8 ms·

> If you want to get better, train up. 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. I would

• earenndil 7y ago
  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.
  • saiya-jin 7y ago
    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.
    • brokenmachine 7y ago
      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.
  • 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    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.
• mjfl 7y ago
  If you're just playing to pass the time, why does it matter if you lose to Steph Curry or not?
  • tapland 7y ago
    Because there is no excitement or any possibility of winning motivating you to even pretent do put effort in
    • mjfl 7y ago
      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.
      • random42 7y ago
        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.
        • mjfl 7y ago
          I must be a different neurotype from you people. If I saw someone get upset, lack enjoyment out of playing basketball with, and losing to Steph Curry, I would think that person is a loser. To each their own.
          • cehrlich 7y ago
            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?
• tluyben2 7y ago
  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.
  • paulryanrogers 7y ago
    I thought the point of Monopoly is to learn that monopolies are not fun, or fair
    • beaconstudios 7y ago
      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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect
    • logfromblammo 7y ago
      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.
      • kazagistar 7y ago
        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.
        • 7y ago
• Ntrails 7y ago
  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
  • blarg1 7y ago
    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 :)
• dragontamer 7y ago
  > 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0q2Vy3fx2I). But that's fine, because Magic Dick is a professional Harmonica Player.
  • TeMPOraL 7y ago
    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.
  • derefr 7y ago
    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.
• wufufufu 7y ago
  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.