"That Guy" in your gaming group

[Paladork]

So, just looking for a bit of friendly advice, my gaming group is fairly small, and there's only a few of us that can play regularly.  One of the folks in my group is very competitive, he watches a number of videos and podcasts from pro players and tries to build lists like them.  I am not one of those people, I like to build fun lists, have narrative and fluffy battles and just have as much fun while playing as I can.  It's hard to have fun though when one of your regular opponents is trying to end the game by turn 2.  I understand he has the right to play the game the way he wants to, but when I play him, it pretty much only ends up being fun for one of us.  I'd just say I wont play him anymore, but he is one of very few people I can play with any sort of frequency.  I also understand he has smaller armies than I do, so his list building options aren't huge, but every time we play it seems like he's running some variation of a tournament list and I'm running a hodge podge of Skaven.  I've tried to run competitive lists myself, and it at least ends up being an evenish matchup, but I don't get a lot out of running lists like that.  I've talked to him about doing more narrative and "fun" games, but it almost always devolves into him running a hard list and me losing early on with my fluffy list.  Any advice?

[ChaosLord]

If he's a good sport, ask for a handicap. Like some bonus army points or extra command points. He still gets to play his competitive list, you get to play your list, and it ups the challenge factor for him.

I used to play Madden a lot with a guy who was much better than me. We had a rule that I got to pick the teams. He was ok with it because he liked playing the game but also didn't have much fun blowing me out.

[Overread]

A few thoughts

1) Dispel the idea of "casual and tournament" lists from your mind. Because whilst he latter has some meaning the former has no meaning what so ever that is universal to all players. There is simply a sliding scale of skill and your friend is simply higher up the scale than you by a noticeable margin. This means that trying to ask him to "play casual" can actually be hard for him to work out because you're sort of saying "hey build and play a bad army that you'd never actually build nor play." Which is why they still end up being good lists. 
There's also likely a difference in both of your play styles; if he's building lists better and is studying other players then chances are he's also playing better - making smarter choices so that even with a weaker army he'd still likely have an advantage.

2) Accepting point 1 it makes it easier to move onto attempting to mitigate this skill difference between you and there's a few approaches'

a) Get him to teach you. Yep you can't bring his game down so consider upping your game and getting him to help out. It might even help him as teaching someone often makes the teacher have to learn more and formalise their understanding in order to pass that information on well. You might feel like it won't let you make "fun lists" any more, but chances are it will. All it will do is change your perception of lists and units and how to build an army and you'll still get to take fun and great looking units.

b) Have him play with a handicap. Accepting prior that he wins many more times then you consider using rules that give you an advantage. So perhaps he might take less points than you; or plays with a staggered force; etc... Basically in this approach you're accepting that there's a key difference in skill between you both so you're tipping the balance a little so that the the resulting balance is a bit more even and reflects your variation in skills. This approach might be nice, but can take a little while to settle on a fair setup - baring in mind that your skill difference will change over time so you might well find it a continual state of revising and just messing around. 

c) Mess the rules up somewhat. Play defence and assault missions where one player has a bias in points and the other has to attack a fortification etc... Ergo vary the battleplans so that they aren't just straight battles; this ties into point b mostly and is about adapting a handicap to be more than just playing with a points variation. 

d) Depending how big the group is consider group games too. They can be a fun way to have an evenings gaming whilst messing with the rules. 5 players in a free for all match etc....

 

In general no matter how you approach this the key is to talk with him in detail first. Spend time hashing out what the issue is for you and him and work to find a compromise.

 

 

Ntoe he doesn't sound like "that guy". "That Guy" is not just  a competitive skilled player; he's a cheater who will win at all costs and who will cheat/deliberately pick on newbies; who will be obnoxious and generally a poor sport to play against etc... Ergo your friend isn't a bad sport it seems; its just a skill difference between you both that is causing the issue. 

Edited May 19, 2019 by Overread

[Kramer]

It's all about the fun so talk about it and beforehand decide what works. Go for a uneven battleplan, play Path to glory (with rolling for units), etc. But also play the 'competitive game' that's more fun for him.

Just talk to each other and if it doesn't work out one on one, you play the other players even in your small group or maybe two vs two. 

But can I also add that I fully agree with @Overread regarding the words That Guy. Especially if you use it in conversation with him. On the otherhand in my mind it's nothing to do with skill level. Just for what it's worth. 

[chord]

Be honest with him, but if he's competitive and your casual it may not work out. 

See if he wants to play more narrative battle plans

[EccentricCircle]

You could try doing games which go much further towards the narrative end of the spectrum, where the traditional concepts of victory and competitiveness don't apply so much. Maybe get another of your group to GM a game, where each player has different and asymmetric objectives, which might not be obvious at the start of the scenario. The GM can introduce wild cards of wandering monsters to level the playing field if and when the balance seems to be off.

[Clan's Cynic]

Honestly. just try having a word with him and see if he'll play a less tournament-build list. From what you've wrote, it doesn't seem like he's doing anything 'wrong' save running powerful lists. He may genuinely not know that you're being discouraged from playing with him/not enjoying yourself.

[Lucio]

Ask him if you can write his army list for him, and he does the same for you. Narratively you're both generals newly appointed to the army so have little idea what you have to command

[Mayple]

9 hours ago, ChaosLord said:

If he's a good sport, ask for a handicap. Like some bonus army points or extra command points. He still gets to play his competitive list, you get to play your list, and it ups the challenge factor for him.

I used to play Madden a lot with a guy who was much better than me. We had a rule that I got to pick the teams. He was ok with it because he liked playing the game but also didn't have much fun blowing me out.

I'll second this. 

Appealing to the "Well, obviously you're going to win, so let's make a challenge out of it" part of him should make it much more interesting for both of you, @Paladork. I highly suggest taking the route that @ChaosLord suggests, as well as making yourself available for crazy far out experimentation that your competitive-minded opponent wouldn't normally be able to do if he were to go 100% for the win. For example, if he plays, let's say Skaven for sake of familiarity, and he was ever wondering if stuffing his list full of clawlords would be a good idea, against you he could be free to do so. Remove the consequences of losing from the equation entirely, and just play for fun, and more importantly for the competitive mindset; to try new stuff out. If he's not of a mind to experiment , then he's not very competitive minded anyway, and I don't know what to tell ya

Best of luck! 

Edited May 19, 2019 by Mayple

[Carnelian]

9 hours ago, Overread said:

A few thoughts

1) Dispel the idea of "casual and tournament" lists from your mind. Because whilst he latter has some meaning the former has no meaning what so ever that is universal to all players. There is simply a sliding scale of skill and your friend is simply higher up the scale than you by a noticeable margin. This means that trying to ask him to "play casual" can actually be hard for him to work out because you're sort of saying "hey build and play a bad army that you'd never actually build nor play." Which is why they still end up being good lists. 
There's also likely a difference in both of your play styles; if he's building lists better and is studying other players then chances are he's also playing better - making smarter choices so that even with a weaker army he'd still likely have an advantage.

2) Accepting point 1 it makes it easier to move onto attempting to mitigate this skill difference between you and there's a few approaches'

a) Get him to teach you. Yep you can't bring his game down so consider upping your game and getting him to help out. It might even help him as teaching someone often makes the teacher have to learn more and formalise their understanding in order to pass that information on well. You might feel like it won't let you make "fun lists" any more, but chances are it will. All it will do is change your perception of lists and units and how to build an army and you'll still get to take fun and great looking units.

b) Have him play with a handicap. Accepting prior that he wins many more times then you consider using rules that give you an advantage. So perhaps he might take less points than you; or plays with a staggered force; etc... Basically in this approach you're accepting that there's a key difference in skill between you both so you're tipping the balance a little so that the the resulting balance is a bit more even and reflects your variation in skills. This approach might be nice, but can take a little while to settle on a fair setup - baring in mind that your skill difference will change over time so you might well find it a continual state of revising and just messing around. 

c) Mess the rules up somewhat. Play defence and assault missions where one player has a bias in points and the other has to attack a fortification etc... Ergo vary the battleplans so that they aren't just straight battles; this ties into point b mostly and is about adapting a handicap to be more than just playing with a points variation. 

d) Depending how big the group is consider group games too. They can be a fun way to have an evenings gaming whilst messing with the rules. 5 players in a free for all match etc....

 

In general no matter how you approach this the key is to talk with him in detail first. Spend time hashing out what the issue is for you and him and work to find a compromise.

 

 

Ntoe he doesn't sound like "that guy". "That Guy" is not just  a competitive skilled player; he's a cheater who will win at all costs and who will cheat/deliberately pick on newbies; who will be obnoxious and generally a poor sport to play against etc... Ergo your friend isn't a bad sport it seems; its just a skill difference between you both that is causing the issue. 

Totally don't agree with most of this comment. 

There nothing to suggest a skill differential between the two players - indeed the op states that if Paladork does take a more optimal list, then they have evenish games. The op is therefore skilled enough to work out what optimised lists look like and to give his opponent a good game.

The problem is instead that the op doesn't enjoy or want to play those types of games because they enjoy more narrative-led games. 

Paladork and their opponent want different things out the game and it seems like they can't both get what they want out of the same game. 

