What is this... "Scrub"?

     Recently I've read a small bit of a book titled Playing to Win, in which the author, a game developer named Sirlin, writes about the concept of... well, it's kind of obvious. When "playing to win", victory is the most important goal, and any method used to win is viable and acceptable as long as it still falls within the game's set of rules. While the bits I read focused on the competitive side of gaming, a side that I understand fairly well but am not terribly familiar with, many of the concepts and points stated can be said of non-competitive games or of competitive games played non-competitively. He makes some very interesting and excellent points, and also defines what it means to be a "scrub"... and I match the description.

     What is a "scrub"? A "scrub" can be defined many ways, but is more often than not considered a derogatory term for "someone who is not good at something". This includes all of us at one point or another; we're all newbies at something at first. It takes time for us to acquire the skills to play a game, some longer than others. But often the term is used for someone who plays a game for a while yet can't seem to improve their skill. I personally consider a scrub to be someone who plays games but doesn't use the knowledge gleaned from those experiences to help them with games of the same or similar genre (such as using my knowledge of the combat systems in the Souls games to make Dark Souls 2 easier when I first started playing), and therefore doesn't improve their skills as a gamer in general. I agree with Sirlin's definition on some points, such as a scrub claiming imbalance on a balanced game, crying "artificial difficulty" when a fair game gets tough, or shouting "cheater" when they lose to someone using a completely legitimate strategy because the "cheater" doesn't follow your own personal rules of etiquette.

Despite what most gamers think, "camping" is a completely legitimate strategy. Just ask any real soldier. (Source)

     But Sirlin also considers a scrub to be someone who doesn't play to win, but rather plays to have "fun". He states, "The scrubs will play “for fun” and not explore the extremities of the game. They won’t find the most effective tactics and abuse them mercilessly." For example: I absolutely love the Dark Souls games, but I don't spend my time looking for the best weapon and armor combinations, figuring out the best character class builds, or practicing my PVP strategies. I never even fully explored the first Dark Souls or played any of the DLC. By Sirlin's definition, I am a scrub.

     But there's one thing I have to ask: Is winning really everything? Sure there are many upstanding competitive gamers who have dignity in defeat, but many who "play to win" can't take a loss. I've seen videos and heard stories of so-called "professional gamers", and they don't seem like they're enjoying themselves when they lose. They slam or throw their controllers, scream expletives at the victor or the game, and whine like little babies. They are exactly the same as the so-called "scrubs" who whine about "imbalance" and "cheap shots" when they lose. Let's face it: there are many who are playing to win, but there can be only one winner.

     I propose that those who play a game for fun are actually having a better experience than those who play to win, for the simple reason that they are enjoying the game regardless of the outcome. Can those who play to win still have fun? Absolutely. Does playing to win make you superior to someone who plays a game for fun? Absolutely not. At the end of the day you're not a better person, just one that's better at games than I am. Does not playing to win truly make me a scrub? Depends on who you ask. If playing games for fun makes me a scrub, so be it, because if you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong.