I used to play table tennis against my grandfather when I was in my mid teens (he was on the young side). At first, I needed a 15 point head start for it to be close (first to 21). After playing every day for a couple of months we started on equal terms and I only mostly lost.

That was fun! I learned and improved but also every point I won was a victory. Had I played against a professional I'd probably never have won a point, never have got better, and quickly got disheartened. There is just a limit past which the skill gap stops things being fun imo

I use to play during lunch at college, but sometimes there were only asians to play against who hold the bat upside down and hit the ball so fast you could barely see it.

After a while I managed to return the ball back and forth a couple of times, maybe they were going easy on me tho :)

And I don't find some games fun anymore if you or anyone around the table goes in for the kill; simple example that most people will know; monopoly. There are strategies to almost surely win but it makes the game boring and even annoying for everyone involved. So we usually added rules to prevent those strategies. If someone 'is better at that' it means he/she is a boring/non-fun player and no-one will play anymore after 1-2 games. In general; there are a lot of games really not fun at all for people who always want to win no matter what.

I thought the point of Monopoly is to learn that monopolies are not fun, or fair

The point of Monopoly is to make money for the owner of the trademark, and condition people to buy games based on inertia, advertising, and nostalgia rather than complexity, balance, or fun.

Fortunately we have a plethora of much better games now. I think monopoly will be a quirk of history soon. How many boomers have never played monopoly (and hopefully never will) because they have so many other games to play.

I don't understand. Boomers? People born between 1946 and 1964? I think most Boomers in North America and Europe have played Monopoly at least once. "Monopoly has been translated into 47 languages. It's played in 114 countries. It's sold more than 275 million copies. Hasbro prints $30 billion in Monopoly money each year, and well more than $3 trillion has been printed since 1935." -CNN https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/living/feat-monopoly-80th-ann...

Boomers? Did you mean millennials?

Was that an autocorrect from "zoomers" to "boomers"?

and interestingly enough, the inventor of the original Monopoly (Elizabeth Magie and "The Landlord's Game") created an alternative rule set called "Prosperity" that was intended to balance out the Matthew effect [1] but this was left out of Monopoly when it was allegedly poached from Magie's game.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect

> And I don't find some games fun anymore if you or anyone around the table goes in for the kill; simple example that most people will know; monopoly.

Monopoly is a bad game though. Play Acquire instead.

I am not like some kind of avid Monopoly player; I play a game on a dead rainy sunday afternoon at family gatherings. They won't have Acquire etc. They have scrabble, monopoly and a bunch of other older but very well known games.

I'm curious to learn more about those monopoly strategies and rules against them.

I think there are times for both kind of play. It's annoying when people only play one kind of way. It's like beating you is all that matters to them.

Most people mess up Monopoly in two ways:

* Common house rules prolong the game. Don't use house rules.

* People forget the rule that when someone lands on an unowned property and doesn't buy it, the bank auctions it off.

A game of monopoly should take about an hour. It's almost always those exact house rules that people create that make the game drag.

I have not played it with only adults for a long time, only with (young) children mixed and parents/family; there are a lot of examples to ruin the game (for me and kids and most adults except 'the winners' (woohoo! I beat some kids at a boardgame!)); one of them (one of the most annoying imho) being that if you pick up (at least) 1 of every monopoly and then refuse to trade/sell unless it's for crazy amounts. So no-one can have a monopoly; then it's just a tiresome waiting game, so people (esp kids, but me too as i'm bored already thinking about it) are going to forfeit or will just buy stuff at stupid prices hoping to get lucky (which they won't usually). You don't need to do that and you can just 'sit it out' but it ruins the game element completely. Ofcourse this requires luck with the dice but more often than not, the monopolies are quite evenly distributed in my experience. It depends what you get, but if you have this hand, then you will probably win by tiring everyone else out (especially because really no-one else cares about winning; we were just wanting to have fun).

> It's like beating you is all that matters to them

It does, which is weird considering this is not actually real life or real money; it's (can be anyway) a nice boardgame on a rainy sunday.

We had a house rule where no trading could happen until all the properties were owned by someone. Created a frenzy and lots of excitement waiting for the last one to be rolled on.

I find scrabble that way too. When people start blocking good letters just so that you don't use them, it starts to lose it's appeal.

This also happens with Ticket to Ride. But fortunately, most people I've played with, don't intentionally block routes they don't need at all

> This doesn't mesh with why lots of people play things. It's play. It might just be a nice way to pass the time.

If training isn't fun, then don't train up. Instead, learn to be satisfied with losing.

Which is fine: I'm satisfied when I play a decent game (but lose) against stronger players. I probably was going to lose anyway.

Being satisfied with your skill level, and learning to enjoy a game without necessarily improving at it, is important. For most of us, playing games is just a hobby. Our professions... the skill we ACTUALLY practice to get good at throughout our lives... takes priority over our hobbies.

