D&D 5E Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

[overgeeked]

In zero-sum games there are winners and losers. For there to be a winner, someone else has to lose. Not all games are zero-sum. Some games are cooperative. Everyone wins or everyone loses based on completing or not completing some shared objective.

But, the important distinction here is: those objectives — scoring points, winning, etc — are for the players to accomplish. And, as such, the rules clearly delineate how points are scored, what the time limits are, how many players on each team, how many teams in play, etc.

There are no such rules for infinite games. To use a non-RPG example, it's the difference between a debate (finite game) and a conversation (infinite game). The purpose of the debate is to win; the purpose of the conversation is to keep it going and/or simply enjoy the conversation.

So, while yes, there are clear goals you can choose for your character or that the DM will put in front of your character within the game of D&D, there are no rules for players scoring points, winning the game, or any of the rest of things you find in finite games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In zero-sum games there are winners and losers. For there to be a winner, someone else has to lose. Not all games are zero-sum. Some games are cooperative. Everyone wins or everyone loses based on completing or not completing some shared objective.

But, the important distinction here is: those objectives — scoring points, winning, etc — are for the players to accomplish. And, as such, the rules clearly delineate how points are scored, what the time limits are, how many players on each team, how many teams in play, etc.

There are no such rules for infinite games. To use a non-RPG example, it's the difference between a debate (finite game) and a conversation (infinite game). The purpose of the debate is to win; the purpose of the conversation is to keep it going and/or simply enjoy the conversation.

So, while yes, there are clear goals you can choose for your character or that the DM will put in front of your character within the game of D&D, there are no rules for players scoring points, winning the game, or any of the rest of things you find in finite games.

This is confused in that you're insisting that for a "win" to occur, it must be defined explicitly within the rules of the game and also explicitly scored. This couldn't be further from the truth. There are any number of games that I've played where I have an objective outside the rules of the game that defines winning for me. A great example is my old Battletech crew, where I had a win condition of "Chuck's mechs don't leave the board." Chuck is a real person, and that's his real name, btw -- this is a straight up example. I could absolutely lose whatever objective of a given game might be, but if none of Chuck's mechs survived, that was a win for me, straight up, unscored, did my job well. Even if Chuck was on my side. (For the record, we're good friends, and this wasn't ever a point of contention between us -- you'd have to know us together to understand.)

So, in a Battletech game that included Chuck, I had a clear, unambiguous Win Condition that was entirely undefined by the game, yet was prosecuted from within the ambit of the game's rules. There was no score needed here -- I did it or I did not. So, here's a clear example that shows your argument to be false. I could present numerous others, but it's not necessary.

Again, @overgeeked, I ask for the game theory you're references for infinite and finite games. My searching has only turned up one source, which isn't really about game theory, written by a theologian, and is more about how life is the only infinite game. There's interesting stuff there, but it's not related to your claims very well at all. What source are you using? I am very curious.

 

[Malmuria]

In zero-sum games there are winners and losers. For there to be a winner, someone else has to lose. Not all games are zero-sum. Some games are cooperative. Everyone wins or everyone loses based on completing or not completing some shared objective.

But, the important distinction here is: those objectives — scoring points, winning, etc — are for the players to accomplish. And, as such, the rules clearly delineate how points are scored, what the time limits are, how many players on each team, how many teams in play, etc.

There are no such rules for infinite games. To use a non-RPG example, it's the difference between a debate (finite game) and a conversation (infinite game). The purpose of the debate is to win; the purpose of the conversation is to keep it going and/or simply enjoy the conversation.

So, while yes, there are clear goals you can choose for your character or that the DM will put in front of your character within the game of D&D, there are no rules for players scoring points, winning the game, or any of the rest of things you find in finite games.

A term like "win condition" for me is most useful in describing games that once the conditions are met, the game is over. In basketball, you must a) have the higher score at b) the end of regulation. Then the game is over, one team wins, the other loses. You only keep playing if there is a tie, because (a) has not been met. Now maybe one player has a personal goal that they want to score at least 20 points, even if the team loses. They can describe that as a personal "win" if they want, but it doesn't by itself help settle the win conditions of the game.

IMO, the language of "wins" should be avoided in rpgs, especially with new players, because it generally connotes a zero-sum situation (and thus can produce adversarial play) and suggests that the game ends once the "win condition" is met.

Or to put it another way, via a made up example: I might decide that my character is looking for his long lost sibling. I would describe that sort of thing as a hook: a potential plot hook for the gm, and something to anchor my character in the world and give them a reason to get messed up with the other characters. Since you are collaborating with the gm and other players on a story, it's good to throw these things out there and be open to some of them getting taken up, and others being left aside. What are the stakes of calling this sort of thing a "win condition"? What does it add to our understanding of the game, or how it's played out?

 

[Ovinomancer]

A term like "win condition" for me is most useful in describing games that once the conditions are met, the game is over. In basketball, you must a) have the higher score at b) the end of regulation. Then the game is over, one team wins, the other loses. You only keep playing if there is a tie, because (a) has not been met. Now maybe one player has a personal goal that they want to score at least 20 points, even if the team loses. They can describe that as a personal "win" if they want, but it doesn't by itself help settle the win conditions of the game.

IMO, the language of "wins" should be avoided in rpgs, especially with new players, because it generally connotes a zero-sum situation (and thus can produce adversarial play) and suggests that the game ends once the "win condition" is met.

Or to put it another way, via a made up example: I might decide that my character is looking for his long lost sibling. I would describe that sort of thing as a hook: a potential plot hook for the gm, and something to anchor my character in the world and give them a reason to get messed up with the other characters. Since you are collaborating with the gm and other players on a story, it's good to throw these things out there and be open to some of them getting taken up, and others being left aside. What are the stakes of calling this sort of thing a "win condition"? What does it add to our understanding of the game, or how it's played out?

Here's a different take. Once you've hit the win condition, that challenge is over. In a sports game, a win condition might be, "tackle the guy with the ball." You do that, and the down is over. Then it might be, "make sure the opposing team cannot progress the ball 10 yards or more in 4 downs." Do this, and the possession is over. Then there's the "have more points than the opposing team when time expires." That ends the game. Then it might be, "have more winning games than other members of the conference when the season is complete." That gets you to the league finals. Then it might be, "do not lose during the league final tournament." That gets you to the Superbowl. Then we have the same win condition as a regular game, "have more points than the opposing team when time expires." That wins your the championship. Then things can go on.

Win conditions aren't limited to how you win a game overall. They are rather independent packets where when complete you can say you achieved an objective or not. Did we rescue the princess? Yup! Win condition met. That there can be multiple win conditions active at the same time or that they can rotate or that you can keep adding more doesn't alter that they exist.

tldr: your argument here is a semantic one attempting to dispel the win condition argument definitionally rather than address the intentional points the argument is making about the nature of play.

 

[prabe]

Win conditions aren't limited to how you win a game overall. They are rather independent packets where when complete you can say you achieved an objective or not. Did we rescue the princess? Yup! Win condition met. That there can be multiple win conditions active at the same time or that they can rotate or that you can keep adding more doesn't alter that they exist.

It seems there is a difference between succeeding and winning. You might succeed at something (tackling a runner in US football; hitting a home run in baseball; rescuing the dragon from the evil princess) but that's not the same thing as winning the game (though rescuing the dragon might come close). I think maybe the usage of "win condition" has been over-broadened in the direction of "goal." At least, as regards being useful in a discussion of whether a game can be won.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It seems there is a difference between succeeding and winning. You might succeed at something (tackling a runner in US football; hitting a home run in baseball; rescuing the dragon from the evil princess) but that's not the same thing as winning the game (though rescuing the dragon might come close). I think maybe the usage of "win condition" has been over-broadened in the direction of "goal." At least, as regards being useful in a discussion of whether a game can be won.

Again, this is a semantic argument that's trying to definitionally dismiss the argument without engaging with it. Call it whatever you want -- we can say "blueberries" instead of win conditions. Does it actually address the points being made, or will there now be a discussion about why it's blueberries and not kumquats?