My advice: @Paladork, have a frank and open discussion about what you want from the game with your friend and see if you can find a compromise as suggested above.

But do be aware  that just because he wants to play in a different style from you (e.g. more competitively) that doesn't (necessarily) make him "that guy" - there are many different but equally valid ways of playing. 

If you cannot find a compromise that works for you both (or your opponent really is Tg) , then personally I would not persevere playing against that person. There's no point in playing games that you don't enjoy.

I'm sure there will be other players you can find who enjoy your style of game, it might just take a bit more work to find them. If you're in or near a big city, it shouldn't be a problem. 

[Aezeal]

Neither of you is in the wrong.. You just like different games. Do you play against others who prefer another game like 40k  or warmachines?  No? Don't play him either; chances of it becoming more fun for you are slim.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Aezeal

[Zanzou]

16 hours ago, Overread said:

There is simply a sliding scale of skill and your friend is simply higher up the scale than you by a noticeable margin. 

Uhh... You realize that bringing top-tier lists copied from tournaments and stomping your friends who are just playing units that look fun to them doesn’t necessarily mean anything at all about “skill”, right? Right????  Literally the only thing that means is that people have fun in very different ways, and when two very different playstyles collide it can be anti-fun.

I agree with you only about the fact that just because a player is interested in tournament lists it doesn’t mean they’re  a bad guy.  BUT it also isn’t fair to assume OP’s problem is that he is worse at the game!!!

I do hope that when you play your own games you aren’t assuming that your opponent is interested in just winning with the best lists possible... Many people find tournament meta very boring!!  

P.S. Just to reiterate- It’s asinine to assume it is “skill” that allows you to turn-2 your casual friend who plays a mixed alliance army against your tournament-ready list.  Those armies are just in two different worlds of play.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Zanzou

[AaronWilson]

I always think communication is key, tell your own thoughts and feelings and 99% of the time you can come to some happy compromise. 

[RuneBrush]

5 minutes ago, AaronWilson said:

I always think communication is key, tell your own thoughts and feelings and 99% of the time you can come to some happy compromise. 

Very much this - as a suggestion, see if they fancy swapping armies one game.  If you promptly smash them off the board by turn 2 they'll likely agree that it wasn't much fun.  If they still smash you off the board then as suggested maybe start playing smaller games and allowing them to tutor you.

There are some people though who's whole game is about destroying their opponent and very little you'll do will change their mind.

[Dead Scribe]

If you are a competitive player, you will have a hard time handicapping yourself because it goes against everything a competitive player believes in (bringing the best list possible and doing your best in the game to win). 

It could very well be that you and your friend need to part ways in the realms of AOS or find something else to do together where you can both have fun.

[EccentricCircle]

There is always something to be said for compromise though. Maybe you don't enjoy competitive games, and your opponent won't enjoy more story driven ones. One option would be to not play against each other, but a more amicable solution might be to agree to split the difference and alternate play styles. You still wouldn't get the most out of every game, but at least you'd both get to do the play style you prefer some of the time, rather than one person always being at a disadvantage.

[jackmcmahon]

If you consider not playing with someone because they are better than you, you are That Guy.  If you are not playing to win, it doesn't matter if you always lose.  If you are playing to win, list building is an important part of the process.  

[Dead Scribe]

Compromise works if you enjoy both formats.  For me, and people like me, handicapping myself is not enjoyable.  People don't like spending their free time doing things that are not enjoyable.  They should not be made to. 

In those cases its good to recognize you want very different things and won't enjoy deviating, and then finding a group that enjoys those same things.  Forcing people to "compromise" and play a game in a way that they find not enjoyable is how you get people to quit the game entirely.

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

If you are a competitive player, you will have a hard time handicapping yourself because it goes against everything a competitive player believes in (bringing the best list possible and doing your best in the game to win). 

It could very well be that you and your friend need to part ways in the realms of AOS or find something else to do together where you can both have fun.

 As a Competitive player, I find it very interesting and a challenge worthy of my time, to try and succeed with a list that isn’t, the best but maybe the worst.

I mean sure I could play the best army with the best army composition, but I mean everybody can use a Warplightning vortex efficiently if he has the know how (which hopefully most skavenplayers have), but it is much more interesting to succeed with a list that is much weaker then others used at the competitive scene.

[Dead Scribe]

Everyone is different.  If you feel it is worthy of your time to do so, then you have deemed it a valuable expenditure of your time.

To a lot of people, its not worthy of their expenditure of time.  

[EccentricCircle]

I'd argue that this is more about social considerations than gaming related ones. 

It might not usually be worth your time to play a casual game, but if doing so will help your friend have a better experience for once then its worth stepping out of your comfort zone every so often.