Part of what makes a hobby a hobby... is the decision to remain weaker than professionals at that skill. I'll never become as good of a Harmonica Player as Magic Dick (who played "Wammer Jammer": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0q2Vy3fx2I). But that's fine, because Magic Dick is a professional Harmonica Player.

I believe you're imagining a scenario where there isn't much of a skill gap, e.g. a match between a newbie and a competent amateur; a competent amateur and a professional; or a professional and a grandmaster. Losing to someone who's still "within your sight" can still be fun, because there's still an element of challenge to the game, and there are still stakes—i.e. you can still control how badly you lose, and therefore there's still something to strive for (to lose by a smaller margin.)

But when your level of skill gap with another player is too large, such that you won't learn anything by playing them and the entire match will be under their control 100% of the time, then there really isn't any point in playing them, and you'd be far better off—both for your enjoyment, and for your growth—to play against a weaker player.

It might be fun to have a sprinting match against your local state champion. It might even be fun to have a sprinting match against Usain Bolt. But there's no point to having a hypothetical sprinting match against The Flash. You wouldn't even leave the starting line before he crosses the finish line. There's no gradation of success available to you. You're simply crushed.

Likewise, there's no point, if you're a five-year-old, to trying to (seriously) arm-wrestle an adult. Your undeveloped strength will be overwhelmed without accomplishing the slightest movement of the opponent's arm, right at the beginning of the match, every time. You won't even get to practice the skill or build the muscles involved in arm-wrestling.

> But when your level of skill gap with another player is too large, such that you won't learn anything by playing them and the entire match will be under their control 100% of the time, then there really isn't any point in playing them, and you'd be far better off—both for your enjoyment, and for your growth—to play against a weaker player.

Unless you're playing in an exceptionally small or dying gaming community, most video games and online board games have good matchmaking services, which provides a quick-and-easy matchup to people of similar skill levels as you.

A lot of the discussions in this thread are about Overwatch (one of the most popular video games right now), or Chess (one of the most popular board games). You should have no issues finding opponents close to your skill in either of these games.

Er, the article is clearly about "participatory games" (either single-player games with leaderboards, or multi-player games intended to be played with friends or family-members rather than strangers) and how they should work vis-a-vis accessibility considerations, like "assist modes." Should a speedrun of a game appear on a leaderboard if you had to play with aim-assist due to Parkinson's? Etc.

If there's an ELO matchmaking system in place, then the whole discussion—"How to play with people who are better than you"—is moot. So, for the purposes of discussion here, you should probably assume that there isn't such a system in place for the game in question. (The people who are bringing up examples from games with ELO presumably haven't read the article.)

Huh, you have a pretty different perception of what makes a thing hobby vs. work. For me, a hobby gives you a permission to get better - because play is an important part of getting better. Whereas at work, you're constrained by the context in which your work is embedded. For instance, when working on a hobby project, I can afford to do each piece of it right, to the best of my abilities - whereas at work, I have to deal with things like team velocity, time to market, list of features driven by sales instead of utility, etc. - all of which preclude doing great work.

At least for me, part of the motivation with playing things is the idea that it is practice, and discipline, and improvement. Part of it is escapism, to be sure, but not all of it.

This is where each of us is unique mix - I couldn't care about improvement in things I do for fun. If it comes naturally, great, if it doesn't, same great. I know many people who aren't like that, especially competitive ones (which I consider a rather big disadvantage in life if one of your goals is to be a happy content person).

The only reasons I do it - to have fun and relax - is already there, it doesn't get better the better I get since there is not top level cap. One example - I do climbing, in & out. If I climb 4c (french grade, which is very beginner level), say after some accident or other longer time off, its the same type of challenge as climbing routes at 5c/6a level after some training period. It really doesn't change anything for me, the challenge, fear of fall/death, pushing through it and sense of accomplishment is the same.

Maybe not the best mental wiring to achieve most in life in measurable aspects like career or net worth, but sure as hell I can be happy with little. It is great. I wish more people were like this.

You can be competitive and still have fun.

In my sport, I train and enjoy competing as hard as I can.

I find the highs I enjoy from winning over a player who is a similar or higher skill level than me outweighs the disappointment of losing to someone I shouldn't. And it seems the better I get, the less often I seem to lose to people that I shouldn't. I enjoy seeing that progress and enjoy competing against better players.

I've lost close matches and still enjoyed every second too.

I'd add to that. I think this doesn't just vary person to person, but also game to game, and even moment to moment. I'd compare it to food, in that it's not one size fits all, even for a given person and a given point in their life. Sometimes you want steak. Sometimes you want ice cream. You ought to eat some veggies. Sometimes you just need a damned cup of coffee.

If you're just playing to pass the time, why does it matter if you lose to Steph Curry or not?

