I also don't see Coup as a bullshit game. It's filler for sure, but I see it as a replacement for Love Letter, rather than Resistance/Avalon. Coup is essentially 2 hands of Love Letter at once, and when it's over, it's over. No "play to X points."
After trying Coup once, I already noticed that I liked how the Ambassador plays, feeding you more information about the cards in that deck that players aren't holding, usually giving you enough info to peg one character as a likely bluff.
And Pence, thanks for linking that blog. Didn't have time to read through that guy's entire analysis but I'll have to keep an eye on his posts.
If Coup is "better" than Resistance/Avalon, then I'm even less inclined to play the latter much. ;^)
Bluffing veracity is arbitrary among skilled players, and there isn't much leeway with which to bluff. The answer in Coup is to bluff a set percentage of the time. All that remains is to calculate a little and determine the optimal bluffing percentage.
Bluffing as a core mechanic is dumb without other confounding factors. It's less dumb in poker only because has more complex directional heuristics that require card counting, and is played long-form (causing bluff fatigue).
Bluffing in Coup is no different than bluffing in Citadels.
If Coup is "better" than Resistance/Avalon, then I'm even less inclined to play the latter much. ;^)
Do not listen to these voices. Resistance/Avalon plays much differently than Coup. They just both happen to have bluffing. Resistance is a meatier experience,with a lot of plotting and long cons, with a slow reveal of additional information. Coup is, as you said, a certain amount of bluffing with some fairly simple calculations to drive the heuristics. However, I think there's enough there for Coup to be a solid warmup game competitor vs games like Love Letter, For Sale, No Thanks, etc.
If Coup is "better" than Resistance/Avalon, then I'm even less inclined to play the latter much. ;^)
Bluffing veracity is arbitrary among skilled players, and there isn't much leeway with which to bluff. The answer in Coup is to bluff a set percentage of the time. All that remains is to calculate a little and determine the optimal bluffing percentage.
That's oversimplifying - what you need to know (for any specific situation, as it's situation-dependent) is how often to take each of eight actions. It's not just a binary choice between bluffing and not bluffing.
In any case, the answer to any game has that same form - for each possible situation, you need a probability distribution over the possible moves. All that remains for any game is to calculate a "little" and determine those distributions.
The real question is the nature of the calculation - if you can show that's it's trivially easy, essentially pointless, or intractable, then that is indeed an issue with the game.
Bluffing as a core mechanic is dumb without other confounding factors. It's less dumb in poker only because has more complex directional heuristics that require card counting, and is played long-form (causing bluff fatigue).
Card counting? Most of the time that's totally inapplicable to poker.
Bluffing in Coup is no different than bluffing in Citadels.
Wrong. I'm not even sure that what one does in Citadels is "bluffing" per se, but I'll grant that there is a bit of similarity. However, there is a crucial difference you're missing.
In Citadels, the crucial piece of hidden information - character cards - persists only over the course of a single action. You choose a character, and then for the next decision you make that character of yours is already revealed.
On the other hand, in Coup and poker, hidden information is gradually mitigated over the course of several rounds, because every action you take necessarily reveals information about your hand. This is a major source of complexity in bluffing games, because it gives these two factors a major role in the game: 1) "reading" - gathering (probabilistic) information about other players' hands on the basis of the actions they take. 2) "bluffing" - managing your own hidden information wisely so you're not giving too much away to "reading".
Unless those two things actually play a significant role, it's not really a game about bluffing, and unless you have to actually manage hidden information over the course of several actions that aspect is trivialised, because there simply isn't enough information involved.
Note: I haven't played Coup, so I'm not saying Rym is necessarily incorrect about it being a "meh" game, but the arguments he has made aren't particularly good ones.
Can someone explain why picking randomly is the optimum way to play in citadels? When we play we tend to target the stronger roles like architect more often so we tend to avoid him when it's too obvious we need him.
Can someone explain why picking randomly is the optimum way to play in citadels? When we play we tend to target the stronger roles like architect more often so we tend to avoid him when it's too obvious we need him.
It's not necessarily strictly optimal, because it depends on your opponents.