Sorry, it's just that this irritates me when semantics are deployed instead of addressing the actual argument. One of my triggers.

 

[prabe]

Again, this is a semantic argument that's trying to definitionally dismiss the argument without engaging with it. Call it whatever you want -- we can say "blueberries" instead of win conditions. Does it actually address the points being made, or will there now be a discussion about why it's blueberries and not kumquats?

Sorry, it's just that this irritates me when semantics are deployed instead of addressing the actual argument. One of my triggers.

That's fair, but then you kinda have to deal with the fact there are different kinds of winning, which doesn't seem less like a semantic argument, and seems harder to sort out because you're using the same word. Not gonna push the argument, but ... maybe you see where I'm coming from?

 

[Malmuria]

Here's a different take. Once you've hit the win condition, that challenge is over. In a sports game, a win condition might be, "tackle the guy with the ball." You do that, and the down is over. Then it might be, "make sure the opposing team cannot progress the ball 10 yards or more in 4 downs." Do this, and the possession is over. Then there's the "have more points than the opposing team when time expires." That ends the game. Then it might be, "have more winning games than other members of the conference when the season is complete." That gets you to the league finals. Then it might be, "do not lose during the league final tournament." That gets you to the Superbowl. Then we have the same win condition as a regular game, "have more points than the opposing team when time expires." That wins your the championship. Then things can go on.

This is equally semantic, as you are redefining in-game strategy and tactics as "win conditions" to no meaningful effect aside from redefining them. Due to the overall win conditions of the game--have a higher score at the end of regulation--teams adopt strategies for scoring (offense) and preventing the other team from scoring (defense), each which breaks down into a series of tactics. In a more capacious definition of the term, "win" could be applied to any number of successful tactics ("the defensive tackle won his battle on that down"). But "win conditions" for the game suggests a more constrained definition. Put differently, you might say for any game, "the goal of this game is X, and the way you do that is Y and Z)"

tldr: your argument here is a semantic one attempting to dispel the win condition argument definitionally rather than address the intentional points the argument is making about the nature of play.

Honestly, this whole debate strikes me as semantic insofar as certain aspects of the game, especially character goals, are being defined as "win conditions." I almost feel trolled, lol. That's why I ask, what are the stakes of saying all those little goals characters have are "win conditions"? Why does it matter that we use that terminology? Because in my experience the stakes of conceiving of goals as win conditions are that it encourages adversarial play because of the zero-sum connotation (either between players or between player and gm) and creates play expectations that are too narrowly focused.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's fair, but then you kinda have to deal with the fact there are different kinds of winning, which doesn't seem less like a semantic argument, and seems harder to sort out because you're using the same word. Not gonna push the argument, but ... maybe you see where I'm coming from?

Sure, but the idea of "different kinds of winning" isn't very helpful in this analysis because it appears to be saying that the difference is a matter of scale. Wins that don't meet some arbitrary level of scale are classified as 'different' and discarded. I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm not seeing a qualitative difference that's being established that there are significant differences in kind here, just that some things are small wins and some big wins and that there's never a big enough win for the whole shebang at once. Again, this just seems like a scaling argument where the far end is infinite so no scale ever achieves an ending. I've addressed this upthread -- all games are finite, and the end of some games are predicated on small scale "wins" because that's just where they stop. Some on larger. A game that features playing through CoS, for instance, has a clear win condition. So, clearly, some RPG games can have clear and defined win conditions. It's only when the "infinite" scale is deployed, that arguments that "well, that game could continue" that we get to this scaling argument about wins and how they can't be defined or can't be all that important. It's deploying a hypothetical patch to the semantic argument. I don't buy it.

 

[Malmuria]

Sorry, it's just that this irritates me when semantics are deployed instead of addressing the actual argument. One of my triggers.

This particular "actual argument" seems to consist entirely in semantics. Two groups are playing Ravenloft, and both have the goal of defeating the vampire Strahd. One of these groups conceives of that goal as a win condition, and the other does not. So what?