Playing To Lose

Whenever I feel like losing I invite my friends over for a game of The Grizzled. There is something truly comforting in playing a game where you do not have to worry about succeeding. And on the rare occasion when you actually do, it almost ruins the experience. As if anybody could ever succeed at World War I. How stupid is that.

A popular discussion among board gamers is how to play when you can no longer win. A situation that comes up all the time in competitive games. Someone has gotten so far behind on the victory point track or had their map presence so reduced that winning is no longer an option. Should they be allowed to play on to the best of their ability. Or should they be barred from taking any action that might privilege one opponent over another.

Either way the discussion is premised on the implicit fact that games are about winning. I mean, that is why we have victory conditions, right? I would argue no. The primary function of victory conditions is to give players a sense of direction. If they become the sole purpose of playing, the experience is limited to the point of futility.

The games in the Trilogy of Lost Hope challenge received notions of victory conditions by investing them with a profound sense of failure. Which soul ever revealed a hopeful prophecy in Tower of Silence. Which shadow was ever able to maintain its existence upon entering the shaft of light in Iron Mountain. And which villager was ever able to rid the world of the disease that they themselves carried in Pesta.

Not playing at all might seem preferable to playing without any chance of winning. Unless, of course, you happen to like games that are reflective of the human experience. When it is all over - and trust me, it will be over - does winning really matter. And if so at what cost. The conceit that a war can be won. That there are enough Christmas cards in the deck for everyone. Who do you think you are kidding.