However, the key is essentially that if you pick non-randomly, your opponents may be able to predict your move, and hence be able to benefit from that knowledge.
You are correct in saying that if you stand to gain too much from architect you should mostly avoid picking it, but if you always do that then your opponents no longer have to target that role, because you're not picking it anyway. Hence you should, in fact, sometimes pick architect - in other words, some amount of randomness is a necessity.
That guy put in way too much work analyzing the strategy for a 5-6 player game of Resistance (not optimal), and playing without plot cards (which I would argue is basically not playing The Resistance).
So, I'm catching up on this years episodes, and I'm listening to this one right now. My partner is the one that sent in the video question (and I have no idea why he sent it in as a video). Scott is spot the fuck on in that it's part of my personality- I don't like to screw people over in any part of my life and it particularly bothers me when I see someone screw someone else over. Also, Bane tends to (in my eyes) hurt himself by fucking the other people over and that just annoys me. One example of this is that he will trash Providences in Dominion to make it so the game ends quicker and there are less available victory points to be had and this strategy will never fucking make sense to me - especially since I tend to win when he plays like that.
Currently we play a lot of cooperative games instead of directly competitive games. Or, I drink while we play games so I'm less likely to give a fuck if someone fucks me or someone else over, and I'm more likely to retaliate in kind. Not a perfect solution, but it works for us.
If you're playing specifically with the goal of attacking the other players, and not winning, that's a form of griefing. If you play to win, and dicking over the other players is the best way to do that, then so be it. If that's not something you can enjoy or deal with, then just don't play those games.
Also, when in Dominion would it ever be a good idea to trash your own Province? That's crazy. Is there some new card I never played with that lets you trash Provinces from the board?
I feel bad restricting the amount of games he can play based on what I do or don't find enjoyable. I don't want to be that horrible partner. I spend most games reminding myself (and other players who aren't used to it) that its not personal, nor specifically about me/them. I'm getting better at handling it, and giving back in kind. It's just not natural for me because my brain isn't wired that way. Like I said in my previous post, a few drinks tends to help with this.
I'll get him to write up an explanation of the Dominion thing. He trashes a Province in order to get another Province, so his victory point count isn't affected, but there are less available to the rest of the players? It's all crazy talk to me, so I may be missing a subtle nuance.
I feel bad restricting the amount of games he can play based on what I do or don't find enjoyable. I don't want to be that horrible partner. I spend most games reminding myself (and other players who aren't used to it) that its not personal, nor specifically about me/them. I'm getting better at handling it, and giving back in kind. It's just not natural for me because my brain isn't wired that way. Like I said in my previous post, a few drinks tends to help with this.
I'll get him to write up an explanation of the Dominion thing. He trashes a Province in order to get another Province, so his victory point count isn't affected, but there are less available to the rest of the players? It's all crazy talk to me, so I may be missing a subtle nuance.
What action card allows this to happen? It must be a card I do not know of. Also, the effectiveness of the strategy is highly dependent on how many provinces you already have, how often you can do this, and how quickly your opponents are currently capable of acquiring points. In general, I would only use this kind of strategy if I projected that at the end of the game I would still have over 50% of the non-trashed provinces in my deck and more points from those provinces than a player could hope to reasonably score with dutchies.
The card is in the base box. I'm not home right now, but I'll check when I am. You'll be my new favourite person if you tell me he's been using the card wrong/gotten the rule wrong all this time.
I'm always amused when he plays like an arsehole and I play nornally and I end up winning or not losing by much anyway.
Remodeling a Province into a Province. It MIGHT make sense, but since there are eight provinces in a 2-player game you should probably have four of them when you spend your action likely giving yourself one fewer opportunity to buy a Province than your opponent. You'd really rather Remodel a Gold into a Province... earlier, you needed money, now you need points. Perfect!
The card is in the base box. I'm not home right now, but I'll check when I am. You'll be my new favourite person if you tell me he's been using the card wrong/gotten the rule wrong all this time.
I'm always amused when he plays like an arsehole and I play nornally and I end up winning or not losing by much anyway.
Is it Remodel? Is he Remodeling Provinces into other Provinces? That is legal, but is only sometimes a good idea.
