I think what happens is there is a bit of a confused framing around D&D and Goals/Win Cons “because campaign.”
Having a Deck Goal and achieving a Win Con in a singular game of MtG doesn’t preclude a player from (a) having another Deck Goal/Win Con in a subsequent game, (b) having another Deck Goal/Win Con the next game of a tourney, (c) or in the game after that, or (d) in the rest of their playing career.
This privileged status of “the campaign” as unique to D&D and therefore play is exempt from examination at the goal/conflict level doesn’t hold up because there are easy analogues in other forms of play and because plenty (perhaps most) of D&D is played cognitively at the micro-goal/win con level (like an athlete who quips “one play/game at a time” rather than zooming out to the entire season and getting overwhelmed).
I’m going to escape this pursuit, defeat this enemy, rescue this NPC, sabotage this fortified artillery position, convert this nonbeliever, get positive gold/xp return out of this delve, woo this Baron/ess, consecrate this site to my Patron, escort this vulnerable NPC on the perilous journey, rally the town to rise up against its oppressor etc etc etc.
These are common features of D&D; the goals > the conflicts > the Win Cons.
I think the wrongly privileged status of the campaign plus the unique role of GM Force (which subordinates the concept of Win Cons because achieving your goal and winning the conflict is conceptually an obfuscated game of Calvinball; when does the GM say “you win/lose” rather than “I’ve earned victory/defeat”) in some games of D&D is what should be in the crosshairs for dissection in these conversations.