Any given competitive game can be seen as a test of individual morality. Not in the simplistic, binary sense of doing the „right“ thing and not the „wrong“ thing. Instead they challenge us to do something we know is wrong. If our upbringing hasn’t led us astray entirely, we not only have an interest in not harming others, but also to spare them inconveniences. But it’s these kinds of inconveniences we force onto others, when we play a competitive game. So we need an explanation, why we’re allowed to ignore these social rules when playing a game. We have to  justify our actions.

The moral transgression – or act of impoliteness if the mention of morality immediately conjures images of punitive catholics and enraged grandparents – is hard-coded into the idea of competition itself. You’re taking something that belongs to somebody else, or you stop them from doing what they want, or you simply work towards gradually or even fully excluding them from this shared activity altogether. A competitive game needs us to suspend any sense of empathy we feel for our friends in order to do something against their interest.

„It doesn’t matter“ is the most common reason used to explain this behaviour both to ourselves, and to others. That this is the reason why the actions we take in a game should not be judged critically. It’s how we arrive at the claim that games create a consequence-free space. It also helps explain why some players are opposed to, and deeply critical of, grudges carrying over from one game to the next. It belies their main conviction that what we do in the game doesn’t matter, and therefore we’re justified to act against the interests of our friends. After all, there can be no moral transgression when our actions have no impact.

But that’s not entirely true, is it? The actions we take do have an impact. Not just on the game state but – far more importantly – on other players. In fact we do want our actions to have an impact on others. This is after all the reason why we choose to play competitive multiplayer games. We want to engage other players. Having an effect on others is what we call player interaction. There is an entire genre of games that is built explicitly to interact with other players in a way that does impact them emotionally: they’re called take-that games.

A genre of games that many players clearly enjoy a lot. The reason why some groups can have fun with take-that games in particular without a sense of guilt, has less to do with any inherent sadism or thirst for schadenfreude. At least that isn’t the primary reason. But these groups other players’ consent is implicitly assumed. By sitting down to play this particular game, players assume that they have the consent of others to attack/tease/frustrate them. Both sides understand that this is the kind of social interaction they willingly choose to engage in for fun. We rationalise our actions as having been given permission by the rest of the group to act this way; to make them the target of our actions as we have done the same in turn.

The second most common reason to justify our actions is “they agreed to it”. 

Yet in some cases a player’s enjoyment is actually hampered and limited by the lack of progress and participation due to other players’ actions. That’s when this implicit agreement will be invoked indirectly. Either by referring to the style of game being played (“it’s a very competitive game”), suggesting some kind of overriding social norm (“don’t break the magic circle”) or simply blaming that player for being a bad sport or plain grumpy. This is, for obvious reasons, a less than ideal way to handle such a situation. It invariably leads to building some low-level resentment towards others, or the conclusion that said player simply “doesn’t enjoy or like” these games.

We shift our inability to resolve these small transgressions amicably onto the games themselves. They get called either “not well-designed” or we distance ourselves from those games as not being our “cup of tea”. 

What’s important to note here isn’t that players shirk responsibility for their behaviour – as mentioned above this is necessary to play any competitive game. It’s more important to recognise that this too is a form of rationalising and justifying competitive behaviour. Either by referring to some external norm, which dictates or at least sanctions our behaviour. Or by excluding those who do not see this justification as self-evident or binding. 

It’s not us who have stepped over moral lines, it’s other players’ fault for complaining and having a taste in games that is incompatible to our own. Whenever you start using words like “morality”, people quickly feel as if they have to defend themselves. Or they fear being judged for not living up to some alleged ideal. This isn’t what this article is about. Instead I want to draw attention to why we act the way we do in games, and to understand it better. Especially when we understand what happens at the table, we can purposefully guide play towards an even more enjoyable experience. Regardless of whether a game is competitive or not.