Think of it this way. Each time you Remodel a Province into a Province you are bringing the end of the game closer. However, you are effectively losing points. It's true that you lost a Province, worth 6, and gained 6, so you break even. But really you gave up the opportunity to perhaps remodel another card into a second Province, or remodel another card into a Dutchy. In reality you just gave yourself -3 or even -6 points. Almost anything can be Remodeled into an Estate, so you are almost always giving yourself at least -1 point.
Then again, let's say I take an early lead with a bunch of Provinces. I'm talking 3+ Provinces ahead of the second place player. But now my deck is clogged up and slow because it has too many victory cards. If my lead is big enough, and the other players are not doing well enough to catch up in time, this might be a very good idea if I am certain I can cause the game to end with me in first place before anyone can catch me.
I think the solution for both of you is to focus on what really matters in life.
WINNING
If a player is griefing in a game to the point that they are losing, that's great. Enjoy your easy victory. Most importantly, make sure that griefer knows you won. Bury their bloodied corpse in a deluge of trash talk. Don't let them forget for a single second that you winning that board game is a clear indication that you are a superior human being to them in all ways.
Seriously, though. I don't know what your situation is, not being there. I can't pass judgement upon who is a griefer and who is not. The point is that if you are playing a game, and someone is attacking other players simply for the joy of attacking, and cares not for winning, that is a form of griefing. Likewise, if a player is intentionally refraining from attacking players even when that is the best strategy for winning, that is also griefing. If you play a game with a griefer, you actually do have a valid reason to be upset at them. They are not playing the game in good faith. They are selfishly acting for their own amusement at the expense of the other players experiences.
The way to avoid griefing is to emphasize the importance of winning. If all the players actually care about winning, then griefing disappears. Attacks intrinsic to the game are no longer something to be upset about. Those attacks are no longer the selfish acts of a griefer who enjoys attacking in itself, but are just the optimal move for achieving victory. You would have done the same in their shoes, because it's clearly the best move. Also, the person who avoids attacks as policy will likely lose and be forced to to suffer in defeat if their strategy is indeed inferior. They should be upset enough about losing to change how they play in the future.
And that comes back to what I was saying about personalities not changing. Some people will simply never care about winning. They just won't. They have no competitive spirit, and they can't get one donated to them. They gain the enjoyment of board games from other aspects besides competition. That's perfectly fine. They're just not the same kind of person that I am, and I imagine most would consider that a good thing.
The problem is that most board games are designed based on the assumption that the players are trying to win. If they are not, the game design collapses in on itself. This can still often result in an enjoyable experience if all players are similarly non-competitive, but I have rarely, if ever, seen different gaming personalities mix well at the same table. That is why I suggest people who are not competitive stick to non-competitive games. Those are usually either the cooperative games like Hanabi or party games like Cards Against Humanity where the goal is humor for everyone, and not winning or losing. People of different gaming personalities can play these games together without issue.
Lastly, even if all players have the competitive spirit, some are just at a different skill level. They may end up performing the same actions as a griefer and ruin the game not because they aren't trying to win, but because they just suck. So even when all players are competitive, the game will only really go well if all players are close enough in skill level that no player will ruin it for the others with overly suboptimal play.
Doms: In base set, yes, you can remodel Provinces into Provinces, and this is a reasonable strategy if you have a decent lead (in both points and deck efficiency), to keep opponents from catching up / force them to split less points among themselves. I miss Isotropic.
Eclipse: Regarding the alliances.. augh! I had two wormholes in my system, in fact, spread through my system, leaving every other hex exposed to a potential opponent (Rym, Pete, Phil, ScoJo). Everyone else was exposed to at most two adjacent opponents. Nonetheless, I should have invaded Pete, rather than ally, as I had a tech advantage at the time (I think). There were a lot of mistakes made in that game -- unsurprising considering how many elements (# of players, expansion bits) were new/untested to a high percentage of players. In the end, I think alliances *may* be playable, but only by players with enough experience to recognize the limitations. Worth it? Probably not.
GTR: You very much hit on the reasons I was glutting GTR during magfest. Additionally, unlike some people, I neither own GTR, nor have consistent access good gamers (ingredients: competitive, convenient, capable, challenging).
