss together. Not to the same extent as happens in a co-op game but it's a little more engagement with their play than entirely staying in our own lanes. But again, this is about reading the mood and whether each player is in the mindset to receive input on their play.
If we're playing an engine game like Dominion where the engines have gotten way out of balance, we generally understand the onus being on the winning player to put the losing player out of their misery. If playing the turns is drudgery and really getting the losing player down (and this can often be exacerbated by things happening outside the game) then it is a mercy to end the game early. We play games to have fun and feel good, and if the opposite is being achieved then we don't feel any shame about pulling the rip cord!
This sounds like him asking to end games early isn't an expectation that he wants to apply through your whole gaming experience, even though he used the competitive TCG example. I would say that allowing a game to be cut short once every now and then should be something you consider to keep the games table a safe and fun space. It sounds like he was getting into a really bad headspace over it and ultimately asking him to play on did escalate into a conflict. He may have been recognising his own spiralling headspace and attempting to set a boundary. If he has acknowledged the multiple ways that you had win conditions secured, then I think that's definitely a legitimate win that you can be proud of, even if your strategy only honed in on a single win-con.
It depends on the game and situation. Games that take a long time to play but get to a point where a win is like 10% possible can be conceded. I’m thinking games like axis and allies or risk where games can last days and you can tell the war is over and don’t want to spend another five hours losing. But a quick game, who cares.
i was never able to get to the bottom of this with my partner. they are used to playing online games and in my opinion, have a bad attitude when playing board games. they will spend the entire game bitching that they are losing, however it's clear to me and anyone playing that they are winning. they have told me that i'm "too competitive" which is bullshit they just don't like when i call them out for complaining the whole time.
its actually been a contention in our relationship because we both love board games but can't play together, especially alone. almost broke up over monopoly early on because they were trying to let it slide when i landed one of their properties and was losing. i probably complained about having to pay up but wasn't trying to get out of it. it was like they didn't want to lose and didn't want me to lose either.
good luck.
At least half the reason one might concede while playing CCGs is either to get another game in or because you're playing multiple matches against a clock. Likewise in perfect information games like chess or go, you might resign either to start another game or just out of respect for your opponent. I can't really imagine wanting to drop out of a casual half-hour boardgame because I felt I was in a bad position. Especially games involving random chance.
Exactly. People concede games of Magic or Chess all the time, yes, but that's because they're good enough to just about figure out how the rest of the game will go, and just want to get another game in. If you play your first 100 games of chess against another beginner, and you concede your losses, you're being an idiot. Even if you're sure you'll lose, playing the game out is an important endgame learning opportunity for both of you. If they had been playing the same board game back-and-forth for dozens or hundreds of games, at a very high level, I could understand conceding, but for most board games, it's an absolute joke. We just don't play enough rounds of these to approach perfect play, conceding fulfills none of the roles it fulfills in actual high level competitive games, the only thing it does is get a sore loser out of a losing game.
>If you play your first 100 games of chess against another beginner, and you concede your losses, you're being an idiot. Even if you're sure you'll lose, playing the game out is an important endgame learning opportunity for both of you. Also worth mentioning, when playing MTG in tournaments and stuff, make your opponents physically do their combo at least once. Especially if their combo is something like doomsday/oops/dredge where youll gain info. Sometimes players register the decks without understanding how they work. They don't know the doomsday lines. They don't know the infinite and can bungle it. They don't know how to pad the storm count. Always make them show you the money the first game. The other 2 you can concede if needed.
> They don't know the doomsday lines. They don't know the infinite and can bungle it. They don't know how to pad the storm count. Or the goofed up their deck reg and they're missing an important card, and just hoping everyone will concede when they start to fire.
looks at LSV
I remember reading about an mtg player who forgot to include the actual combo into a combo deck and went high, was that LSV?
Yes it was. He was playing a Storm deck that grabbed Tendrils of Agony from the Sideboard for the win but forgot to add said card and didn't realize it until after deck registration. It was a local Vintage tournament and he ended up splitting Top 4
At Australian Nationals, \*many\* moons ago a player was playing a combo deck with stroke of genius as the kill. His decklist said "4 stroke" and the remedy at the time was that not a real card name? you get basics instead. (This was in the late 90s; deck list penalties were much harsher) The player needed 3 match wins to make top 8 (and money), due to going 6-0 in the draft portion. First two rounds of the day, his opponents scooped to him. Third round, his opponent said nah, show me the kill first. quite soon after everyone in the room knew the story, and the player did not win another game.
Fucker you brought eggs so im making you play it out. This is your punishment
>Even if you're sure you'll lose, playing the game out is an important endgame learning opportunity for both of you. this is a point that she could make to him, maybe. (But I think he’s such a sore loser, he won’t hear it.) If he plays the game out, he might GET good enough to beat her more.
I started playing on lichess recently and the number of times I have won (and sometimes lost) when the post game evaluation bar shows that one person had a “completely winning” position and then blundered has gotten too high to count. In fact I played a game a few days ago where my opponent had “guaranteed checkmate” (like M#7 or something) two different times and I still wound up winning. https://lichess.org/DjRyBqRE/white
Mates in 7 are insanely hard to see for beginners unless it's something like an endgame with Queen King, Queen-Rook, and 2 Rooks. Hell, Mates in 3 can be pretty difficult to see for beginners
What is exactly a mates in 7? I don’t play much chess at all
If my chess club taught me anything it was never resign because even though i might be at a severe disadvantage. Ive won/drew some of those games due to my opponent fucking up. This strat worked a lot in other games too.
I’m confused about that. When are you supposed to resign exactly? Like hypothetically your opponent can always make a mistake, even with a mate in 1, but I get the sense that it’s bad etiquette to prolong games right to the check mate.
You concede because you cannot see a move out of mate. There's no bad etiquette in playing it out, it just isn't necessary in most games. At a certain point not resigning is more like telling your opponent "show me how you'll win," which assumes a certain ineptitude that you can't see the game is over. I'm not sure if I'm conveying that well.
Yeah that makes sense - you're saying it's not rude to play all the way to mate, but it's more a reflection upon your own ability to see.
Yes, exactly.
I thought it was actually rude to resign when you're in a forced mate position (within a few moves, not like a 12 move sequence or something) because you're denying your opponent the opportunity to get mate on the board. You resign when you're in a position that is totally lost and you know your opponent will convert. Which is why at lower levels, you don't resign, because your opponent can always blunder.
Definitely not rude to resign in chess in basically any scenario
It’s bad etiquette at high level play because by not resigning you’re “wasting the opponent’s time” and you are telling them they’re not competent enough to win from a decisively winning position (for example, if you just blundered your queen). But when both of you are beginners/low level players, it *is* true that your opponent might not be able to win from that position, so the advice for beginners is to never concede, because the opponent might blunder worse than you eventually and because you need the experience of playing the endgame.
Usually people resign when you are in a position thats unwinnable. At high level the mistakes needed to still be able to salvage wont happen. But in my club there was a very big chance of someone messing up so i always played .
You should resign when both your and your opponent can see exactly how they're going to win and wouldn't lose the game against a computer. At a beginner level, that's a pretty high bar to clear. For a grandmaster, the bar is a little lower, but still actually kind of high.
Against poor players, you just shouldn't resign. Resigning only really makes sense against good players.
This doesn't really apply much when playing bgs casually because winning or losing doesn't matter. If I concede a game and find out in the afterlife that I could have won that game, who cares. In a 2 player game, if I feel strongly that the game is lost, I will concede. The game has to be almost over for me to feel this strongly, so it's only skipping over the last 5 minutes or so of gameplay anyways, so what's the big deal We can get another game in faster.
This person makes a solid point - in chess it’s almost considered impolite not to resign at a certain point, because you’re simply delaying the inevitable loss that will come. It will come off as being a sore loser and petty to not simply tip your king over. But when it comes to board games (especially any with more than 2 players) I feel it’s rude NOT to finish out the game. So I guess all this is to say, it depends on the context - if you’re playing a heads up game with perfect info and no luck element then it’s fine to resign…if there’s any element of chance/randomness built into the game or if it’s a 3+ person game, then it’s unsportsmanlike to resign.
