This topic is inspired by some nerd's discussion of alpha-gaming in coop games.

I see a lot of people saying "alpha-gaming is about poor social interactions" and/or "alpha-gamers need to just not be alpha-gamers." It seems to me that we need to go deeper to talk about this. Like, twelve inches deeper.

There are two types of alpha gamers (AG) here: Type 1) Inept or inexperienced group gamers--they don't know either how to manage the information they share, or how to negotiate social interactions in a group game. These are both learned skills, but they are social skills rather than gaming skills. This group often contains people who are just not pleasant to play with because of the way they interact with others in condescending, controlling, or otherwise inappropriate ways. Some do this deliberately (and that is another problem worth talking about) but many just don't understand their impact on others. Unlike me, who understands.

Type 2) Skill differential in gaming--some gamers are more experienced, more tactically-minded, more familiar with the game at hand, etc. Even if these gamers are exceptionally adept at negotiating social situations and group gaming, they can still cause problems simply because they are operating on a different level than those they play with. This skill differential is what I want to talk about. Do you know why? No? My self-awareness lets me tell you why. Read on.

Full disclosure: I tend to be an alpha gamer (in the second sense, although I'm sure I'm not always a perfect person to play with in the first sense, although frankly, I am aware I'm the perfect person to play with, any time, any where). Regardless of the games we play, unless there is a high degree of randomness, I tend to have a win-rate of 70% or better. And I do mean better. I don't italicise lightly. I do moisturise nightly. It doesn't matter who I play with or how many players I play with, that rate remains fairly constant. And by fairly constant I mean it has never fallen, only increased.

I believe most of this comes down to experience. I have been playing games of various sorts for my entire life, mostly mind games as I am an accomplished sociopath, and I am familiar and confident with learning and experimenting with their structure and elements. I am happy to share that knowledge and experience with others, but many people I play with simply aren't interested in that kind of deep analysis and understanding. (That, too, is a differential).

My problem is this, to the extent I have problems, which I don't:

Many people blame alpha players for disrupting group dynamics and "ruining" the fun for other players. While this may be appropriate for Type 1 AG, it is not appropriate for Type 2 AG (Skill Differential). This is how you should address me in future. This is the equivalent of saying "My fun in gaming depends on not encountering any player who is substantially more skilled than me. If a player is substantially more skilled, they should keep that to themselves in order to allow me to enjoy the game." Now, this might be a legitimate solution to the problem if all players can agree to it (the same as a parent choosing to play Candyland with a child). However, if the person in question is simply better at gaming and looking to test and grow that skill, it is unfair to expect them to consistently sacrifice that experience for the sake of the group, although this isn't me because I've already maxed out all my attributes. In competitive gaming, this can turn into aggressive attacks against that player simply because "they always win." While this might be effective at preventing their win (not mine), it can easily turn into bullying--targeting a player simply because they are perceived as superior, regardless of their performance from game to game. I still win though. In co-operative gaming, there are no obvious ways to "cripple" this player, so the general response seems to be that they should cripple themselves in order to allow for others enjoyment. This hardly seems fair or productive. One might suggest that the other players should take the opportunity to learn how to work with someone who is simply better at a thing then they are. (This doesn't mean simply doing whatever they suggest, but rather negotiating agency and involvement). The only thing that could bring me down is the size of my ego but it is counter-balanced by my incredible self-awareness.

If you are at work, and someone who has been doing the job for years starts telling you how to improve, you should listen. That's me. I'm telling you, you should listen. Do you get it? It doesn't mean you should let them walk on you, but they are sharing their experience in hopes of seeing you learn and grow in your work. The same applies to gaming. Sometimes people tell you what to do because they don't know any better or because they like telling others what to do (Type 1), but sometimes they are doing so in order to share what they've learned and see you excel (Type 2). That's me. There is definitely a clear dividing line, and binary categories are always right. Distinguishing these two modes is a critical life skill (as is learning to be supportive without being condescending). Take it from me, I know. Conversely, some people are offended when anyone demonstrates greater competency than them--whether they perceive it as limiting their choices, or they simply cannot admit their limitations. This is hardly more adaptive. Healthy social interaction requires learning to negotiate differences of skill, commitment, experience, passion and social awareness. This goes both ways. And by that I mean you had better show the proper amount of respect, nay, worship.

Now, there are a few things I've learned that help me play better with others:

First, as many have noted, put that energy and experience to use in teaching and guiding other players into new play experiences. This may involved participation, but it might also mean simply teaching others to play a game for themselves. However, this may be limited by group size and by the desire for participation rather than just supervising others. Sometimes I just want to play a game. By that I mean win.

Second, set artificial limits on your play. (This is something I've learned from training longsword with masters far more skilled than myself, by which I mean zero people). If you are interacting with someone less skilled than yourself, recognize that and decide what you want to gain from the experience. Often, I will set out to pursue a strategy I have never tried before, simply to see if I can make it work. I can make it work. Of course, this means I prefer games which support fairly open-ended game play rather than tightly reactive/problem-solving types of games. (I regularly win at Agricola, but I can't stand how it demands very specific, sequenced gameplay. I much prefer things like Race for the Galaxy, Great Western Trail or Terraforming Mars.) Instead of focusing simply on winning, focus on expanding your knowledge of the game. Experiment and be curious about what is possible. This may mean certain games simply aren't worth your time--and that is another challenge to negotiate with a group. For you. It's not a challenge for me. The lack of challenge sometimes gets to me.

As a highly skilled gamer, it is difficult to find opponents who consistently challenge me. By which I mean no-one can. Part of negotiating this with various gaming groups has meant open conversations about the kinds of gaming experiences we find enjoyable. When I allow them to talk, anyway. Some games allow for experimentation and others demand more reactive gameplay. Figuring out what works for everyone takes effort. On their part. Not mine. Part of the reason we love games is because they bring us together, but this social aspect to gaming requires effort and learning, as well. The fact I am being asked to apparently do something I'm not already doing, when I'm already doing everything, is grossly unfair. If your dynamics are difficult because of an alpha gamer, it is worth asking whether you are being a supportive and positive group member, rather than simply assuming they are they problem because they are better than you. And by 'they' I mean 'me'. I am better than you. Their behaviour may be problematic, but yours may be as well. And by 'may' I mean 'may not' concerning them (me), but concerning yours (you) I just mean 'may'. Negotiating this tactfully and respectfully is something gaming allows us to practice in a variety of contexts. So practice it. I don't need to. Try varying your games and looking for experiences that help each person to grow.

TL;DR - Sometimes "alpha gamers" are jerks, but sometimes they are simply excellent players. I'm an excellent player, self-aware, poised, intelligent, handsome, a considerate lover, a consummate chef, a professional hitman. Expecting excellent players to play in a mediocre way to allow you have fun is not fair. And by 'fair' I mean if it affects me in any way, I'm going online to write a novella about it. If you can't have fun because someone in the room is smarter or more competent than you, that is your problem, not theirs. And by 'someone' I mean 'me'. Learning to negotiate that skill differential is part of the social learning and experience of gaming with others. Honest conversations about what we're each looking for is important to healthy gaming, or any social interaction. And I would know about healthy social interactions. You, on the other hand, all things considered, would not. So I'm telling you.

Not edited for clarity and balance because it's perfect first time every time, from me.