I wrote about a dozen posts (1.5 hours) ago about how I'm so bad at reading rules for board games. But I've been playing them nonetheless and enjoying them. The joke I make is there's always two plays involved: one's the play of the game, playing the cards you are dealt with or your pieces, whatever. Then there's the meta-game...the game of talking strategies, cheating and acting around the board. I tend to enjoy the meta of the game more than the actual gameplay. I give my strategies away and often that will put me at an disadvantage. But that's not the point of the play! We played heart-attack the card game at Green Lake with BB SA and their partners. BB and his partner were 'first' to 'win'. They had to wait for the next 30 minutes watch everybody else avoid losing. I told them later it's a silly game to want to win, because you're out early on. True enjoyment comes from staying in the game believably long enough, and tapping out when you're tired.
So many little strategies here and there. One must not confuse the meta and the real play. Skills in one are not transferable to the other necessarily. However, they're not mutually exclusive either. One must independently evaluate the benefits of strategies for each kind of play, and decide on the appropriate strategy.
All of it could have been said about life too. Wonder what lessons I can take from the distinction between play and meta-play...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Tell me what you think. I'll read, promise.