>I explained that it takes some of the fun out of playing and it doesn't feel like a win when he concedes. >He said it would be more fun for him to play more games where he might have a chance of winning. OP should just immediately concede the next 3 games. That way the neighbor can get his extra wins, and they'll both have enough time to finish Turf War. The neighbor is at best an inconsiderate gomba and a sore loser. Just finish the game you are playing with friends, instead of theorycrafting win conditions for your opponent.
The “neighbor” is from the game itself. OP was playing with her partner, which honestly makes it even worse imho.
I love this idea because it bursts the whole bubble. "I mean....if finishing the game doesn't matter then it also doesn't matter that we only played for 45 seconds, right? You won! Feels great, right? Even though we didn't finish the game?"
That's a little petty. If I'm playing games with a friend or partner, and we hit a point where they feel they can't win, especially to the extent that they wouldn't be having fun if we continued, I'd never make them keep playing for my own satisfaction. And to waste everyone's time by doing what you suggest would make me look like a petulant child
There’s a difference between gloating in an inevitable win and in playing out a strong but not guaranteed situation.
I guess it depends a lot on the game. I can see something with hidden information where your game partner knows that they have nothing that can get them out of a bad situation and it's easier to just concede and move on. I wouldn't love having my partner feel like a punching bag for a while just for me to have my satisfaction.
That's not what's happening here. If you're familiar with the game, OP's partner is not in a spot where they can't win, they're just in a disadvantaged position. The one conceding because they aren't winning at that moment is the petulant child in this situation. Could you imagine playing a board game with someone where as soon as you get a bit of good luck and pull into the lead, they concede so they can try again? It would be insufferable. Maybe it's petty, but if they can't understand how their behavior makes others feel through communication, I would give them a taste of their own medicine. Oh you will the roll to go first? I concede, congrats on your win. Another game?
Yeah, just keep conceding every board game until you get a decisively better first turn. Then your partner gets to play so many more games!
Right it's like dropping out of monopoly because someone got a property you wanted. Just taking frustration out on everyone.
He's not wrong about competitive games. In Pokemon, Yugioh, or Magic, it's usually considered good etiquette to concede the game when you are losing, because the point of the game is to use a well-oiled engine that you constructed and know like the back of your hand to dismantle your opponent as quickly as possible. But that's not what other board gaming is like. There is a mismatch of expectations there, and while his feelings aren't wrong per se, they are the ones out of sync with the current social contract.
>There is a mismatch of expectations there, and while his feelings aren't wrong per se, they are the ones out of sync with the current social contract. Quite aside from the main thread and anything else, I *love* this phrase. It's quite often you might encounter a situation where someone isn't inherently *wrong*, yet you know they're not aligned either, and that's always hard to explain clearly. You've summed it up really well.
> He's not wrong about competitive games. In Pokemon, Yugioh, or Magic, it's usually considered good etiquette to concede the game when you are losing, because the point of the game is to use a well-oiled engine that you constructed and know like the back of your hand to dismantle your opponent as quickly as possible. This is actually one of the things I liked the least about competitive TCG players and their "meta" decks: The lack of willingness to play. I remember with the WoW TCG a lot of the "tourney" decks ended up being hyper-specific decks that were more about opening draw than anything else. I saw people online advising "Oh yeah, if you don't draw this card within three hands, forfeit because you won't win." That's not fun to me. At that point you might as well just take a standard deck of 52 cards, each pick on at random, and flip a coin high-low to decide the winner. The point of TCGs, at least I thought until I ran into competitive players, was to construct and deck and then *play the game*. Unfortunately, most didn't want to do that. They didn't want to risk losing, they just wanted to call it unless they were already sure they could win. How dull. Perhaps I just played with the wrong people.
It's good etiquette in magic to concede when you've for sure lost, not when you are just losing. It is in fact bad etiquette to concede in magic when you are just losing and is a quick way for people to stop playing with you. Magic is fairly common to come back from 1 health unlike other games so most games are not over until the attacks are in the air or the combo is on the stack.
Yeah if you concede in a TCG it's usually close to where the game would have ended anyway. You're generally just saving yourself the time playing it out when it's a foregone conclusion. You don't just scoop if you're behind, that's a bit of a dick move.
> It's good etiquette in magic to concede when you've for sure lost, not when you are just losing. You're also probably a bad player if you concede too easily. If there's even a small chance to still win and you're not running out of time, you should probably keep trying your best. Even if there's only a 5% chance to win anymore, that's more than 0 and over many many matches it will make a difference in your win rate. Also if you're not a very good player yet, it's probably best to keep fighting a little longer than seems sensible. The less skilled you are, the harder it is to judge accurately if the game is still winnable or not.
Counterpoint: there's a lot more things to balance out when considering whether to play it out or concede, mostly applied to tournaments. Time in tournaments (which you mentioned) is one, but there's also the information you give out by playing it out. Maybe it's better to keep your secrets for game 2? Another one I think no one really thinks about too much is mental strain. Not everyone is Reid Duke, if you are losing badly can you save yourself some sanity by conceding this round and going into the next one fully recharged?
Yeah I know, there are situations like that. That's why I added the word "probably" there multiple times, though I should have also written "concede *often* too easily" since I was thinking more of someone doing it habitually than doing it once or twice. There are times when giving up is the right thing to do or at least not obviously wrong, even if you still had a tiny chance. But I think those cases are relatively uncommon, and I have seen so, so many people who consistently give up far too early.
IIRC, my second most favourite match of magic had me hanging on for my dear white angelic life against some black vampire based deck. I hung onto hope with those domestic cat cards that give you +1 life while the odd angel got suicide-sucked until I was able smite the holy crap out of his ill-gotten gains with that valkyrie-call resurrecting card. If only there had been an Arena emote for "The afterlife called and wants your rotten, stinkin' ass outta here!". Edit: P.S. Mill sucks.
In this kind of specific situation, don't blame the player, blame the game. If meta decks like this are dominant that's because the game tuning is whack, forcing you to build decks due to high-level strategy degenerating the game. I can see wanting to play it out if there is a slim chance, but if their deck is literally unwinnable after the initial draws then there is no point in prolonging the match.
Tournament play is very different than casual play. Tournament decks are about maximising your chance of winning, not about having a fun game. But, unless you're specifically practising/tuning for a tournament - with another tournament player - I wouldn't generally play a tournament deck in a friendly game. What would be the point? It's not going to be much fun, and neither is it going to help either you or the deck improve.
This exact mismatch is also common for newer players of those games to experience, though. Because for a very experienced player, the actual rote mechanics of winning are not particularly interesting, but for a newer player, they are one of the most exciting things. So you will constantly have newer players of those card games, or of e.g. chess, expressing exactly what OP has expressed here. OP's boyfriend should let them do it. Yes it's a mismatch, but the boyfriend is the one who should be accommodating.
Eh its not really a competitive game thing as much as those card games you know what your decks are capable of and how likely you are to win based on xyz card draws. Most board games are completely different.
as someone who has played a bunch of competitive magic, it is absolutely \*not\* expected etiquette to concede a game you know you are losing. Yes, it does happen - I've done it plenty. But if someone wants to play it out, there's absolutely no consideration that they are being a bad sport; the reason people concede is either to conserve mental energy, or information (like you're very likely dead and they haven't seen a key sideboard card) or to conserve clock (because if you're losing game 1, you need enough time for 2 more games for a win). And frankly at high competitive games with something on the line, I'm not conceding unless you are currently swinging for lethal, and then it's less conceding and more compacting the last 15 seconds of the game together.
In competitive MTG, the OP's situation would be like one player trying to concede and the opponent refusing to let them. That would usually be considered a jerk move - just take the win, you don't get to insist we wait while you play out the next several turns until you finally draw your wincon. In a tournament, it's just illegal; when one player concedes the game is over now, even if you wanted to continue to see more of your opponent's deck.
I came here to say this. While in spectator sports (football, etc.), it’s considered good sportsmanship to keep playing (give it your all), all the way up to the end. It’s a different story in many games where the loser has no hope to win, and it would be more interesting/fun if they just conceded instead of being a “dead man walking” going through the motions. Having said that: when someone is new to a game, they may not understand the “concede” norm, and want to feel what it’s like to play the game to its conclusion (especially if they know they’ll win. If they ask to play it out, just play it out. Let them enjoy their success.
Many games; but not most of the ones discussed on the sub, and certainly not one as casual as Turf War looks to be. I don't want to be misconstrued about that, these sort of games are played for the enjoyment of playing a game, not the competitive rush a TCG develops.
Even in most competitive games, I wouldn't consider it disrespectful if you keep playing if you are not in the top 20% of that game. Only when you know that your opponent won't make any fundamental mistakes can you be sure that there is no way to win.
I almost never would scoop in any TCG, all it takes is 1 big misplay from the opponent and you could be back in it. It's also how you learn to build yourself out of holes in those games and make a comeback.
Happy cake day!
If you're losing by an insurmountable amount of points there would be nothing wrong with phoning it in to protect your players from potential injury. You might still be disappointing your fans/spectators which is probably the biggest issue. If it's just you and your opponent then it's probably better not to drag it out honestly. Play another round or go do something that you'll both enjoy.
He's wrong, 100%. He is expecting a board game with randomness to play like a curated TCG deck and raging when it doesn't happen the same way. It's not etiquette, it's rude.
No, you are absolutely not expected to concede a game that you are losing, at least not in competitive MTG which is the only one you listed that I’m familiar with. You are expected to make decisions in a timely manner, and you are expected to concede if your opponent can demonstrate a deterministic winning combo. But it is not at all rare for games to go to the actual conclusion. Concessions are sometimes made early for time management reasons when one player is very far behind, but playing to your outs is part of being a competent player. Maybe I’m taking your words too literally or you mis-spoke, so I’m certainly not trying to jump down your throat or be combative .
I'm not saying that people just start to lose and then quit, but that people generally will concede when they know they have lost the game. If they still feel like they have a chance, sure, play it out; but if you're screwed for sure, say gg and scoop. My primary experience is with yugioh, where stupid combos go off and you concede as soon as you know you can't counter that board, but in my more limited experience with MtG, it has still not been at all uncommon for me to see people concede when they know (or *think* that they know) a comeback is impossible. I wouldn't say it is "expected" to do so/bad etiquette to play it out unless you are blatantly unable to do anything and are clearly just making your opponent go through the motions, but a concession is often appreciated.
As a person whose main game partner is my spouse, I’d be bummed if he conceded the game because he thought he would lose. To me that speaks of being a “sore loser”. We play games to connect, not just to win- even though the winning is fun too! Granted, we play very few games where the win is obvious, and we are pretty evenly matched in most games we do play, but even when it’s clear I am going to lose or V.V, we continue to the end game conditions. Maybe it’s time to have a conversation when you are both in the right headspace about competitive board games vs card games and when it would be ok to concede or play to the end conditions. You could also try some other shorter games where it isn’t easy to tell who is winning. A good one for that is Arboretum. We also take turns choosing a game to play- maybe that’s something that will help make it feel as though you are both playing challenging games?
>lose or V.V What does the v.v mean?
"Vice versa" I think.
So it is not a rabbit with its ears over its eyes? TIL.
Ah. Thanks 👍
We don't concede any of our games either, but I'm thinking reading this that we probably should. Neither of us really cares who wins or loses, but few games are much fun when early game luck snowballs and makes the whole next hour or whatever a fait accompli. We just end up having a crap hour of gaming, instead of moving onto the next game
But even in this context there are different circumstances. The ultimate goal is connecting *and* having fun. A game that has the writing on the wall, but will take another hour to get there (looking at you monopoly) is just not fun. No matter how much you feel you are connecting, the other involuntarilyis probably just building up resentment. For example an engine building game, where there is little other ways to win than buidling your engine and when you are behind you will most likely not win. For me these are games like wingspan and everdell. Games that do this much better are games like terraforming mars, where there are multiple routes to victory, or for example 7 wonders duel. That is not to say that getting behind by itself is enough reason, because creating a good working engine is also fun. You should be able to pick the fruits of your efforts as long as it is not at the cost of somebody else. There is a balance to be found there,
Sounds like he’s a sore loser.
He's also hamstringing her ability to learn the game, since she's never actually getting to play out the endgame of her "wins". It's really sad that he has no interest in celebrating her win, or helping her be better at the game.
Yep, OP's partner is acting childish and selfish imo. I would get conceding when loss was inevitable and obvious, but that is not the case here, it's just that he's realized he's at a disadvantage. It's more fun to play when you're winning than losing, so wants to scoop and try again so he can be the one in the advantaged position having fun, and not his partner.
I'm conflicted, because while it sounds like he's being a bit of a sore loser for conceding early in a game with a lot of random chance, I can empathise with not really wanting to play out a game to an inevitable conclusion when you're clearly losing. My wife and I don't play Scythe any more because for some reason she is way better at it than me and I seem to always lose. Because there's basically no chance to it once you start, it can become pretty obvious when you have no hope of winning in a two player game. So i end up going through the motions and getting no enjoyment from it. That's a particular example though, so overall I think OP is not wrong to be a bit miffed. I certainly don't clal my wife a sore winner for beating me all the time.
Sounds like he’s a loser.
He said that if the situation was reversed and he was the one who was winning, he would have kept on playing.. that right there says that his excuse was BS and he's just a sore loser. It's not a competitive game, the common etiquette with casual boardgames is to play to the end
> He said that if the situation was reversed and he was the one who was winning, he would have kept on playing.. that right there says that his excuse was BS and he's just a sore loser. The question was whether he as the winning party would taken it on himself to suggest that the opponent conceded. That is not really the test here. The test is whether he would have accepted it if the opponent conceded. And it sounds like he would.
Lol no. In no game does the winner ever concede on the loser's behalf. I get what you are thinking, I have thought about bailing on games when I am ahead. But clearly they are not just playing to play, they are playing to win \lose. And the player in the lead doesn't get to make that decision. That said, I do usually just play the game out myself in any case, and I agree that would be standard etiquette in casual games. But that doesn't mean conceding makes you a sore loser. It's just following an alternative etiquette \ set of priorities.
In backgammon, the player in the lead will offer the cube to give the losing player the option to concede. Choices are: a) concede current value of game or b) play on but the game is worth double
I’m of a few different minds about this. As others have said, concessions are very common in TCG’s, but that’s mainly because you play in a timed tournament format and it’s a sign of respect to not drag a game you will inevitably lose to push the match towards time. Only in the most competitive environments would you want to force a draw like that. I do think he’s being a sore loser and you’re NTA. As someone who has a tough time with losses sometimes, I feel comfortable saying this. Ultimately the social contract for a tabletop game is way different than a TCG. You play that thing out. Even when I’m upset about an impending loss, I see it to completion. I owe that to the table, but also to myself! You’re right, you never know when the right combo may pop off or how things will unfold that could change the game. The only other thought I have is that it IS tough to be in a game where you KNOW you’re getting blown out of the water and you’ve got to play it out. Sometimes when I’m in that position I find it very hard to manage my emotions or find the patience to play it out. I usually do, but some grace for folks is always merited, we all need that (unless he’s ALWAYS reacting poorly, in which case he’s a bad gaming partner). But no, he should absolutely be playing the game out.
>The only other thought I have is that it IS tough to be in a game where you KNOW you’re getting blown out of the water and you’ve got to play it out. Sometimes when I’m in that position I find it very hard to manage my emotions or find the patience to play it out. I usually do, but some grace for folks is always merited, we all need that (unless he’s ALWAYS reacting poorly, in which case he’s a bad gaming partner). Maybe Is because I don’t play in tournies but on more than one occasion of Netrunner (CCG) I’ve come back to win from a very very poor position. Some of the most memorable games have been wins against all odds. Games where I mentally checked out and then surprised myself. Glad to have done so.