Innovation: Rule writing (and explanation) is indeed an art. Due to the poorly-written rule book and time constraints, we avoided Innovation at CTCon, but were reintroduced this Magfest. It's a quick (it actually is!) strategy-lite game, good for the budding post-Catan board gamer (if there is a good teacher). There's enough randomness to engage people who aren't comfortable with hard strategy. The game flows best with fewer players -- more players = more random, less players = more strategy (but still pretty random). GTR is easily a better game. The biggest hurdle is, unfortunately and unsurprisingly (considering GTR original), the game layout. Scott, I'll gladly take your copy. I think it will fill a niche in our game night games, plus be a pleasant 2P break from Netrunner (since no one will play Dominion with me).
So, I'm catching up on this years episodes, and I'm listening to this one right now. My partner is the one that sent in the video question (and I have no idea why he sent it in as a video).
OH! YOU GUYS! How you traveling? Coming again next year?
The lack of 'Winning Spirit' is part of the reason I now have more co-operative games in my collect than just Arkham Horror (which used to be my only one). In two years, that number has risen to about six, with a variety of themes and tactics. There are also more party style games in my collection than there were previously for the same reason.
I don't grief in my games (to my knowledge) and the trashing provinces play is made when I play dominion because I am often showing newer people the game, as such we play with the god awful beginner setup, and I like to show them ways to think outside the box. Yes, trashing a gold is much better, or something for a duchy, but if I have a remodel and 4 vp cards, and am fairly certain of the lead, I will trash a province for another. I've also been known to remodel my estates early in the game for simple deck efficiency.
If I focused on winning while there are new players there, I would smoke them almost every time. I am simply too experienced at card games, strategy (I beat you at blockus, a game I had never touched on my second play after you showed me an optimal open), and Dominion itself (have played it online via BSW) to be able to provide a newer player an enjoyable experience. Instead, I would rather make radical strategies and see how they perform, as often in Dominion you are trapped in your own bubble.
Koeniou doesn't focus on winning, but she can also take things personally (she's doing better on that last front). The reason I asked the question was simply that you guys had years more experience board gaming, and I imagine board gaming with a vast array of people whereas I lead a mostly solitary existence in that regard until about 6 years ago, and even then it has been a smattering here, a smattering there.
Sometimes the problem is when a third experienced player joins the group, they will leave K alone and focus on me, especially if I have overcome them in score to the point of no return... I,e; they would rather see me lose than win, which is fair, if a little monotonous when it becomes standard. I can stand that action, but it teaches K that my style of playing was 'bad' or 'incorrect', as she doesn't see the fact that due to simple meta, she was left alone the entire match, and if I were to play like that, I would get crushed.
But you are right re: non competitive games. While they aren't as enjoyable for me personally as clashing wits and wills against another, they are at least something I can play without having to hold back, especially something like Mice and Mystics, where I take the place of the storyteller... Controlling the enemies (based on their rigid move structure), and occasionally offering hints to those who aren't quite strategically minded. It also (I Hope) gives the players that added feeling of having beaten someONE at the game, rather than simply beaten the game itself (even though the game is intrinsically no different).
I dunno dude last time I watched the snowboarding event at the Olympics it seemed like they couldn't go 5 minutes without fist bumping one another. That scene does seem to be pretty insular and everyone knows each other.
Lol the most visible members of a sport are indicative of anyone that participates? I'm not saying there aren't broish people who snowboard but the people who are at the top tend to be slightly more broish in the same way that professional football players are slightly more broish.
Lol the most visible members of a sport are indicative of anyone that participates?
Well, in this sense, yes.
You will see in well developed competitive sports or games, the top players all have similar attitudes and personalities. They are fierce and ruthless competitors with a strong desire to win. They sacrifice everything else to achieve victory.
The fact that there are people at the top of your sport who do not have this attitude suggests that there are very few in the lower ranks who do. If there were more competitors with the drive to win, there wouldn't be any bros at the top of the pyramid.
Nidhogg opponents seem to get angry when I don't deign to "duel" them and just jump over their heads. Sometimes, they'll get past me, and instead of running to the next screen, they stop and flip their sword inviting me to duel.
