overgeeked
B/X Known World
In game theory there are two types of games: finite games and infinite games. Finite games are bound by specific rules about how players win and lose, how many players there are in the game, time limits, etc, and the goal is definite: to win. Infinite games, on the other hand, are not bound by specific rules about how players win and lose, there are no time limits, no limits on how many players, etc, and the goal is indefinite: to continue playing.
One example is the difference between a formal debate (finite game) and a conversation (infinite game). One interesting point is you can have finite games nested within an infinite game. So, for example, within a conversation you can have a mini informal debate, but once that's over, you can shift back to the conversation. This is also why having an unmoderated debate is such a waste of time. There's no external score keeper or timer, so informal debates can simply keep going ad nauseum. Another interesting point is that when you have a mismatch of expectations, one person thinks they're playing a finite game when they're really in an infinite game, the finite players will inevitably get frustrated by the actions of the infinite players...or two players focusing on different finite games nested within an infinite game butt heads. This stems from the fact that the finite player is trying to win, whereas the infinite player is trying to continue the game...or two players have defined mutually exclusive personal win conditions. You see this all the time in conversations. One person is trying to have a conversation while another is trying to have a debate. As posters on internet forums, I think we can all relate.
How this relates to D&D should be fairly obvious. But if not, here goes. The language used in most editions of D&D is quite explicit, but as it's the most recent and most popular edition, I'll quote 5E:
So, without using game theory terms, D&D defines itself as an infinite game, not a finite game. Some people object to that statement, pointing out that there are win conditions in D&D. But, the crux of their argument relies on conflating the player with the character. There are indeed win conditions for the characters within the game but there are no win conditions for the players at the table. The player doesn't win but the character can. The player doesn't level up but the character can. The player doesn't gain XP but the character can. The player doesn't gain treasure but the character can. The player is meant to simply enjoys the game. Now, a fair few players choose to impose win conditions on the game themselves, but again, this is by conflating the player with the character. "I win as a player at the table when my character wins within the game." Which is a perfectly valid approach, but that is an explicitly self-imposed choice, not a function of the game itself. The game itself defines exactly one condition under which the players at the table win: "if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win." The character succeeds or fails, lives or dies based on the player's decisions and the dice, but the player can just keep on playing the game. The goal of D&D is the players asking the DM: "When can we play next?" The goal of D&D is to continue playing. Exactly like any other infinite game.
There are clearly finite games nested within the infinite game of D&D, such as combat, exploration, interaction, character creation, missions, quests, modules, adventure paths, etc. But those are not the whole game. They are mini games. Finite games nested within the infinite game. You the player create your character. Your character can win a combat. Your character can complete a quest. Your character can explore a dungeon. Your character can charm the duke. You the player have input, of course, because you're controlling your character in the game. But to think of the infinite game of D&D as a finite game creates a mismatch of expectations. Which leads to a lot of problems within the community. When some people focus exclusively on the finite mini games within the infinite game, it's frustrating to almost everyone involved. There’s nothing wrong, per se, with focusing on one of the mini games in D&D, but focusing on one or two mini games to the exclusion of the others and the infinite game as a whole misses the forest for the trees.
The mismatch of expectations becomes a problem because it leads to arguments and recriminations and endless threads debating the particulars or this or that stye of play, i.e. focusing on one of the finite games nested within the infinite game. We see it all the time when a power gamer (focused on "winning" the character creation mini game) and a deep-immersion roleplayer (focused on "winning" the immersion mini game) try to talk about character. Or a deeply tactical players (focused on "winning" the combat mini game) butts heads with a storygamer (focused on "winning" the mini game of emulating a story). None of these styles are right, or wrong, but knowing which mini games you like (and which you don't) are a great way to focus your play and find a group that will work well together. A beer & pretzels combat-focused game is just as valid as a deep-immersion game which is just as valid a hexcrawl.
And while it's clear that there are some incredibly good and quite targeted (limited scope) RPGs that would count as finite games, with explicit win and loss conditions for the players, it's also just as clear that most RPGs are not like those few. Most RPGs have a wider scope and can, at least in theory, cover any kind of story. They also don't have win conditions spelled out for the players. The characters in most RPGs can win or lose certain tasks, goals, missions, quests, modules, etc...but there are simply no rules about how a player wins or loses D&D. Quite the opposite. D&D and several other RPGs explicitly state there are no win conditions for the players...because D&D is an infinite game.