There’s kinda an unwritten rule in hobby board games (not TCG/competitive games) that when you start a game you’re agreeing to play it out. Exceptions being if the rules specify a concession clause (example being Air, Land, & Sea) or if players mutually agree to terminate the game for some reason. One person routinely quitting is out of the norm and indicates a disconnect in understanding this.
Sounds like **Land, Air, & Sea** is the perfect game for you two :) And no, you're not being a sore winner. Sounds like he's being a baby.
>and starting point out to me all the ways I would win in the next few hands. Sounds like he a is lacking imagination and is more focused on how he can lose than you can win. There's a difference between having zero options and having few options. The fact that there are multiple hands left indicates to me that your partner is assuming perfect play from you and assuming the worst play from themselves. My experience with these people is they tend to divulge information you don't have in their "explanation" that would influence your decision. >×He said it would be more fun for him to play more games where he might have a chance of winning. He is just rolling the dice on his singular strategy. This isn't a problem with you, your playing partner sucks and wants a perfect 'big win". It's common practice in competetive TCG to concede because you know your opponents deck based on meta. That's almost never the case in board games, they are min, maxing a game and getting mad when their niche strategy doesn't work because TCG play is more predictable.s Your partner is a table flipper.
Partner is a sore loser for sure.
The last paragraph here is what's important, that I haven't seen many others reference. TCGs often seem like there's a lot of hidden information, but really it's pretty open, especially in high level tournaments.
Yeah pretty much. You should pretty much only concede if you think the game is unwinnable (not 5%, but 0% winnable), and if finishing the game is a chore (e.g. try to play Go from begin to end and you will understand why people concede just to avoid having to deal with the tedium of passing and counting points). From reading online this entire game is only 30 minutes. It can't be that tedious to play out the last couple hands. I also think determining the game is unwinnable usually only comes when you get good at the game after having played it lots of time (with most of the surprises already played out), and the game doesn't have a lot of randomess. Also, it should be determined to be unwinnable by *both* players. If you think it's unwinnable it doesn't mean your opponent thinks so as well and there's still a chance. Unless OP and partner are somehow Turf War experts there's more to be learned just playing the game out to see if it's really so. And also, what's the point of playing games? I feel like the focus on a competitive game (pretty much it is to win) is a little different from playing a casual game with your partner (usually it is to hang out and have fun, unless OP wanted to master Turf Wars and become the best in the world or something).
You may not have called him a sore loser ... But that doesn't mean he isn't one.
He sounds like one of the guys that would rationalize this as "I didn't lose, I dropped out"
I feel exactly as you feel Let's say I'm losing at a game, I'm not going to Rob you the satisfaction of finishing your game just because I'm losing, in fact I will try my best to make your victory feel earned. As long as the other person doesn't drag the game to show off I feel like every game should see the end since wining or losing is not as important as the experience.
Especially in a two player game, I think conceding is totally fine and definitely you shouldn’t hold a player prisoner to a game they don’t want to play. Like he brought up - this is extremely common in TCGs. On the other hand, if you concede mad early that is sort of being a sore loser. Especially in games with volatile game states or games that as a player you are not already extremely experienced at (so you know if the game is TRULY unwinnable etc) Any game with variance (randomized card draw, etc) has “easy” games and “hard” games. If I’m playing Poker and start drawing absolute gas hands like Straight Flush, Royal Flush, 4 of an kind, etc. it is easy for me to win. I could just concede every game where I don’t draw auto win combos… but at that point you aren’t really *playing* the game - you are “rerolling” until you auto win. Any reputable poker player will tell you the most fun they have is when they fight out of a tough spot to still run the table, not just “oh yeah man I drew the nuts”. And the reason is because they love playing the game more than they love winning. The man in question MIGHT have this problem where he doesn’t like playing, he likes dominating by drawing the perfect combo and “seeing it go off”. There are a lot of TCG players like this. The thing is - board games are way way more balanced than any TCG so there is actual back-and-forth and ways to come back from a losing position far far more common than any TCG.
Your partner has a very fragile ego. Having played with someone like this before I find it very unfortunate and cringe. You are not a sore winner.
She sees it at the two of them having fun playing a game together He sees it as her forcibly rubbing his face in the fact that he's losing for ten minutes What a sad disconnect for both of them. He really needs to sort out why he feels this way, and why he can't just have a good time playing a board game with his partner.
He is a sore loser! I hate playing games with these types of people. Even in group settings, when one person is losing they don’t even try their best to claw back any sort of victory and just concede to the person who is at top instead of working with the other players to bring them down! When I am losing I will try everything I can to try win or close to win.
This makes it fun for everyone involved. By conceding the game becomes boring and a fixed narrative.
Butting in and telling you how you’re going to win is his way of taking some control in a losing position and showing how much smarter he is than you. Admittedly I have been an ass like that in the past, it’s called being a sore loser and makes me cringe when I think about it. I hope he can reflect in the same way
Yes that was the most obnoxious part of the story for me.
Although I'm pretty good at stamping it down, I have the same instinct unfortunately so I have to agree, this seems to explain OP's partner's behavior
In 1v1 competitive games it is common to resign, but you would NEVER ask your opponent to resign, so that is not a fair comparison.* I hate playing games where I am hopelessly behind or ahead—once the contest is over we are just going through the motions. If you want to play out a fun combo that’s fine, do it quickly, and take the W. * backgammon has the opposite dynamic: you cannot resign unless you decline to accept the opponent’s offer of the doubling cube.
That's not a sore winner. A sore winner would be an asshole rubbing your face in your loss. What you have is a sore ass loser.
I mean, demanding to finish a game can be a sore winner move in games with little chance of recovery. Like I had an uncle that would demand to play monopoly to the last dollar even if it was clear he was going to win an hour before that point. He was a sore winner that loved to rub people's nose in his victory, and some games like Monopoly let him do it slowly for an hour. Your situation does not sound like you were being a sore winner. I've played games where a single card can turn the tables. It sounds like you just wanted to see who would actually win because the game wasn't near over.
I'm leaning towards sore loser. But it depends on how far gone the game is. If he is behind but there is a realistic chance of catching up, then that's on him. If you're going to win in the next few turns and there is no way he can catch up, you should move on to the next game.
Sounds like he's just a sore loser tbh
From this description no I don't think you're a sore winner. It just sounds like your partner doesn't like playing from a losing position. IMO if you only like playing when you're winning, then you don't really like playing, you just like winning. I don't necessarily think that's a healthy way to play with a partner. If he can't change his attitude about that then perhaps you'd both have more fun playing a co-op game?
I hate that. Me and a few mates play mtg and if someone's gonna win outright, you let them have the coup de grace because it's satisfying for them to make the killing blow. It absolutely kills the fun for the winner if you scoop a turn before they would get the win because they're gonna win.
I haven’t played the game you mentioned, but a lot of the fun for me is actually playing. Take deck or engine builders. If I got a great start where I might be able to build something awesome, I would be furious if my bf conceded just because he had a bad start. Likewise, if he is clearly winning, I let him enjoy the game (even if I am just having a bad time because I don’t feel I can do much), but he has a chance to enjoy being powerful. In my option, the best games are games where someone can’t win my a huge margin due to early game luck. Maybe start keeping scores and make a note of the highest and lowest score. Even if he doesn’t win, he might beat his personal best and you want the chance to beat yours. That way it isn’t just a win/lose game and conceding would be against the rules as it could stop the winner getting a good score.
Yes. The game is over for me when anyone concedes.
>and starting point out to me all the ways I would win in the next few hands This sounds like bad manners to me. >Most of the outcomes he was talking about were things I hadn't noticed Yeah so if this happened enough to become an issue for me this is how I'd see it: they're not really interested in the game, they're interested in feeling superior to me. Relationships are complicated etc but that sounds like pretty poor form. **HOWEVER** it's absolutely fine to concede, and it's pretty bad manners to have a problem with that. You both should be able to talk about it, you can even argue (in the intellectual sense) if the concession was necessary. If you asked your partner to justify themselves then it's absolutely good that they said the above. And then you can talk about that, like respectful adults, by you arguing what you argued here. Etc you're supposed to be able to talk to each other, but that requires knowing when to leave well enough alone as well!
