overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
This idea keeps popping up and has for awhile now. Not sure how far back it goes as I don't remember Jon Peterson covering it in either Playing At the World or The Elusive Shift. I've never understood the idea that you can win or lose while playing RPGs. People claim that since it's a game, you can win or lose. But RPGs simply are not that kind of game. This has been called out in RPGs themselves for decades. One standout example is the foreword to Moldvay Basic with, "The D&D game has neither losers nor winners, it has only gamers who relish exercising their imagination." You'd think decades of lines like that would be enough, but no, the idea persists. So here we are...
It's important to distinguish between the players and their characters. The characters can quite obviously "win" or "lose" by completing or failing to complete objectives within the game. Conversely, the players can't "win" or "lose" in that same sense. While the player makes the decisions for the character, most of what happens in the game itself is down to the roll of the dice. You the player can make better or worse choices for your character, but making good choices isn't "winning" any more than making bad choices is "losing." In old-school games this line blurs somewhat with the reliance on player skill in resolving certain in-game actions. But a character's failure to complete a task within the game doesn't equate to the player "losing" the game as a whole. You the player don't lose D&D if your character misses one attack, for example.
The closest I can see to the players "winning" or "losing" in RPGs is you "win" by continuing to play and you "lose" by no longer playing. If you tilt your head just so and squint, that could be read to mean you as a player "lose" if your character dies and thus you are no longer playing.
But...you as a player can simply make a new character and keep playing the game. So "losing" here is temporary at absolute worst. This "loss" can be minimized in several ways. Having a backup character ready to go if character creation takes a fair amount of time, playing games with quick or random character creation, taking over a statted up NPC, and the referee bringing your new character into the game quickly. Generally speaking, RPGs aren't rogue-likes so you don't lose everything and have to start from zero with a new random map if your character dies. Your new character will generally be close to or the same power level as the rest of the party and will have equipment roughly on par with the rest of the group. At absolute worst you don't get to play the game for a little while. Depending on the game, referee, and circumstances that's going to be anywhere from a few minutes to a few sessions if the referee insists on waiting for a story-relevant moment to bring your new PC in. I'd suggest the latter is a referee problem more than anything.
Kicking that up a bit, what about TPKs? Surely that's "losing" an RPG? Nope. The dreaded TPK is only a "loss" if the players and referee want it to be one. All it takes is a little bit of that imagination that's the cornerstone of the hobby to come up with ways to continue a campaign after a TPK. Here's a whole thread on that.
So, for the people who think you as a player can "lose" RPGs...please explain how that works.
It's important to distinguish between the players and their characters. The characters can quite obviously "win" or "lose" by completing or failing to complete objectives within the game. Conversely, the players can't "win" or "lose" in that same sense. While the player makes the decisions for the character, most of what happens in the game itself is down to the roll of the dice. You the player can make better or worse choices for your character, but making good choices isn't "winning" any more than making bad choices is "losing." In old-school games this line blurs somewhat with the reliance on player skill in resolving certain in-game actions. But a character's failure to complete a task within the game doesn't equate to the player "losing" the game as a whole. You the player don't lose D&D if your character misses one attack, for example.
The closest I can see to the players "winning" or "losing" in RPGs is you "win" by continuing to play and you "lose" by no longer playing. If you tilt your head just so and squint, that could be read to mean you as a player "lose" if your character dies and thus you are no longer playing.
But...you as a player can simply make a new character and keep playing the game. So "losing" here is temporary at absolute worst. This "loss" can be minimized in several ways. Having a backup character ready to go if character creation takes a fair amount of time, playing games with quick or random character creation, taking over a statted up NPC, and the referee bringing your new character into the game quickly. Generally speaking, RPGs aren't rogue-likes so you don't lose everything and have to start from zero with a new random map if your character dies. Your new character will generally be close to or the same power level as the rest of the party and will have equipment roughly on par with the rest of the group. At absolute worst you don't get to play the game for a little while. Depending on the game, referee, and circumstances that's going to be anywhere from a few minutes to a few sessions if the referee insists on waiting for a story-relevant moment to bring your new PC in. I'd suggest the latter is a referee problem more than anything.
Kicking that up a bit, what about TPKs? Surely that's "losing" an RPG? Nope. The dreaded TPK is only a "loss" if the players and referee want it to be one. All it takes is a little bit of that imagination that's the cornerstone of the hobby to come up with ways to continue a campaign after a TPK. Here's a whole thread on that.
So, for the people who think you as a player can "lose" RPGs...please explain how that works.