If someone is off the scale better at something, playing becomes tedious and boring. That's not really fun to pass the time (or as a sport; when I go to kickboxing, I don't really expect the guy in our gym who won the EU championships a few times to KO me all day long like if he is competing to an equal). The reverse is true as well; unless teaching, why do they want to play with you. Boring for them too (unless they have gigantic ego's and get kicks of winning from anyone).

Steph Curry probably enjoys just being on a basketball court, even playing against people of much lower skill level. No reason he can't still work on perfecting his jumpshot for himself, even if it's only me guarding him. Lots of people practice shots by themselves.

I'm speculating here, but I think people who don't enjoy it on some level usually don't make it to that highest level in sport. Every top-level sportsman I can think of looks like they enjoy it.

It doesn't matter if you lose - what matters is that you feel like you have some involvement in the game. Good games are like conversations - you can enjoy a conversation with someone who's way more knowledgeable/smarter than you, but not one where you don't get a word in at all

The better player needs to agree to play or converse at a handicap for this to work.

I can have a fun conversation with my two year old, but it's going to be pretty limited in depth.

> but not one where you don't get a word in at all

So no podcasts/radio-or-tv shows then?

Yes, those are a no go if you want to make conversation.

Because there is no excitement or any possibility of winning motivating you to even pretent do put effort in

Winning is not the only motivation though.

If I was playing against Steph Curry, I would try to come up with achievable goals, such as trying to defend well enough to force him to take a jumpshot instead of a layup, trying to make one of my own shots, trying to get him to fall for a pump-fake, trying to get a steal, trying not to fall over, etc.

Winning may not be, but there's always an achievable goal you can strive for.

Doesn't seem like you are playing to pass the time, in that case. Seems like you are playing to win. The difference is in the former case the play is the reward in itself and in the latter case you need to feel victory over someone. Seems crypto-competitive and kind of weird for that reason.

He is playing for enjoyment and recreation. Playing and losing to Steph Curry does not give him that. Playing competitively with his friends does it.

Realistically, that game would be Steph Curry having ball all the time dancing around you while you dont touch ball except initially. It would also make Steph Curry score within 3 sec from gaining the ball.

Overall effect is that you do nothing. There is no strategy you can use or think about, no time to try trics with ball or even shoot or dribble.

One reason it is not fun is that the less good person don't actually get to be active in play - he will be effectively in much passive position and it wont even be challenge.

I would love to lose a game of basketball against Steph Curry, would certainly be a fun experience. But it would get old fast as he would certainly crush me every time.

If my goal is to get better at basketball, playing against Steph Curry is not useful. Learning happens most efficiently when the challenge is somewhat above your current skill level, but not enormously so.

If someone just recently started going to the gym, would you put a 300 pound barbell in front of them and tell them to lift that, and assume they're a loser if they don't get any enjoyment from failing to lift it?

No but I'd assume they were a loser if they left the gym if someone walked in that could lift it.

That isn't a very good comparison. Lifting weights isn't a competition in the way that basketball is. I want to say the latter is more "zero-sum", but I'm not sure if that's correct terminology.

There are plenty of competitive weight lifting sports. CrossFit, Olympic lifting, powerlifting...

I would probably have fun shooting free throws with Steph Curry, even though I would be lucky to make as many as he missed.

That's more like the weight lifting you're comparing it to - the competition involves artificially choosing the other person as a benchmark, and I can work against whatever internal benchmark I want.

This is very different than a game of one-on-one, where it's his job to change how I interact with the ball (which he would, to the point of meaninglessness) and vice-versa (which I would fail at to the point of triviality).

It's not strange (or a personal failing) to find that less interesting.

" I would probably have fun shooting free throws with Steph Curry, even though I would be lucky to make as many as he missed." I think you're underselling yourself (or Steph) with it. He makes over 90% freethrows, which would mean - for the sake of your argument - that you'd be "lucky" to make more than 10% of your freethrows. I think you are better :) (sorry for this nitpick)

I welcome the nitpicking, but I stand by my statement :-p

I had meant to restrict my weight lifting comments to the kind of weight lifting that goes on in gyms (what was being discussed upthread). And I have to confess I don't know much about those sports you named, but do the participants really interact with each other like they would in, say basketball or soccer? Maybe there really is a rule like "there are a finite number of weights, and each can be lifted by at most one person", which would be pretty similar to "there's only one ball, therefore only the player with the ball can score"? And therefore being paired with someone who vastly outclasses you wrt lifting weights will effectively render you unable to participate (by taking all the weights you can lift, similar to taking 100% of the possessions of the ball).

I think you are reading things into 'play' that aren't there. What you seem to suggest is that naming anything 'play' makes it impossible for you to not get enjoyment out of it, since there are no conditions for you to consider it play?

Yea there are people who enjoy the act of training and people who do not. Personally I'm the former but it's easy to understand why people don't want to turn a game into work.