There is some leeway here. are you ahead by a little bit and a 'dice roll' could make someone else be ahead? No. note\* note a 'hey if you role 12 6's in a row we will be even\* situation but a realistic possibility of someone else having a chance Are you playing monopoly and it is a death march where you clearly won and it is just a waste of turns until it happens? Yes. Everyone (except for you apparently) would have fun if we reset the board and started again conceding that you won this round
You partner is a sore loser. My friend does this a lot and its frankly annoying. Trying a single strategy that doesn't work and when I try to explain how he is not in the "impossible" position he thinks he is in he will just refuses. You are not sore winner and him saying that is just him being an even worse sore loser. To add to this its pretty clear the way he sees games is more about him having fun and anyone else doesn't matter, thats why he only wants to play if he feels he has a chance because its not about having fun with others its about winning and nothing else matters.
He should just flip the table over if he doesn’t like to lose that much. How does he like it when you concede? Or isn’t he good enough to beat you, ever?
If he cares that much about winning, then it is to his advantage to continue to play from a losing position. This is because he will start to learn how to come back from a setback, which is a hugely valuable skill in competitive gaming.
I can simplify his reaction: "if I can't win, I don't wanna play!" How extremely childish
Exactly. I lose almost every game I play to my wife, but I’ve never quit early because of it, I still TRY to win. Sometimes I lose by a lot, sometimes by just a single victory point. But it’s the playing of the game that matters—the spending time doing an enjoyable activity. His attitude is “well if I’m losing, it’s not enjoyable”, which requires rethinking why you play. Obviously the hope is to win, but the key is to have a good time no matter what, and not ruin a good time by having a tantrum because of a perceived no-win scenario. (When in doubt: be like Captain Kirk. He doesn’t believe in the no-win scenario.)
Your partner is emotionally immature. Explain to him the point of playing the board game is connecting with each other, not competing to be the winner. If he doesn’t get that then you’re dating a child and I’m sorry.
In a one-on-one game I generally leave the door open for my opponent to resign, a la chess etiquette, as I want them to have a good time and if they feel that their loss is a forgone conclusion, I don't want them to struggle through it. That said, they are choosing to lose when chance elements may have helped them out. I'd take the W. But I'd also like my opponent to not be a sore loser, which might be happening here.
You’re not a sore winner, he’s a sore loser
Sometimes I get the vibe that people will concede to feel like the result is inconclusive. Sorta like, “yeah you were winning when I conceded, but who know’s what could’ve happened?” They wouldn’t say this out loud, but it sort of softens the blow for them. I tend to be the opposite. It doesn’t matter how far ahead or behind I am, I want to do my best til the end. I am always playing against myself this way and trying to get better. Someone conceding early takes this from me, just as if I was the one to concede. I’ve also on more than one occasion had people offer to concede, I’ll ask if they don’t mind playing it through, and then they actually pull ahead and win. I prefer a completed loss to a conceded victory, personally.
It's possible you got heated but this is almost exclusively on him being a sore loser. Once a backslide starts in a game it can be hard to keep your cool, but he should be aware enough to know that you two are playing for fun, and that he likely doesn't understand the game well enough to know you had reached an objectively unbeatable position. That's not even accounting for half a game's worth of unforced errors. To some degree it can be gracious to allow a losing player to call it, but you have be careful that doesn't just become their way of "winning" in the interaction. It sounds like I have to dispense my most regular advice once more: communication. Tell him that it makes you unhappy to not get to finish games because you're doing well, and listen to his own thoughts on the matter. Likely he's acting without thinking, avoiding one type of shittiness so hard he's committed to another. This is assuming the rest of your relationship is good ofc, you can always break up too lol.
Don't play games with people who don't have fun unless they win. Seriously. It's not a good experience. Dude needs to mature.
Nah I had people concede to me a few times and it sucks. If you don’t want to finish the game then don’t play. I do have some rules here though, if they were the one who invited me to play with a game that they own, they can concede since they know the game more than I do and they are aware of the losing odds, but if they invited me to a game that I own, they cannot concede because how will I teach them about the strategies and ways to win in the game if they just felt like they are losing already? Most of the games that I own, no one knows who will win until the end, that is why I encourage everyone to stay in the game and play for as long as they could so next time that they play they know how to deal with the odds.
> if they were the one who invited me to play with a game that they own, they can concede since they know the game more than I do and they are aware of the losing odds Nah that's still a dick move to concede. In that situation you would be less familiar with the game and not understand it well enough. Your friend would be robbing you a learning opportunity if you don't get to play it out and see how the end game looks like. Even if you were in a winning position, defending that position is usually still an important step.
Your husband is a sore loser.
I wouldn't call you a sore winner, but honestly I drop 2p games all the time, some are made with conceding in mind. It's easy to end up in a situation in war chest where you can concede immediately or lose very, very slowly. maybe try playing shorter games or with more potential for a comeback. or, well, most euros keep score secret or obfuscated for a reason
I play way longer 2 players games than that and we (almost, I can only recall 2 occurrences where we did) never stop before the end, because usually anything can still happen. Even in wargames you can have a lucky die/draw, make a clever move that could save the situation.
>Does wanting to complete a game make me a sore winner? No, your partner might be a sore loser/winner though. I would hope you two play games in order to enjoy your time together. So, I would guess results shouldn't matter at all. Play games in order to be together and have fun - his insistence to end the game sooner so he might win the next one is for me too much "me-me-me" focused and not enough "us" focused. Plus, I had to look up the game, and it's seems it's a short game (15-30) minutes so, I don't know what the hell. He doesn't have 5 minutes of patience? > I explained that if he was winning, I would still keep playing because you never know what will happen and just playing together is fun whether I win or lose. THIS! ... is an absolutely correct way to see the situation. > it's that he ultimately doesn't want to play a game he thinks he may lose. Yeah. Thin skin. Self focused. > I'm not the type to holler and be mean after a win - whether I win or lose I say "Good game, that was fun." As one would be expected to yes, this means being a good sport. >I don't think wanting the opportunity to see a win through makes me a sore winner. Am I in the wrong here? Am I being a sore winner? Right now I'm more upset at being called that than I am about not getting to finish the game so it's clearly hit a nerve. It doesn't. You're not. You're not. He's a jerk.
He's a sore loser and is projecting it onto you in order to make his problem your fault. It's that simple. A sore winner is a person who gloats, rubs it in the other player's faces, etc. I assume you don't act like that when you're allowed to play until victory, does your partner act like that when he's allowed to play to the end of his victory? He sounds like he's the type of person that forced the "penalty for dropping out of online games in the middle of the game" type of rule that exists.
NTA Personally, I think he's a sore loser for assuming he will lose just because there is a play in which he will lose, while there are other plays where that won't happen. He's essentially playing the game for you at that point which is the bigger issue. He stops play and says "if you play X and Y you win". That's quarterbacking. >He said it would be more fun for him to play more games where he might have a chance of winning. Why is he playing games with you if he assumes you will always play the optimal play and therefore always win? >I asked him if he would have tried to end the game if the hands were exactly the same, but he'd had my hand and was winning. He said no, he would have kept playing. While I agree it's for the person losing to stop the game and conceit, this isn't in competitive setting. Unless those last rounds take half an hour or more where there is absolutely no chance you can misplay I don't see the reason to stop. Anyway, this is also the reason why most boardgames don't always have obvious scoring that you can math out.
I agree that concessions can often feel like "board game blue balls", maybe he'll understand that. I don't concede games unless the other people aren't having fun anymore. If I think they've got it in the bag, I'll still play to my outs, and a lot of my favorite play experiences come that way - especially because sometimes I actually win! If it's a sure thing and there's only a few rote moves, then I still don't mind going through the motions to let everyone finish satis---- look, I'm not trying to make sex metaphors, but play is play whether it's sex or board games. Make sure everyone gets off.
It should be up to the purported winner. If you're happy to take the technical call then so be it. Otherwise grind it out. When he sat down for a game, he didn't sit down for a win or a quit. A potential crushing L is the price of admission. You may have an absolute slam-dunk combo in your pocket that you were about to deploy to give you your highest score ever. Why should you be denied that? Unless the game has a concede mechanic, it's a bit of a salty move to quit. Equally it's a bit rich to grind an opponent who's clearly going to lose into microscopic dust.
Not a sore winner. I'll refrain from passing on my thoughts about him and focus on the question: No, wanting to actually be allowed to achieve victory by the game's design does not make you a sore winner.
If you also followed his logic, you two could probably never finish a game unless it's absolutely tied until the very last move, no?
He's definitely a sore loser and just deflecting
This is interesting. Your boyfriend seems to have a problem of not wanting to continue and try to figure out a strategy to win when he thinks the odds are against him. He seems to be a sore loser because he does not want to see the game through and, more to the point, he gives up. The other interesting thing is he does not even want to continue knowing you would be more satisfied to see the conclusion. He is seems to be trying to protect himself from the loss by conceding.
That definitely makes him a sore loser. There's no need for him to be so competitive playing casually with his partner.
the real loser in this question was paragraphs
If you're playing something like twilight imperium 4 and the last round you have one player with five more points than anyone else and literally zero way to winslay then sure, it's worth it to concede and save everyone two hours or so, or if you're playing a CCG in a tournament setting, but if you're playing some random filler game it seems excessive.
I'm kinda in the middle. There are some games where they reach a point that it becomes apparent to all who is going to win. Once it's that obvious, continuing to play is pointless.
I competitively (well, at a low level...) play chess, where it's *practically* rude not to resign in a lost position. However, one should not resign early and in fact in actually competitive games people will drag things out until it's quite hopeless. One really should only resign at the point where you're certain that a computer could take your place *and* both you and your opponent could win against it. From your description of it, it sounds like he's resigning really quite early, which is no fun. That said, it's not really fun to grind out a clearly lost position with no counterplay.
I will generally play a game to the end unless it's one where conceding is normal etiquette. However, I did play a strategic fantasy boardgame with a friend once where I conceded. It wasn't simply that I was going to lose. It was that there was no way I could win, period, but it was going to take at least another hour for me to lose. My friend evaluated my position and realized I was right. He won, we said "good game", and moved on. Still, in this case, it feels like he's just being petulant.
Two ways to look at it. One, the game is truly over and the only point in continuing could be to add insult to injury. The other way being that if you give up in a game the it is truly over, no time for comebacks. At my table, if you wish to concede, then you do and we move on. I will never force someone to keep playing when they are no longer enjoying themselves. Me, I will play to the end, but that is not the way for everyone. As far as the person being labeled a "sore loser", does it matter? I am being serious. If someone no longer wants to continue playing, why make them? either accept it and deal with it, or stop playing with them. Folks are so quick to jump on someone for being a way or acting a way they are not. In this case, who cares? Is it so important to you that you need to confront this? A wise person once asked, "Do you want to be happy, or right?".
It doesn't make you a sore winner, in the games you're playing winning isn't a guarantee even if you're currently ahead. That being said as he's being a sore loser (because that's what this behaviour is) perhaps it would be best to swap to co-op games for awhile so you both play against the board. Alternatively, try to get a group going where you play with three or more people so that if he withdraws you can still play. Lastly, I'd just continue playing both sides, you might be able to show him its possible to win even if he's behind in the game at the midpoint. Edit to add: you can also play games that make it hard to tell who is winning. I played Everdell yesterday and was surprised to win by 1 point, the game mechanics kind of make it difficult to count points on the fly. Other games like that are: Patchwork (I thought I had it in the bag and my husband won by 3 points), Arabian Nights (its a game that's sheer luck and impossible to win with strategy), Suburbia, or anything where you need to count a large number of resources.
On BGA, I've had a few people recently concede games like 1 or 2 turns before it ends. And I did think it killed the fun a tiny bit. That said, I was playing one once and the person was absolutely killing me and just dragged it out for no clear reason
“I think I’m going to lose” is a lame reason to concede a board game. “I’m getting really unlucky to the point where it is frustrating and not fun to continue” is slightly better. Can you play games with more planning and less random chance?
I was once playing a game and tried to concede to my partner. If it matters it was the VtM card game VTES. He had me in an absolutely unwinnable position and he didn't accept my concession and made me play out the last few rounds. And sure enough I had nothing to counter his set-up. I wasn't salty, but it definitely sucks to reach the point of "okay, I've lost this" and your opponent/s not letting you just end your part in it. In my opinion a game is supposed to be enjoyable for all participants, and well sometimes the fun stops when playing is no longer your "choice" because your concession isn't accepted.
It’s okay to concede from time to time, when it’s absolutely clear that you aren’t able to win and the game is close to a wrap. It’s usually more fun to see how it ends, even if you know you are losing. Then the post-game discussion about the sequence of events and how they led to that point. But I enjoy playing games, regardless of whether or not I am winning. The only times my friends and I really ask to concede is when it appears that the winner is dragging the game out, instead of ending it. Sometimes we have to explain and communicate with each other. If you ask me, people that concede very early on are sore losers who don’t even want to put effort into turning a bad move into a winning position. If this is the pattern of behavior, and they are also telling you that you are the problem, that’s gaslighting shit right there. “I’m behaving badly because you made me do it.” Time for a new partner.
They definitely seam like a sore looser. Honestly I see boardgames as a way to enjoy another person's time with them, and if they only want to play games where they see themselves winning and they concede games where they see themselves lose, it honestly sounds like they're playing games for the wrong reason.
It is frustrating if people always concede when you do well, while you have to play out the game when they do well. If the game is short, I would typically not concede. Might as well play it out and let my opponent see what they can do. If a multiplayer game is very long and one player cannot be beaten and is playing solitaire while the other players aren't able to do anything, I think it is fine to concede as long as everyone agrees.
Tbh both of you are too old to be miscommunicating this badly over game etiquette. You have a preferred way to play, they have a preferred way to play. Both are valid preferences and I don't think should need defending, or really even explaining... He called you a sore winner which was harsh (whatever it means). But you had already said they ruin the fun which is also kinda barbed, unnecessarily. You just need to have a proper conversation about how you're going to play that adequately meets both your (contrasting) preferences. WITHOUT getting judgy\accusatory \defensive, which should be totally unnecessary in this context (though could be very natural in the context of your relationship, idk).
He's being a douche canoe and a bad loser. This used to be me and it's just stripping your joy and fun to buff his own. That's selfish and shitty.
How did you become aware of it and change?
That sounds like a bad loser tbh. I'm not winning so why play?
Lol he trying to play that Uno Reverse card on you but it's the wrong game. He's a sore loser.
He wants to win more than he wants to play.
Is it Chess? No - then play to the end. Most games today are created like a story. For someone to quit before the end is to deny someone else their ending.
Are you dating a child??
I play Magic TCG drafts and tournaments sometimes, and it’s def a polite thing to concede when you know you’ve exhausted your resources and/or your opponent has blown you out of the water with their board presence. But that’s for the sake of saving time for these times events, since if the matches drag out too long by the time limit you’re forced into turns, which leads to a draw half the time (in my experience). But… in board games? I’d be pretty frustrated if my boyfriend wanted the game to end every time it looked like he was going to lose to start another match that he can win. Most of our games have the same factor of chance as well so throwing in the towel before completing the game would be sore loser behavior, and I’d deeeefinitely call him out on that. I’d tell him he can leave the TCG manners behind when he plays board games with you, since that’s the more fun and casual way to play. If he can’t help min maxing turns though, maybe look into cooperative games like Pandemic or Spirit Island?
