Is D&D a Game

[fuzzlewump]

The definition in the OP is too exclusive, but D&D still fits it in my opinion:

Winning in D&D is beating the monsters, losing is dying to the monsters. Before the technical definitions of 'winning' and 'losing' start flying, players have an innate incentive to beat the monsters, and try to avoid dying to the monsters. This incentive is similar to the one of wanting to win at rock-paper-scissors or really any game, especially one without external reward. The ability to continue fighting monsters after winning or to make a new character after losing is the same thing as saying "Want to play again?" after the first round of Go Fish or rock-paper-scissors. You still won or lost, you just 'play again.'

On top of that base game of D&D, numbers vs. numbers decided by dice, of course is all the fluff, but still a game at its heart even by your definition.

 

[nedjer]

games model and test situations in preparation for coping with real situations. The relevance of imaginative games to real world situations lies in the social and emotional content of games and real world situations. i.e. applying and following rules isn't sufficient to learn to cope with the real world, as the real world involves situations which can't quickly be boiled down to a fixed rule set or formula?

 

[MoxieFu]

D&D is a ham sandwich.

There. I said it and I'm proud.

/absurdism

 

[Bedrockgames]

D&D is a ham sandwich.

There. I said it and I'm proud.

/absurdism

I believe that is self evident. A single bite of the phb confirms it.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I'd classify D&D as a "game" by the definiton in the OP, largely for the reason that Fuzzlewump says just upthread: in D&D there are losers and winners. And this is despite not actually accepting that definition, preferring to think of D&D in colloquial terms.

A character or party pitted against a challenge either succeeds or fails. If a campaign has an over arching plot, the party either succeeds or fails in accomplishing their goals with respect to that plot. As a success/fail kind of activity, D&D is clearly a game.

Perhaps some groups play in a mode that more or less ensures all PCs are always successful, their party always overcomes all challenges, and the group always beat the master villain. With such a playstyle, I suppose D&D stops being a "game" in the sense of the OP. But even for such groups, D&D is still a game by the broader colloquial definition of "game" as structured entertainment.

 

[S'mon]

Tag is definitely a game. If I avoid getting tagged for longer than my wife or 4 year old son manage, then I win.

 

[Hussar]

And, let's not forget, there are all sorts of cooperative board games out there as well. Pandemic is one example. Lots of the Euro boards games do away with the traditional competition model of many board games and I'd be hard pressed to say that they are not games.

As has been mentioned, it's pretty easy to lose in D&D - TPK, DM ends the campaign, player revolt and it's quite possible to win - your characters retire to their keeps.

Just because the game isn't competitive, doesn't make it not a game.

 

[pemerton]

Here's my simple definition:
Game is a competitive activity in which one side wins and one side loses or in which a player has 2 possible outcomes Win or Lose

<snip>

D&D has always had a forward that says "this ain't like normal games" and "there's no winners or losers".

But does everyone - or, even, anyone - take that foreword seriously?

Gygaxian D&D is about promoting, and rewarding, "skilled play" (see the discussion in the last few pages of Gygax's PHB, and scattered throught his DMG). Does anyone think that there's not competition here?

Here are some passages from Tunnels and Trolls (which I cribbed from here - I haven't got my book ready-to-hand):

Every time your character escapes from a tunnel alive, you may consider yourself a winner. The higher the level and the more wealth your character attains, the better you are doing in comparison to all the other players. . .

As long as a character remains alive - regardless of how many adventures he or she participates in - you are "winning." If ill fate befalls the character, or if you overextend yourself in playing your character's capabilities, the character dies and it is your loss. Of course, these games allow you to play any number of characters (sometimes referred to as a "stable of characters") and some will survive and advance, and everyone wins in the end.
​

I don't think that T&T was taking some radical new approach to dungeon delving here. I think this is how a lot of D&D was played. And how some D&D - especially in the OSR - still is played.

we as people interested in the true categorization do recognize what is and is NOT really a game, despite the word used.

Wittgenstein, in his Philosophical Investigations, uses the word "game" as the starting point for his attack on the notion of essence ("true categorization"). From para 66:

Consider for example the proceedings we call "games". . . What is common to them all? . . . For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. . . Are they all 'amusing'? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. . . Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared!​

Even if one puts to one side the competitive dimension of much D&D play, I think it is very obviously a game. (I don't think that that precludes it also being a means for the production of aesthetic value.)

 

[Jhaelen]

Here's my simple definition:
Game is a competitive activity in which one side wins and one side loses or in which a player has 2 possible outcomes Win or Lose, then Monopoly and just about every board, card, sports game is covered.

I disagree. That definition is lacking in several regards:
- it doesn't allow for a game to end in a draw, so e.g. Chess would not be a game according to your definition
- you actually only mention two 'sides', i.e. it doesn't cover games with more than two players unless players form two teams
- it doesn't cover cooperative games, e.g. Arkham Horror
- it doesn't cover solo games, e.g. almost all video games wouldn't be games

What about all of these games that aren't covered by your definition? What are they? How do you call them?

Occam's razor tells me you're wrong and of all of these examples are actually perfectly fine examples of games.

 

[Janx]

I disagree. That definition is lacking in several regards:
- it doesn't allow for a game to end in a draw, so e.g. Chess would not be a game according to your definition
- you actually only mention two 'sides', i.e. it doesn't cover games with more than two players unless players form two teams
- it doesn't cover cooperative games, e.g. Arkham Horror
- it doesn't cover solo games, e.g. almost all video games wouldn't be games

What about all of these games that aren't covered by your definition? What are they? How do you call them?

Occam's razor tells me you're wrong and of all of these examples are actually perfectly fine examples of games.

Unfortunately, you've committed a quoting error and snipped the statement that covers part of your argument.

"or in which a player has 2 possible outcomes Win or Lose"
I should have put Win, Lose or Draw to fully cover it. But that simple snip you did covers solo and cooperative games (i was thinking of Klondike and Shadows over Camelot when I wrote it).

The reason my full definition is wrong has been detailed upstream. Primarily, I defined Competitive games, whereas the dictionary is far less exclusive.