So...with all that said...how about we try something completely different for a change?
Why don't we try to have a conversation about all of this instead of a debate?
One example is the difference between a formal debate (finite game) and a conversation (infinite game). One interesting point is you can have finite games nested within an infinite game. So, for example, within a conversation you can have a mini informal debate, but once that's over, you can shift back to the conversation. This is also why having an unmoderated debate is such a waste of time. There's no external score keeper or timer, so informal debates can simply keep going ad nauseum. Another interesting point is that when you have a mismatch of expectations, one person thinks they're playing a finite game when they're really in an infinite game, the finite players will inevitably get frustrated by the actions of the infinite players...or two players focusing on different finite games nested within an infinite game butt heads. This stems from the fact that the finite player is trying to win, whereas the infinite player is trying to continue the game...or two players have defined mutually exclusive personal win conditions. You see this all the time in conversations. One person is trying to have a conversation while another is trying to have a debate. As posters on internet forums, I think we can all relate.
How this relates to D&D should be fairly obvious. But if not, here goes. The language used in most editions of D&D is quite explicit, but as it's the most recent and most popular edition, I'll quote 5E:
So, without using game theory terms, D&D defines itself as an infinite game, not a finite game. Some people object to that statement, pointing out that there are win conditions in D&D. But, the crux of their argument relies on conflating the player with the character. There are indeed win conditions for the characters within the game but there are no win conditions for the players at the table. The player doesn't win but the character can. The player doesn't level up but the character can. The player doesn't gain XP but the character can. The player doesn't gain treasure but the character can. The player is meant to simply enjoys the game. Now, a fair few players choose to impose win conditions on the game themselves, but again, this is by conflating the player with the character. "I win as a player at the table when my character wins within the game." Which is a perfectly valid approach, but that is an explicitly self-imposed choice, not a function of the game itself. The game itself defines exactly one condition under which the players at the table win: "if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win." The character succeeds or fails, lives or dies based on the player's decisions and the dice, but the player can just keep on playing the game. The goal of D&D is the players asking the DM: "When can we play next?" The goal of D&D is to continue playing. Exactly like any other infinite game.
There are clearly finite games nested within the infinite game of D&D, such as combat, exploration, interaction, character creation, missions, quests, modules, adventure paths, etc. But those are not the whole game. They are mini games. Finite games nested within the infinite game. You the player create your character. Your character can win a combat. Your character can complete a quest. Your character can explore a dungeon. Your character can charm the duke. You the player have input, of course, because you're controlling your character in the game. But to think of the infinite game of D&D as a finite game creates a mismatch of expectations. Which leads to a lot of problems within the community. When some people focus exclusively on the finite mini games within the infinite game, it's frustrating to almost everyone involved. There’s nothing wrong, per se, with focusing on one of the mini games in D&D, but focusing on one or two mini games to the exclusion of the others and the infinite game as a whole misses the forest for the trees.
The mismatch of expectations becomes a problem because it leads to arguments and recriminations and endless threads debating the particulars or this or that stye of play, i.e. focusing on one of the finite games nested within the infinite game. We see it all the time when a power gamer (focused on "winning" the character creation mini game) and a deep-immersion roleplayer (focused on "winning" the immersion mini game) try to talk about character. Or a deeply tactical players (focused on "winning" the combat mini game) butts heads with a storygamer (focused on "winning" the mini game of emulating a story). None of these styles are right, or wrong, but knowing which mini games you like (and which you don't) are a great way to focus your play and find a group that will work well together. A beer & pretzels combat-focused game is just as valid as a deep-immersion game which is just as valid a hexcrawl.
And while it's clear that there are some incredibly good and quite targeted (limited scope) RPGs that would count as finite games, with explicit win and loss conditions for the players, it's also just as clear that most RPGs are not like those few. Most RPGs have a wider scope and can, at least in theory, cover any kind of story. They also don't have win conditions spelled out for the players. The characters in most RPGs can win or lose certain tasks, goals, missions, quests, modules, etc...but there are simply no rules about how a player wins or loses D&D. Quite the opposite. D&D and several other RPGs explicitly state there are no win conditions for the players...because D&D is an infinite game.
So...with all that said...how about we try something completely different for a change?
Why don't we try to have a conversation about all of this instead of a debate?