I recall back when Scott and I played that Star Wars FPS for a while. It was a dumb game, but the lightsabre combat was moderately amusing.
We'd join servers set on Deathmatch, only to find a ring of players respectfully watching "duels" in the middle. Of course, we'd pull out blasters or force lightning and set upon them like wolves on the fold.
They'd get super mad, but couldn't really do anything about it. They'd fight us, but we were willing to be "cheap" with blasters and lightning, or even just rapid random lightsaber flailing, making us super deadly.
Even in regular play, they would never ambush. They'd get your attention, and then duck to "bow" at eachother before dueling. It was a big faux pas to interfere with a duel, and a GRAVE TRANSGRESSION to attack before bowing.
Dude would bow to me, I'd shoot him in the face with my blaster.
Dude would try to duel Scott. I'd shoot him in the back with my blaster.
Comments
After trying Coup once, I already noticed that I liked how the Ambassador plays, feeding you more information about the cards in that deck that players aren't holding, usually giving you enough info to peg one character as a likely bluff.
And Pence, thanks for linking that blog. Didn't have time to read through that guy's entire analysis but I'll have to keep an eye on his posts.
Bluffing veracity is arbitrary among skilled players, and there isn't much leeway with which to bluff. The answer in Coup is to bluff a set percentage of the time. All that remains is to calculate a little and determine the optimal bluffing percentage.
Bluffing as a core mechanic is dumb without other confounding factors. It's less dumb in poker only because has more complex directional heuristics that require card counting, and is played long-form (causing bluff fatigue).
Bluffing in Coup is no different than bluffing in Citadels.
In any case, the answer to any game has that same form - for each possible situation, you need a probability distribution over the possible moves. All that remains for any game is to calculate a "little" and determine those distributions.
The real question is the nature of the calculation - if you can show that's it's trivially easy, essentially pointless, or intractable, then that is indeed an issue with the game. Card counting? Most of the time that's totally inapplicable to poker. Wrong. I'm not even sure that what one does in Citadels is "bluffing" per se, but I'll grant that there is a bit of similarity. However, there is a crucial difference you're missing.
In Citadels, the crucial piece of hidden information - character cards - persists only over the course of a single action. You choose a character, and then for the next decision you make that character of yours is already revealed.
On the other hand, in Coup and poker, hidden information is gradually mitigated over the course of several rounds, because every action you take necessarily reveals information about your hand. This is a major source of complexity in bluffing games, because it gives these two factors a major role in the game:
1) "reading" - gathering (probabilistic) information about other players' hands on the basis of the actions they take.
2) "bluffing" - managing your own hidden information wisely so you're not giving too much away to "reading".
Unless those two things actually play a significant role, it's not really a game about bluffing, and unless you have to actually manage hidden information over the course of several actions that aspect is trivialised, because there simply isn't enough information involved.
Note: I haven't played Coup, so I'm not saying Rym is necessarily incorrect about it being a "meh" game, but the arguments he has made aren't particularly good ones.
How do "smart" people ruin this game?
The latter two still break down if the majority of your group isn't serious about it, though.
However, the key is essentially that if you pick non-randomly, your opponents may be able to predict your move, and hence be able to benefit from that knowledge.
You are correct in saying that if you stand to gain too much from architect you should mostly avoid picking it, but if you always do that then your opponents no longer have to target that role, because you're not picking it anyway. Hence you should, in fact, sometimes pick architect - in other words, some amount of randomness is a necessity. Except that it mostly isn't a 50% chance, and knowing what it is is important.
Currently we play a lot of cooperative games instead of directly competitive games. Or, I drink while we play games so I'm less likely to give a fuck if someone fucks me or someone else over, and I'm more likely to retaliate in kind. Not a perfect solution, but it works for us.
Also, when in Dominion would it ever be a good idea to trash your own Province? That's crazy. Is there some new card I never played with that lets you trash Provinces from the board?
I'll get him to write up an explanation of the Dominion thing. He trashes a Province in order to get another Province, so his victory point count isn't affected, but there are less available to the rest of the players? It's all crazy talk to me, so I may be missing a subtle nuance.
