Is D&D a Game

[Ahnehnois]

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.

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.

Several people have said that character death constitutes "losing" but I don't think that's true (this is where we start overlapping with the art thread).

There are many circumstances where characters might willingly sacrifice themselves for a cause. In fact, my campaigns seem to be making a habit of it. Beyond that, sometimes, a player may simply benefit from having a chance to play a new character. See the latest general thread on how to handle PC death for a good discussion on whether or not character death is an inherently negative outcome.

I also can't agree with the idea that the party necessarily succeeds or fails at the overarching plot. Not everyone has a quest in mind when they're DMing. Even if they do, PCs have a funny way of redefining key parameters of even the most well-constructed plots.

Whether or not surviving to retire is a win is also debatable. Some characters never want to retire. In some adventures, survival might not be a viable outcome, or a desirable one.

So I think D&D is a very freeform game. While you may set your own objectives and define failure and success, the game doesn't dictate or even strongly suggest those. D&D is not in the same category as poker, basketball, or beer pong. Then again, most of what I did on the playground as a kid was equally freeform and make-believe, so D&D is still within the wider definition of a game.

 

[Hussar]

Ahnehnois - note that I did say TPK. Also note, you mention that the players are "choosing" a specific kind of death and in doing so, are actually achieving their goal, and thus winning.

Granted, I suppose the entire group could choose to sacrifice themselves, but, again, since they did so to achieve a specific goal, then they are winning anyway.

OTOH, the party has a random encounter with some critter which proceeds to TPK the entire party, I'm going to call that a loss by most definitions.

That you can simply pick up where you left off with a different character does not remove the loss.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Also note, you mention that the players are "choosing" a specific kind of death and in doing so, are actually achieving their goal, and thus winning.

Granted, I suppose the entire group could choose to sacrifice themselves, but, again, since they did so to achieve a specific goal, then they are winning anyway.

So if I'm playing soccer and I really hate one of the other players and I kick him in the face, injure him and knock him out of the game, and get myself ejected in the process, have I just won? I achieved my goal didn't I?
(Note: I don't play soccer, nor do I advocate this kind of behavior. But it does happen).

There's a difference between achieving a goal (with our without sacrifice) and winning. Winning is specifically defined by the game, it's not a goal the players (or DM) set for themselves.

OTOH, the party has a random encounter with some critter which proceeds to TPK the entire party, I'm going to call that a loss by most definitions.

Normally, wins and losses are defined relative to each other. Someone has to win for someone to lose. In such a TPK, it's hard to argue that anyone won, since whatever game the DM was running is over and that's usually bad for him too. In a TPK everybody loses, which I don't think is a "loss" in the competitive sense of the word.

That you can simply pick up where you left off with a different character does not remove the loss.

Sometimes it does. I've seen circumstances where players just weren't happy with a character and didn't mind starting over at all. In my early DMing days, some players were irritatingly ambivalent about their characters' deaths.

Equating a PC death with the term "loss" is sort of like equating a favorite TV character getting killed with the actor getting fired. The death of a fictional character may or may not reflect negatively on the person who played that character, and it may or may not negatively affect that person.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You earn XP in D&D (which is kind of like scoring points) and most DMGs have laid clear goal posts for XP and leveling. So I think there is a win/lose element to the game.

Either way though, I just don't believe that games have to have a win/lose outcome to be games.

 

[jmucchiello]

because in the thread about D&D is/is not art, I explored the concept that some people said it couldn't be art because it is "just a game".

aside from the point that D&D status wasn't exclusive towards being only game or art, i hypothesized that under a certain viewpoint, D&D wasn't even a game.

Shouldn't you then be arguing that D&D is not a game using their definition of game, not your own definition?

Also, I fail to see why a game cannot also be art. They are not mutually exclusive unless your attitude toward art vs games is snobbish.

Plus, it seemed interesting to discuss the concept of game, as it relates to D&D.

If you say so. I'm inured to it from multiple similar conversations on boardgamegeek, I suppose.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Also, I fail to see why a game cannot also be art. They are not mutually exclusive unless your attitude toward art vs games is snobbish.

I don't get that either. But if you head over to the art thread, you'll see that some posters said that D&D was not art because it is a game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Count me in as another "Yes, D&D is a game...and he initial definition is too narrow" voter.

