Uh, no thanks, I'll play this instead.

[Gronin]

Another game I hesitate to play is Settlers of Catan when playing with married couples. Everytime there was a married couple playing it (in my experience), they gave each other an advantage by teaming up.

I have played this game with my wife at the same table several times and all I can say is "I wish!"

 

[Argyle King]

The new version of Gamma World...

Everything I read about the game made me believe I would highly enjoy it. However, after a friend of mine bought it, and I played it, I learned that I have trouble enjoying the game.

 

[Fast Learner]

We played several party games a few weeks ago and one of them in particular was just not up to the task. Maybe with a group of well read or travelled scholars it might work, though I still question the fun factor: Wise and Otherwise.

While I'm not a huge fan of the game, I don't think the "well read or travelled" bit really applies: you're not supposed to be able to recognize the actual saying. Rather, the idea is that players create sayings that have just the right combination of wisdom and goofiness to sound real, just like the real sayings. Actually recognizing the sayings would ruin the premise.

 

[Mark CMG]

While I'm not a huge fan of the game, I don't think the "well read or travelled" bit really applies: you're not supposed to be able to recognize the actual saying. Rather, the idea is that players create sayings that have just the right combination of wisdom and goofiness to sound real, just like the real sayings. Actually recognizing the sayings would ruin the premise.

You can't lose if you don't play but if you don't play you've already lost.

 

[Janx]

We also used to have one guy that *hated* for games to end. Rather than play to win, he'd play to keep anyone from winning so the game would go on as long as possible. Very, very frustrating.

Some study I read about ascribe that behavior as a difference in male and females in games.

Males played to win and thus looked to end the game. females played to socialize and thus would tend to make moves to extend the game.

In college, my buddy Kris always won Risk. So the goal for everybody else was to live longer than Craig.

Which is another wierd thing. Nerds were predominatly singled out and picked on. So what kind of games do nerds invent? Games where you can single someone out and pick on them.

 

[Fast Learner]

Some study I read about ascribe that behavior as a difference in male and females in games.

Males played to win and thus looked to end the game. females played to socialize and thus would tend to make moves to extend the game.

Perhaps broadly, but sportsmanship should overcome that in anyone over the age of 8. The 15-20 people I regularly play boardgames with understand that it's your responsibility from the moment you agree to play to:

1. Play through to the end of the game. The only exceptions are games where your leaving won't affect the game status (though such games are rare) or if some real life element interferes.
    
2. Play to win and play for position. The latter means that even if you know you can't win you still play to do as well as you can: in a game with points or other varying finishers you play for the highest position you can.
    
3. Play only the current game. If you feel like Bob screwed you in the last game you played, this is an all new game, no spending the game trying to screw Bob in revenge.
    
4. No kingmaking. To the extent possible -- and a few games make this impossible but most do not -- do not play in ways that will help one player more than another if it's not to benefit yourself. This extends 2 and 3.
    
5. No cheating. Not ever, in any way. (If the game allows for it, like Illuminati, and everyone agrees to play by that rule then it's not really cheating.)

People who can't manage to be good sports don't get invited back. It's almost surprising how, when almost everyone is playing this way, pretty much everyone else comes around.

Which is another wierd thing. Nerds were predominatly singled out and picked on. So what kind of games do nerds invent? Games where you can single someone out and pick on them.

Dunno about that. I mean yeah, there are plenty of games like that, but the thousands of "eurogames" I play have little or none of it, and I can assure you they're definitely invented by nerds.

 

[DumbPaladin]

I haven't yet found a game I will refuse to play. A couple come close, but I merely will do my best to dissuade the party from playing due to the poor design of the game and/or the fact that its rules allow for tediousness.

Risk and Monopoly fit in this category for the same reason: there's a high degree of probability that 1 player will be out of the game, but the game will still go on for hours. There's no way in which that can be considered "fun."

Uno fits in the category for the sheer fact of it being entirely possible for the game to never end, since it is based primarily on chance (drawing the right cards at the right time).

But if people REALLY want to play those games, I'll play them. Most of the time, people seem quite surprised at the reasons I give, and are more than willing to play a game that everyone can get on board with.

There are, however, PEOPLE I will not play with, and the OP would be a perfect example: people who will refuse to play games simply because they don't win enough. There's no positives such people bring to the table, I'm afraid ... it's best to simply make sure I'm always playing a game they're not, and I purposefully do not invite such people to our regular Game Night events.

Also, won't play with blatant cheaters.

 

[Wycen]

You can't lose if you don't play but if you don't play you've already lost.

This makes me think you've played the game!

 

[Mark CMG]

This makes me think you've played the game!

My loss?

 

[Janx]

But if people REALLY want to play those games, I'll play them. Most of the time, people seem quite surprised at the reasons I give, and are more than willing to play a game that everyone can get on board with.

There are, however, PEOPLE I will not play with, and the OP would be a perfect example: people who will refuse to play games simply because they don't win enough. There's no positives such people bring to the table, I'm afraid ... it's best to simply make sure I'm always playing a game they're not, and I purposefully do not invite such people to our regular Game Night events.

Most normal people don't think about game design. This is why they have house rules in Monopoly about the putting all fines in a pot and landing on the whatever it was called square to win the pot. It unbalances the game, and keeps money out of circulation (the bank can run out).

On your latter point, if you are in a group of 5 people and can't ever win 1 in 5 games, how much fun are you having?

Now somebody could look at it as training, you have to pay your dues to get good at the game. For example, I spent 6 months playing darts in my boss's office every day, getting my butt handed to me. Then I started winning, and became one of the top players in the group.

On the other hand, I suck at games like Chess. While I am a smart guy, I don't think moves ahead or any of that mumbo jumbo. I therefore don't enjoy the experience of always losing to anybody with any skill for the game (which are really the only people who play chess).

In a way, I think you have it backwards. A person who doesn't want to play a game because they don't win enough/never win, knows they are not a proper competitor for you and would drag you down. They are effectively advocating playing a game where both of you can enjoy it (or at least negating 1 title that you don't share in common).