 

[Lobeau]

As a filthy casual myself, somwtimes when I'm playing against an ultra competitive player, I stop and ask them what they would do. Most of them are willing to say well you're targeting X but Y is the real threat from my army, or something along those lines. We also come across the players that take everything so seriously and bend the rules to their advantage all the time to the point that you don't want to play them anymore. One work around I've found for that is to play in a 3 player free for all, or 2v2... Typically the other players know that they suck to play with and focus them down first! Hope you find a way to make it all work.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Lobeau
Typos

[Kairos Tejedestinos]

2 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

 As a Competitive player, I find it very interesting and a challenge worthy of my time, to try and succeed with a list that isn’t, the best but maybe the worst.

I mean sure I could play the best army with the best army composition, but I mean everybody can use a Warplightning vortex efficiently if he has the know how (which hopefully most skavenplayers have), but it is much more interesting to succeed with a list that is much weaker then others used at the competitive scene.

Handicapping yourself to have a fair game (which will not) can feel that's insulting towards the other player.

It's not only the list, many people are just bad players, and that's fine, but even if you handicap yourself listwise, experience and expertise most of the time will trump your opponent, not only because you are a better player, but because his list is already handicapped. There is no real competition in there, so i don't really think "as a competitive player" this will feel interesting at all. Atleast it has never been for me. I can play against utterly broken lists with a good pilot behind it or against someone with a better list than me but who is not a good pilot, 10 out of 10 times facing the good pilot will be the most interesting game, no matter the powerlevel difference in both lists.

To be honest i like to play competitively, and i only like to play games where both opponents are on the same page. This is a hobby from where i want to get enjoyment, and when i am playing i will enjoy trying to do good plays and outplay my opponent, and I won't be able to play poorly only to "cheat" the other guy by doing poor movements or target priority on purpose. I know i will be unable to do that, so i don't play that way.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Kairos Tejedestinos

[jackmcmahon]

If I play any game with my three year old daughter, the game itself is obviously not fun at all.  It is only fun because she has a chubby three year old face smiling at me and laughing and I love her.  Unfortunately, this does not apply to any of my age of sigmar opponents, so going out to buy another army that's intentionally bad to make them have a false sense of accomplishment would be a negative experience.  This is of course, with matched play in mind.  Your options are supposed to be matched and equal.  In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the loser to improve rather than the winner to not try in order to grow as players.  The winner should always be willing to help if asked and explain why they are performing well. 

Narrative is another version of the game that is not necessarily supposed to be equal and is completely valid way to play.  

[Paladork]

Thanks for everyone's insights and opinions, I think I'll try and have a long conversation with him about a middle ground we can both get behind, that way he can still play how he wants and I can get what I want out of our games.  Just a few thoughts, first and foremost, I may have misused the phrasing "That guy" I know it means different things to different people, and to me and my friend group it just meant more that someone was more interested in winning rather than having fun.  Not that he has ever cheated or done anything wrong, but his focus is almost always on winning rather than having what I would consider a "good game."  He has literally ran army lists he openly admits aren't fun to play against or are fun for him to play, but he runs them anyways because they win.  Another example would be there have been times where I would obviously be the winner due to a double turn, and I've just given it to my opponent to make it more enjoyable for the both of us.  Most, if not all the time where that was the case for him, he would just take the double turn and I would lose to no one's surprise.  There are other small things like that, and again, he didn't do anything wrong, it's just...boring sometimes.  As for the folks suggesting just not playing with him, I'm not sure if you missed the part where I talked about how small my gaming group is?  I don't live in a podunk town, but our AoS group around here is fairly small, before he joined my group of friends I'd get in, maybe 2-3 games a year, now, we play almost every week.  So if I choose not to play with him, I might as well just be choosing not to play AoS (40k is much more popular around here and even then that group is small).  As for skill levels, I'd say he definitely has more of a mindset for competition than I do, I mentioned he watches a number of podcasts and reads a lot about tournaments and such, he actively enjoys doing the math on values of units and who is best at what.  So in that regard, he probably is better than me, he see's what is best from a numbers standpoint and goes for that.  I, on the other hand, live by the rule of cool.  Not to say I can't tell what is and isn't good for list building and see synergies and all that, but when I see Archaon or a Hellpit Abomination, I'm of the mindset that it'd be cool to see those on the table, not whether they are the most competitive models.  I love running fluffy lists that have my favorite models and characters in them knowing full well they aren't the most competitive, but they make for a fun game assuming they dont all die turn 1.  So yeah, main point being, I just need to hash out some of this with him so we can both find some enjoyment from our matches, I appreciate the input of those who read my post and understood what was happening and your words of advice!