It would exclude chess, soccer, football and hockey, for instance, since in all cases, they are competitive, but can end in a tie.

It would exclude certain arcade games, since they are open ended and "unbeatable"- the competition is tomsee how far you can go relative to other players or your own standards.

 

[Janx]

Count me in as another "Yes, D&D is a game...and he initial definition is too narrow" voter.

It would exclude chess, soccer, football and hockey, for instance, since in all cases, they are competitive, but can end in a tie.

It would exclude certain arcade games, since they are open ended and "unbeatable"- the competition is tomsee how far you can go relative to other players or your own standards.

well, in the original definition i gave, I should have said "win, lose or draw". I think that's simple a technical mistake on my part for trying to define that which was intended to include chess, soccer, etc.

Ultimately, I was defining a "Competitive game" wherein the outcome for a player is win, lose or a draw. Which should cover (barring another mistake on my part) sports, board games, card games, and some video games.

games without winningg conditions in the rules did not seem to be games.

Which is where I think Hussar and Ahn. are discussing.

it reminds me of a tale of Risk I was told to prove some business point. 2 players conspired together to win, and when it came down to just them, they ended the game. They declared they had one. the other players declared it was a draw, because the rules didn't say they had to fight to the end.

In any case, its a situation where the game's winning conditions differ from the players' goals.

D&D is a game that doesn't specifically have winning conditions. But it is chock full of player determined goals.

 

[Hussar]

So if I'm playing soccer and I really hate one of the other players and I kick him in the face, injure him and knock him out of the game, and get myself ejected in the process, have I just won? I achieved my goal didn't I?
(Note: I don't play soccer, nor do I advocate this kind of behavior. But it does happen).

There's a difference between achieving a goal (with our without sacrifice) and winning. Winning is specifically defined by the game, it's not a goal the players (or DM) set for themselves.

This I disagree with. Many games, and RPG's are probably the best example of this, have player determined goals. Just because the goals of the players are not the same as the win/loss determination of the mechanics doesn't change anything.

Normally, wins and losses are defined relative to each other. Someone has to win for someone to lose. In such a TPK, it's hard to argue that anyone won, since whatever game the DM was running is over and that's usually bad for him too. In a TPK everybody loses, which I don't think is a "loss" in the competitive sense of the word.

Fair enough. But, that only applies if you presume a competitive and not cooperative game. If everyone loses, it's pretty clearly a loss.

Sometimes it does. I've seen circumstances where players just weren't happy with a character and didn't mind starting over at all. In my early DMing days, some players were irritatingly ambivalent about their characters' deaths.

Equating a PC death with the term "loss" is sort of like equating a favorite TV character getting killed with the actor getting fired. The death of a fictional character may or may not reflect negatively on the person who played that character, and it may or may not negatively affect that person.

Again, true. Character death might not always be a loss. We've already established that. However, since the player is achieving his or her goal, it's a win for that player. Being ejected from the soccer game is not a loss for that player if the player was deliberated choosing to get ejected from that game. The question is, did his ejection achieve the goals that he set out for himself.

In any case, its a situation where the game's winning conditions differ from the players' goals.

D&D is a game that doesn't specifically have winning conditions. But it is chock full of player determined goals.

Very true. However, I would argue that there is nothing inherent in a game which precludes the determination of player goals. So long as they achieve those goals, then they win. Failure to achieve those goals is a loss for that player.

 

[Janx]

Very true. However, I would argue that there is nothing inherent in a game which precludes the determination of player goals. So long as they achieve those goals, then they win. Failure to achieve those goals is a loss for that player.

Except that they don't win the Game. the Special Olympics may hand out a prize to every participant, but only the fastest kid who takes home the big trophy.

Generally, nobody will recognize you as a winner for succeeding in your goal to kick the goalee in the face. the only winners are the guys whose team actually won the game. Anything else is just metagaming or a the equivalent of a participation prize.

In a competitive game, the game sets the victory condition as a goal the players are expected to strive for. Players working to other goals are outside of the game's scope.

In a game like D&D, nobody cares to hear about your PCs exploits. Goals you set for your self have less weight with other people, than achieving goals set by a standard, namely the rules of the game.