Winning and losing in RPGs...

[Brendan Byrd]

No worries, that wasn't intended to say you should have seen it, much more in the way of apologizing for repeating myself. Sorry if it came across badly.

All good here.
I wanted to clarify that I was not ignoring your contribution to the discussion; I was oblivious.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Despite not getting the whole win or lose mentality, this is something I do get.

Modern players invest a lot of time and energy into their characters. Writing backstories, forming future plans, writing out their character "build" to max level, etc. And in a lot of games the actual act of character creation takes a long time. So it makes perfect sense for players to...for lack of a better word...mourn that loss.

This is also why I vastly prefer games with quicker character creation (random is best) and styles of play that don't involve incredibly intricate character backstories and all the rest. Your PC got squished? Oh, well. Roll up a new one in 5 minutes and either they were already a part of your retinue or they'll be introduced in the next room.

It's a matter of degree. Being sad about losing a character is one thing. Being so worried about it that you feel it can't happen in the game unless you're ok with it, or complaining whenever your character gets hurt or doesn't achieve their goals, is quite another. I've had plenty of my PCs die, and honestly I keep it at the table and move on soon enough. I try to look at it from their point of view, but I guess I just don't reach that degree of emotional investment in my PCs.

 

[MGibster]

Well, note that in many multi-player games, several players can lose before the game ends. You can go bankrupt in Monopoly, and the game goes on without you.

Monopoly is a lot like thermonuclear war in that the only way to win is not to play at all.

 

[overgeeked]

I think the idea that the players can decide what their goals are is one of the primary attributes of good TRPG play. Upthread @Pedantic called it something like "the players setting their own victory conditions," and I think there's a strong implication that if there are "victory conditions" there are "loss conditions." Otherwise "victory" would be meaningless, wouldn't it?

I mostly run open-world sandboxes. Play lives and dies with player and PC goals. But at no point have my players told me they lost the game because their PC failed to achieve some goal. It's the connection between those two that seems to be the main crux of the thread now.

It might not be the end of the game (or of the campaign) but the PCs damn well can permanently (fail to) achieve some goal or other, which will be the end of that scenario (or situation); that is over. Some people might call that feeling "winning" or "losing" and not mean the end. Words and meanings are flexible, squirmy things, aren't they? Almost like feelings, that way.

To a point, yes. But context is also important. In the context of games winning and losing mean very particular and precise things. That's not how they're being used in this context however, which causes confusion.

You asked what people meant by "winning and losing in TRPGs" and people told you and you at least seem to be telling them it's just their feelings and they're adding that to the game and they're wrong; that doesn't seem like what you want to mean, here.

The RPGs we're talking about do not provide win conditions to aim for or loss conditions to avoid like most games do. So when people talk about winning or losing RPGs it doesn't make sense. What people seem to mean by that doesn't match the typical usage of those words in the context of games. So I asked.

The dominant answer seems to be when people say they can "win" an RPG what they mean is they can achieve a self-imposed goal for themselves or their character. And "loss" means to fail to do the same. Cool. But it should be acknowledged that those goals are self-imposed, not inherent to the game.

I wouldn't say that adding those goals is wrong. Of course not. As I said, I mostly run open-world sandboxes. That style lives and dies on player-defined goals. At least how I do it. But in the decades of running such games, I've never encountered someone who said they "won" or "lost" the game if they achieved or failed to achieve their stated goals.

I would say calling that "winning" or "losing" is at the very least confusing as hell. If it takes a few thousand words to clear away all the standard uses of a word to get to what you really mean, that's a fairly clear sign there's a better word to use.

 

[CleverNickName]

That's not me either, but I really don't get it. It just doesn't compute. It's like hearing people talk about winning or losing catch. Winning or losing a story. The concept just doesn't apply. Like at all.

I think that for some players, each mission objective is "the game," and all of the story and background and world-building and behind-the-scenes stuff is just the setup. I have had players who honestly believe in their heart that a "game of D&D" doesn't start until they step into a dungeon. All of the walking around town, buying gear, talking to NPCs, and getting the adventure is just "setting up the board," so to speak...when you're ready to begin playing, the DM will put you in the dungeon.

And from that point of view, it is possible to "win" (succeed) or "lose" (fail) a "game" (mission objective) of D&D. I don't parse the game like that, but I know folks who do.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think that for some players, each mission objective is "the game," and all of the story and background and world-building and behind-the-scenes stuff is just the setup. I have had players who honestly believe in their heart that a "game of D&D" doesn't start until they step into a dungeon. All of the walking around town, buying gear, talking to NPCs, and getting the adventure is just "setting up the board," so to speak...when you're ready to begin playing, the DM will put you in the dungeon.

Yeah, count me in that group. Honestly I can't stand all the "setting up the board" stuff...

And from that point of view, it is possible to "win" (succeed) or "lose" (fail) a "game" (mission objective) of D&D. I don't parse the game like that, but I know folks who do.