You'll be my new favourite person if you tell me he's been using the card wrong/gotten the rule wrong all this time.
I'm always amused when he plays like an arsehole and I play nornally and I end up winning or not losing by much anyway.
Think of it this way. Each time you Remodel a Province into a Province you are bringing the end of the game closer. However, you are effectively losing points. It's true that you lost a Province, worth 6, and gained 6, so you break even. But really you gave up the opportunity to perhaps remodel another card into a second Province, or remodel another card into a Dutchy. In reality you just gave yourself -3 or even -6 points. Almost anything can be Remodeled into an Estate, so you are almost always giving yourself at least -1 point.
Then again, let's say I take an early lead with a bunch of Provinces. I'm talking 3+ Provinces ahead of the second place player. But now my deck is clogged up and slow because it has too many victory cards. If my lead is big enough, and the other players are not doing well enough to catch up in time, this might be a very good idea if I am certain I can cause the game to end with me in first place before anyone can catch me.
I think the solution for both of you is to focus on what really matters in life.
WINNING
If a player is griefing in a game to the point that they are losing, that's great. Enjoy your easy victory. Most importantly, make sure that griefer knows you won. Bury their bloodied corpse in a deluge of trash talk. Don't let them forget for a single second that you winning that board game is a clear indication that you are a superior human being to them in all ways.
Seriously, though. I don't know what your situation is, not being there. I can't pass judgement upon who is a griefer and who is not. The point is that if you are playing a game, and someone is attacking other players simply for the joy of attacking, and cares not for winning, that is a form of griefing. Likewise, if a player is intentionally refraining from attacking players even when that is the best strategy for winning, that is also griefing. If you play a game with a griefer, you actually do have a valid reason to be upset at them. They are not playing the game in good faith. They are selfishly acting for their own amusement at the expense of the other players experiences.
The way to avoid griefing is to emphasize the importance of winning. If all the players actually care about winning, then griefing disappears. Attacks intrinsic to the game are no longer something to be upset about. Those attacks are no longer the selfish acts of a griefer who enjoys attacking in itself, but are just the optimal move for achieving victory. You would have done the same in their shoes, because it's clearly the best move. Also, the person who avoids attacks as policy will likely lose and be forced to to suffer in defeat if their strategy is indeed inferior. They should be upset enough about losing to change how they play in the future.
And that comes back to what I was saying about personalities not changing. Some people will simply never care about winning. They just won't. They have no competitive spirit, and they can't get one donated to them. They gain the enjoyment of board games from other aspects besides competition. That's perfectly fine. They're just not the same kind of person that I am, and I imagine most would consider that a good thing.
The problem is that most board games are designed based on the assumption that the players are trying to win. If they are not, the game design collapses in on itself. This can still often result in an enjoyable experience if all players are similarly non-competitive, but I have rarely, if ever, seen different gaming personalities mix well at the same table. That is why I suggest people who are not competitive stick to non-competitive games. Those are usually either the cooperative games like Hanabi or party games like Cards Against Humanity where the goal is humor for everyone, and not winning or losing. People of different gaming personalities can play these games together without issue.
Lastly, even if all players have the competitive spirit, some are just at a different skill level. They may end up performing the same actions as a griefer and ruin the game not because they aren't trying to win, but because they just suck. So even when all players are competitive, the game will only really go well if all players are close enough in skill level that no player will ruin it for the others with overly suboptimal play.
Eclipse: Regarding the alliances.. augh! I had two wormholes in my system, in fact, spread through my system, leaving every other hex exposed to a potential opponent (Rym, Pete, Phil, ScoJo). Everyone else was exposed to at most two adjacent opponents. Nonetheless, I should have invaded Pete, rather than ally, as I had a tech advantage at the time (I think). There were a lot of mistakes made in that game -- unsurprising considering how many elements (# of players, expansion bits) were new/untested to a high percentage of players. In the end, I think alliances *may* be playable, but only by players with enough experience to recognize the limitations. Worth it? Probably not.