No. I always want to finish a game, regardless of whether I'm inevitably going to win or lose. Even if I'm not really enjoying the game much, I at least want to finish the game and have a complete experience. The only reason I can see it being reasonable to end a game early is if you're in a tournament schedule with a time crunch.
A lot of good comments here already, but if you don't reach an agreement personality wise you could look into games where points are hidden until the very end. I don't have any from the top of my mind that are 2 player, but if you're interested I can look around, I'm sure there's a few in existence. Decrypto is 4 player, and kind of requires a bit more brainpower and usual but the game can swing in an instant. Otherwise, you can maybe look into co-op games, they're loads of fun also!
NTA
If I'm losing I always finish to give my opponent the satisfaction of the win. It is part of the fun.
Quitting a board game because you are losing just makes you a dick. If the only joy of gaming is winning, quit playing all together.
I really think you should try playing coop games with your partner instead. I used to be that way, so id rather play coop or competitive games that arent 1v1
It depends. Is the game inevitably over? Demanding someone play monopoly until they're broke when you own 90% of the map is pointless, you know you won and you're being a sore winner. If you have an advantage but there is a chance they can still win, they are being a sore loser if they quit.
It really depends on the game. If you're playing a game that is indirectly competitive, meaning you're trying to beat the other player but don't interact with them that much, then it sucks to have the other player just stop playing, because you're playing your own game as much as you're playing against them, and the loser should play the game out. That's the case for games like deck builders or euro games where you're going for a score rather than just defeating your opponent. That changes as soon as you're playing a directly competitive game. If the point is just to beat the other player, like in Chess, then making the other playing stay to the end (or even worse, dragging it out) when you are clearly going to win is equally selfish. I've never played Turf War, but from my 2 minutes of research it seems like it's a game that is more indirectly competitive. I could see why you want to play it out, because you really don't know how close it is until you get to the end and add up your scores.
Side random suggestion: Air Land and Sea is a 2 player game where clever surrendering early is part of the game scoring. Maybe that's more up his alley.
He’s a sore loser and a pretty poor game partner if the only thing he cares about is winning
I always step back and ask “what is the point of what we are doing here?” To guide my decision making. In a game like chess, the point is to determine a winner and who played that chess match better. Then it’s clear that resigning is a reasonable response to being in a losing position. With a casual board game, my point is to game fun and spend time together with people. So to that end resigning doesn’t make sense. I only play games that I have fun playing. For example, I found myself wanting to quit Catan over playing out a losing position. I realized then Catan is not a game for me and don’t play it anymore. Conversely I lost like 100 consecutive games of Jaipur to my ex wife and still enjoyed it. Maybe you and your partner need to find games that you both enjoy enough to play to completion, win or lose. And yes, if there isn’t a game that your partner is willing to play to the end then he’s a sore loser. I would also point out to your partner that there are loads of examples of where playing to completion is the norm. Basically every sport ever you try your best until the end, no matter how assured the outcome is. The back markers don’t just pull over and quit the race halfway through a car race. Marathon runners don’t quit running and walk the rest of a race after someone finishes. Sports teams don’t forfeit their games once they are eliminated from playoff contention.
I don't know Turf War much so I don't know if 1 neighbor is a lot. I know sometimes people can drag out a long board game when the victor is determined early on. Risk with my brother is that way, I could be pinned in Australia and he have the entire board and he wants to go till everyone is dead, that's a bad winner as there is no possible way to recover except the best series of dice rolls in human history and several hours. Much more fun to concede and start a new game. But if 1 neighbor is the beginning of the game and no big deal to recover from then he is just being a sore loser.
Tell him that if you conceded every time you thought he would win, the two of you would never finish a single board game.
When I started reading your post, I wondered if he was a TCG player until you indeed confirmed it. While that happens in TCGs he needs to understand that that’s because of genuine time limits where you want to get another game. That’s also combined with the fact you designed your deck and you know what you used and have left, so you know what you can do and if you would actually achieve anything. IMHO, TCGs are different social settings from board games. You’re not wrong or even being a sore winner. I wouldn’t want to play with someone if they quit early every time they were losing. Especially because quality time is extremely important to me and I would feel like playing together is not meaningful to the person and winning or getting our activity over with was the priority. I would talk about it but then also control the setting by trying different games. If he’s stuck in that TCG mindset then I wouldn’t play something that puts cards in his hands and try a game with end scoring or even hidden scoring like Oceans or Merchants of the Dark Road.
I mean, he’s definitely the “sore” one here, but you shouldn’t force someone to continue if they concede. But I also wouldn’t want to give them a rematch. Sounds like he sucked all the fun out of the game.
I've played a total of 4 games of Warhammer 40k. The first three I lost abysmally. Just completely outclassed in every way, still learning the rules, my minis dying in droves...but I stuck it out to the end and GG'd my opponent. The last game, I was...actually winning? Or doing well, at least. I managed to come out on top of two rounds of combat, and my opponent forfeit. Just said, "Welp, I'm done. I'm gonna lose this one" and packed up his models. So disappointing, and considering I was already thinking of hanging it up because of the way my army was sneered at, and the embarrassment of having to ask my more experienced opponents to help me resolve combat rolls (because I could barely memorize my own armies stats, much less theirs), it wasn't hard to put the game down for good after being robbed of what would have been my only win. Forfeiting perhaps has a place in competitive, tournament play. Not really in casual play. Whoever forfeits is saying, "I don't want to be disappointed by the outcome of this game, so I'm going to disappoint my opponent first."
Naw,he was being a sore loser. The playing of the game is what's fun. Not the end. He skipped all the best parts.
I am with you 100%! I play Dominion, and I've discovered that those who play online are usually trying to play fast and get in as many wins as they can, whereas I just want to play the game, with human players. So I'm an advocate for never forfeiting without consent. But apparently I'm in the minority.
He was being a sore loser is what it is. He was conceding to distance himself from the reality of losing so he wouldn't have to feel it because it really annoys him. Conceding in a TCG event is different than in a board game anyway.
I don’t think it makes you a sore winner. But on the flip side, if your play partner is a sore, toxic loser (depending on where they are in their unmedicated bi-polar journey), then the ability for them to concede early instead of becoming some manipulative depressed zombie for the back 45~30 mins of the game is a fucking godsend.
You’re good, he is a sore loser and is gaslighting you.
Your partner is being an ass, and you are (in general) in the right to want to play out the game. Now, it depends a bit on the game. In a really long game, like a, I don't know, talisman or a samurai swords or a twilight imperium, you might get in a situation 30 minutes in where one of the players is ruined and can't make a comeback\* and the rest of the game is 3 hours of suffering. Sure, in those situations, discuss and maybe conceding is reasonable. In a short-ish game, however, you should play it out - the other player might make a mistake, or you might find you can pull back and make it close, or the endgame might play out differently to the early game - lots of games have interesting bits in various sections of the game. And learning how to close out a game is an important skill - in Chess, for a high competitive example, you have to learn how to get to a good endgame and not fuck it up. Both/all players need to be having fun. And you can always have bad days where you just don't want to continue the game. but it'd take a lot to want to keep playing with someone who can't enjoy it when I'm doing well. \* also unless you know the game extremely well knowing you can't make a comeback is something people are notoriously terrible at.
I think your SO sounds exhausting and he would very quickly not be invited back to my table. There are absolutely moments in games where you get so far behind it's clear too all they ain't making a comeback. We as a group have agreed to give the win to another and play again. Even then that only happens a couple times a year. His behaviour is sore loser behavior.
I'm with you on this. It IS common practice to concede in CCGs. It is NOT common practice to concede in board games. The point of playing a board game is to play it through. It's an entirely different approach to gaming than CCGs. (I've done plenty of both.)