...but I don't at all define success or failure in terms of the mission. If I don't regret having spent my evening playing the game, it was successful.

 

[prabe]

I think that for some players, each mission objective is "the game," and all of the story and background and world-building and behind-the-scenes stuff is just the setup. I have had players who honestly believe in their heart that a "game of D&D" doesn't start until they step into a dungeon. All of the walking around town, buying gear, talking to NPCs, and getting the adventure is just "setting up the board," so to speak...when you're ready to begin playing, the DM will put you in the dungeon.

And from that point of view, it is possible to "win" (succeed) or "lose" (fail) a "game" (mission objective) of D&D. I don't parse the game like that, but I know folks who do.

Of course, narrative and game aren't mutually exclusive. The PCs' goals may well be narrative in origin and/or nature, they might in fact be derived from the story and background and world-building. The players might well use--probably have reason to expect to use--the rules of the game to make decisions about how they want to go about accomplishing those goals. There is a vast excluded middle, here, as there almost always is when people start deploying dichotomies.

 

[prabe]

I mostly run open-world sandboxes. Play lives and dies with player and PC goals. But at no point have my players told me they lost the game because their PC failed to achieve some goal. It's the connection between those two that seems to be the main crux of the thread now.

I run open-ended games, myself, though I don't self-describe them as "sandboxes," and the players explicitly set goals, and at least some of them explicitly talk about "winning" and "losing," and some of the TRPGers I know definitely play not to lose (I've seen this called "turtling").

To a point, yes. But context is also important. In the context of games winning and losing mean very particular and precise things. That's not how they're being used in this context however, which causes confusion.

In the context of a game where you get to set your own goals (sometimes otherwise known as "win conditions") "winning" and "losing" seem to mean very clear, precise, and clear things. The fact you won't understand this does not make it untrue.

The RPGs we're talking about do not provide win conditions to aim for or loss conditions to avoid like most games do.

You are correct. The games allow the players to determine their own win/loss conditions, which they then aim for/avoid.

So when people talk about winning or losing RPGs it doesn't make sense. What people seem to mean by that doesn't match the typical usage of those words in the context of games. So I asked.

And people have answered. At length. And you've seemed to refuse to understand.

The dominant answer seems to be when people say they can "win" an RPG what they mean is they can achieve a self-imposed goal for themselves or their character. And "loss" means to fail to do the same. Cool. But it should be acknowledged that those goals are self-imposed, not inherent to the game.

The players being able to set their own goals is an attribute of good TRPG play. Perceiving success or failure on that as winning or losing is a POV thing, same as seeing the mixed results in "partial failure" in spite of the game telling you it's a "partial success."

I would say calling that "winning" or "losing" is at the very least confusing as hell. If it takes a few thousand words to clear away all the standard uses of a word to get to what you really mean, that's a fairly clear sign there's a better word to use.

"Confusing" here seems very much in the eye of the beholder. I think I've taken this about far as I care to. Good luck.

 

[Pedantic]

Of course, narrative and game aren't mutually exclusive. The PCs' goals may well be narrative in origin and/or nature, they might in fact be derived from the story and background and world-building. The players might well use--probably have reason to expect to use--the rules of the game to make decisions about how they want to go about accomplishing those goals. There is a vast excluded middle, here, as there almost always is when people start deploying dichotomies.

I generally think that role-playing is specifically the domain of goal-setting, and that it's symbiotic with the "game" stuff to make the complete TTRPG. You could source goals from something else in an unbounded system, like an open ended city building game, for example, but that wouldn't be role-playing in the same way.

The thing that makes this experience unique is that we get our goals from fictional events and people by pretending to be characters and elevating their concerns. Then we play a game about those concerns.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really see the connection between winning and feelings/enjoyment.

When I play card or board games, I often lose. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy myself. In Australia, at least, we describe someone who can't enjoy a game unless they win as a "poor loser".

Whether a game can be won or lost depends on how it is structured. Eg playing kick-to-kick with some friends doesn't have win conditions. But playing a friendly game of "touch" with the same group of friends does.

Some RPGing is structured to have win conditions: the examples I'm thinking of are about beating the module or solving the mystery. An instance of the first: if you sit down to play White Plume Mountain, or Tomb of Horrors, and you don't get the treasure, you've lost. (That's not to say that you can't replay, even perhaps with the same characters. Replays are a common thing in games.)

Another example: a few years ago I ran a freeform murder mystery for one of my kids on her birthday during a lockdown. (We had a lot of lockdowns in my city.) I adapted an old Traveller scenario: 3 family members played 3 characters, one of them also controlled her character's husband as a (largely cipher) NPC, and I played the 3 or so important NPCs. The players got all the clues, but didn't workout whodunnit. After we finished, I told them. They agreed that the clues were fair. I think that counts as losing, even if they had a good time doing it.