GTR: You very much hit on the reasons I was glutting GTR during magfest. Additionally, unlike some people, I neither own GTR, nor have consistent access good gamers (ingredients: competitive, convenient, capable, challenging).
Innovation: Rule writing (and explanation) is indeed an art. Due to the poorly-written rule book and time constraints, we avoided Innovation at CTCon, but were reintroduced this Magfest. It's a quick (it actually is!) strategy-lite game, good for the budding post-Catan board gamer (if there is a good teacher). There's enough randomness to engage people who aren't comfortable with hard strategy. The game flows best with fewer players -- more players = more random, less players = more strategy (but still pretty random). GTR is easily a better game. The biggest hurdle is, unfortunately and unsurprisingly (considering GTR original), the game layout. Scott, I'll gladly take your copy. I think it will fill a niche in our game night games, plus be a pleasant 2P break from Netrunner (since no one will play Dominion with me).
I don't grief in my games (to my knowledge) and the trashing provinces play is made when I play dominion because I am often showing newer people the game, as such we play with the god awful beginner setup, and I like to show them ways to think outside the box. Yes, trashing a gold is much better, or something for a duchy, but if I have a remodel and 4 vp cards, and am fairly certain of the lead, I will trash a province for another. I've also been known to remodel my estates early in the game for simple deck efficiency.
If I focused on winning while there are new players there, I would smoke them almost every time. I am simply too experienced at card games, strategy (I beat you at blockus, a game I had never touched on my second play after you showed me an optimal open), and Dominion itself (have played it online via BSW) to be able to provide a newer player an enjoyable experience. Instead, I would rather make radical strategies and see how they perform, as often in Dominion you are trapped in your own bubble.
Koeniou doesn't focus on winning, but she can also take things personally (she's doing better on that last front). The reason I asked the question was simply that you guys had years more experience board gaming, and I imagine board gaming with a vast array of people whereas I lead a mostly solitary existence in that regard until about 6 years ago, and even then it has been a smattering here, a smattering there.
Sometimes the problem is when a third experienced player joins the group, they will leave K alone and focus on me, especially if I have overcome them in score to the point of no return... I,e; they would rather see me lose than win, which is fair, if a little monotonous when it becomes standard. I can stand that action, but it teaches K that my style of playing was 'bad' or 'incorrect', as she doesn't see the fact that due to simple meta, she was left alone the entire match, and if I were to play like that, I would get crushed.
But you are right re: non competitive games. While they aren't as enjoyable for me personally as clashing wits and wills against another, they are at least something I can play without having to hold back, especially something like Mice and Mystics, where I take the place of the storyteller... Controlling the enemies (based on their rigid move structure), and occasionally offering hints to those who aren't quite strategically minded. It also (I Hope) gives the players that added feeling of having beaten someONE at the game, rather than simply beaten the game itself (even though the game is intrinsically no different).
http://www.slate.com/blogs/five_ring_circus/2014/02/11/winter_olympics_sochi_2014_why_snowboarders_hate_shaun_white.html
You will see in well developed competitive sports or games, the top players all have similar attitudes and personalities. They are fierce and ruthless competitors with a strong desire to win. They sacrifice everything else to achieve victory.
The fact that there are people at the top of your sport who do not have this attitude suggests that there are very few in the lower ranks who do. If there were more competitors with the drive to win, there wouldn't be any bros at the top of the pyramid.
I recall back when Scott and I played that Star Wars FPS for a while. It was a dumb game, but the lightsabre combat was moderately amusing.
We'd join servers set on Deathmatch, only to find a ring of players respectfully watching "duels" in the middle. Of course, we'd pull out blasters or force lightning and set upon them like wolves on the fold.
They'd get super mad, but couldn't really do anything about it. They'd fight us, but we were willing to be "cheap" with blasters and lightning, or even just rapid random lightsaber flailing, making us super deadly.
Even in regular play, they would never ambush. They'd get your attention, and then duck to "bow" at eachother before dueling. It was a big faux pas to interfere with a duel, and a GRAVE TRANSGRESSION to attack before bowing.
Dude would bow to me, I'd shoot him in the face with my blaster.
Dude would try to duel Scott. I'd shoot him in the back with my blaster.
Good times.