I think the closest is something like a published adventure, themed around a specific BBEG. Like ... if someone said they'd "beaten" Curse of Strahd, I'd at least understand what they meant. It's kinda like how finishing the CRPG's main story (and probably at least some side quests) is considered "beating" it.
When you play Monopoly everyone loses.
I think this speaks very strong to the point that winning and losing is based on enjoyment or lack of it.
Is it possible that's irrelevant to the question?
You can certainly lose the game, by having your characters killed. I agree you can't really win the game in the definitive way that you put it, like beating a computer game, with the exception of finishing a particular adventure or campaign. But you can certainly be in a state of winning- levelling up, succeeding at your goals, receiving treasure - that doesn't necessarily ever end.
) it seems to be a purely semantic debate.
So you choose that post of mine to respond to and not the ones refuting your arguments that conflate PC win/loss with game win/loss?
Not in D&D. The players can certainly choose to stop the game there, but if they don't and make new PCs, that game continues on. It hasn't been won or lost. The death of the PC(s) doesn't itself end the game, so it isn't a lose state.
Let's see .. the two most memorable campaigns I played in during the 3e era resulted in an absolute clear win in one and a clear loss in the second. In the first, we saved the world from a demon invasion, sealing the rift and banishing an evil god. Total win. Awesome game. The second, in a completely different way, we utterly failed to achieve a single goal we had and doomed the world to a demon invasion. Total loss. Awesome game. We were literally the incompetent minions of an evil overlord, didn't think we were, and proceeded to make things worse for everyone by releasing an even worse evil.