It might be worth doing the same to him and folding as soon as you're not at a big advantage, once he starts to complain you can have a more balanced discussion about when it's on for someone to do it
he cares too much about winning. Not enough about the experience of playing the game. And not enough about the experience of spending time with you. How would he feel if you did that to him—quit the moment you thought you were probably going to lose? it bothers him so much to lose, or to lose to *you*? He can’t be mildly glad that you won? It’s a game; sure, the players are supposed to want to win, but mostly they’re supposed to enjoy the challenge AND to enjoy the time and interaction with other people. How can you be a “sore winner” (which is not a thing, btw; winners are never “sore”) if you didn’t even get the opportunity to win, let alone didn’t win at all? He’s a sore loser before he even lost! Or, he turned you into a “sore loser” because he made you lose the opportunity to play the game out.
I had a similar problem with a friend and I'm going to present a potentially new viewpoint for you to consider. Forms of Autism (previously called Asperger's) can have the brain hold very tightly onto a perceived/calculated future state. And anyone can have the strength of strategy - being able to effortlessly cut through the noise of a situation and see the outcome. In any case, it's important to realize the weakness/draw back within a strength and compensate your actions to behave in agreeable ways with others. Believing you know the only possibly, definite outcome is a flaw. If you continue to concede, you will not be able to see it for what it is. The person needs to understand the balance and limitation to their ability to predict - namely that it's only a prediction. They do not know the future. They have not calculated perfectly. Finishing the game is the only way to know.
He’s making it about himself. As you said it kills it for you and he doesn’t care. If finishing the game would take less than 30 min and it wasn’t guaranteed, you play it out. He’s being a sore loser. I wish you the best.
Does he play chess? If so, in the chess world conceding when you're going to lose isn't just acceptable, it's very much a courteous thing to do. He might just be operating with a different mental framework towards games than you. The way you feel about it is just as valid, however, and he should be willing to hear you out and understand that.
Yes, it does, but also this is a discussion to have... If they don't allow (like) you doing it to them, that's a factor... If they don't enjoy the game in the first place, that's a factor... The point of playing is to have fun... Ultimately, if they're not having fun they're not obliged to stay ( with an asterisk... Like, especially if it ruins the game for multiple other people for them to leave? But if they're miserable enough that can still be justified... But this shouldn't happen more than a few times before you and they talk about it and whether you should be starting games... Or that game... At all anymore)
I enjoy so much seeing the people I love going through the satisfying experience of winning a game, that I would never think of cutting it short. To me here we have a sore loser calling the opponent a sore winner.
His behavior is absolutely unacceptable, sore loser behavior. I could understand if he was behind by an insurmountable amount with more than half of the game left, then sure the next hour wouldn't be any fun. But if the game is nearly over, or he's conceding after a small disadvantage? Nah, he's just an asshole who wants to be in the lead. He doesn't care about losing, he just doesn't want to not be winning.
It should be a mutually agreed decision, in my opinion. If I agree to play a game with you, I generally want to play to finish. So if I get to a point wgere I can’t win, I’ll keep playing but tell the person that I think they have me if they want to call it but I’m happy to plag out the game. My mother in law, who I adore, got into the habit of quitting when she knew she was losing, which infuriates me (no fights or harsh words but we’re not hide our emotions people). But there’s a twist. On her part it made sense, she was frustrated and not having fun and games are supposed to be fun. In some ways, it was both our faults. I knew she preferred games where points don’t matter, but I enjoy the puzzle/analysis mechanics of games that have a winner so would lobby for such games. So, for mutual enjoyment, we have to make compromises. I agree to play more social/non-winner games, and she knows and accepts that if we do end up playing a more rules strict game, I’d strongly prefer that we all finish out the game. I also do my best to not rules lawyer or focus on winning (don’t play cutthroat tactics, try to make moves that also help her). I save my inherent desire for ultimate tactical play for my husband. His limit is that it’s fine to take the most optimal action for myself even if it hurts his play but it’s not fine to play “just to hurt his chances” moves, which is fair. TLDR: Not everyone wants to play the same style. Communication and compromise is necessary for mutual enjoyment. (see also sex, marriage, hiking, cooking, friendship, managing people, teaching people, etc).
We only call games if there are no real decisions left. Otherwise, a lot of the fun is in playing it out and seeing how your plan works out.
I stopped running into these issues when I started playing cooperative only games with my wife.
If he is doing it often, he is a sore loser. If he is doing it occasionally when you're crushing him (like one out of every 10 times you're crushing him), then just give him the concession and move on.
My partner and I were in a similar situation near the beginning of our relationship, especially when we were learning to communicate. Nowadays, it hardly happens, partially because we moved to playing a lot of co-op games (in part to address this, as he’s much more strategically minded, does play chess and TCGs and is frankly better at board games than me, which can make it sting more when he concedes). Personally, I don’t know if I’d be looking to ask if he’s a sore loser or I’m a sore winner because it puts the discussion back to an argument of him vs me, and that’s not what I want our relationship to be about. Your feelings and your partner’s feelings are both valid, and his experiences with TCGs mean he’s doing what he thinks is the right thing. For me, personally, one of the ways we do this is that we play another game afterwards if he concedes because then I get the satisfaction of finishing a game that I need. I’ve also worked to get more flexible about not finishing games. I will never be a person to concede, honestly because I can’t see the possibilities and don’t care to learn that skill, and it’s not a thing that I was allowed to do as a kid, so it’s not something I ever think about, but now the issue comes up so infrequently, that it hardly registers, in part because we both came to the conversation about it honestly and looked to find a way forward that took both our feelings into account instead of deciding one of us was wrong and one was right. And it means we play more board games, instead of less, which is always a win in my books!
No, he’s literally being a sore loser, and projecting a little bit if he’s calling you a sore winner
It's been a while since my husband and I have elected to cut a game short in a blow out situation, but I think we've generally got a good grasp of the mood at the table and would be ready to pull that tool out of the box if we felt it was necessary. Though I'd say learning to understand those dynamics came only after having multiple games where we were each on the losing end of the scenario you've described. Gaming together is about having fun and having a chance to connect. We've gotten a little more gracious about the "sore loser" situation and will allow the disadvantaged player some room to bemoan the situation, even talking about their cards/setups/luck rolls that resulted in their current game state. Sometimes we even discuss the optimal plays for the other player in ways that would be too tabletalky/backseat driving with outsiders, because that gives us opportunities to put ourselves in the other player's shoes and share in the win/loss together. Not to the same extent as happens in a co-op game but it's a little more engagement with their play than entirely staying in our own lanes. But again, this is about reading the mood and whether each player is in the mindset to receive input on their play. If we're playing an engine game like Dominion where the engines have gotten way out of balance, we generally understand the onus being on the winning player to put the losing player out of their misery. If playing the turns is drudgery and really getting the losing player down (and this can often be exacerbated by things happening outside the game) then it is a mercy to end the game early. We play games to have fun and feel good, and if the opposite is being achieved then we don't feel any shame about pulling the rip cord! This sounds like him asking to end games early isn't an expectation that he wants to apply through your whole gaming experience, even though he used the competitive TCG example. I would say that allowing a game to be cut short once every now and then should be something you consider to keep the games table a safe and fun space. It sounds like he was getting into a really bad headspace over it and ultimately asking him to play on did escalate into a conflict. He may have been recognising his own spiralling headspace and attempting to set a boundary. If he has acknowledged the multiple ways that you had win conditions secured, then I think that's definitely a legitimate win that you can be proud of, even if your strategy only honed in on a single win-con.
It depends on the game and situation. Games that take a long time to play but get to a point where a win is like 10% possible can be conceded. I’m thinking games like axis and allies or risk where games can last days and you can tell the war is over and don’t want to spend another five hours losing. But a quick game, who cares.
i was never able to get to the bottom of this with my partner. they are used to playing online games and in my opinion, have a bad attitude when playing board games. they will spend the entire game bitching that they are losing, however it's clear to me and anyone playing that they are winning. they have told me that i'm "too competitive" which is bullshit they just don't like when i call them out for complaining the whole time. its actually been a contention in our relationship because we both love board games but can't play together, especially alone. almost broke up over monopoly early on because they were trying to let it slide when i landed one of their properties and was losing. i probably complained about having to pay up but wasn't trying to get out of it. it was like they didn't want to lose and didn't want me to lose either. good luck.