D&D 5E (2014) Game theory, D&D, and infinite games

[pemerton]

I wasn't sure what the "game theory" was that is being referred to in the OP. Some posts - eg referring to the prisoner's dilemma - have made me wonder whether we're meant to be thinking of game theory in that sense.

If so, before we even start talking about single-play vs iterated, and whether the number of iterations is known in advance or is open-ended, where are the pay-off tables? And what preferences are under analysis - just those that are defined by the logic of play (eg a preference to win combats my PC is part of), or all the preferences that a player brings to the table (eg maybe I have a reason to throw the chess game because that way my opponent will buy me lunch)?

Also: it's certainly possible to reason about payoffs in an open-ended series of iterated plays.

 

[Malmuria]

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.

Or maybe you want both, but those things are in tension. That is, you want a character that is "3d," with a rich interiority and ties to the world, but when you translate this character into the mechanics of the game, they end up ineffective or not "optimal" in some ways. Or, more prosaically, sometimes an option for your character might be more interesting but less than optimal; feats, especially the more niche ones, are an oft-cited example in 5e.

From what I can gather, there appears to be much debate about how to approach this, with some saying that a Paladin Warlock multiclass character, for example, should make sense within the narrative before being allowed, while others saying that it's not the DMs or anyone else's business how a Paladin Warlock character makes sense, because it's the right of the player to meet their goals of being optimal.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Those aren't win conditions for the game, though. They are win conditions for the PCs, with an addition of a reward for the players' next characters.

I disagree. If the win conditions are completed, then the players "win" the campaign. In that the game ends (the campaign is over) and the players are considered to have won.

The characters might "lose" but the players still win, assuming the conditions are met. For example, in the dragon rescue scenario, the party might die bravely while fighting against the evil princess, buying the dragon time to successfully escape her clutches. The characters don't really win that scenario. Yes, they achieved their goal but at the ultimate cost. Their victory, if it can be said to be such, is pyrrhic at best. The players, on the other hand, all get to high five and celebrate because they've won that campaign, despite their characters being dead.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree. If the win conditions are completed, then the players "win" the campaign. In that the game ends (the campaign is over) and the players are considered to have won.

The characters might "lose" but the players still win, assuming the conditions are met. For example, in the dragon rescue scenario, the party might die bravely while fighting against the evil princess, buying the dragon time to successfully escape her clutches. The characters don't really win that scenario. Yes, they achieved their goal but at the ultimate cost. Their victory, if it can be said to be such, is pyrrhic at best. The players, on the other hand, all get to high five and celebrate because they've won that campaign, despite their characters being dead.

These are the unconventional, "we all win if we have fun" type wins, though. In the first example, they still have those characters and can use them in further campaigns or adventures, because D&D really doesn't end, even if the campaign does. They may never do that, but it's a possibility. In the latter, they still all had fun and even though the PCs lost, they still all had fun and had that unconventional win.

 

[LordEntrails]

gone back to 20, and IMO this puts limits where none need to exist

Except the 5E DMG has rules for continuing past level 20.

 

[Argyle King]

One of the struggles I sometimes have when trying to ignore the "finite" mini-games in D&D is that some of those mini-games are somewhat clearly favored as being more correct ways to interact with (and "win") the game.

I believe this is due to the heavily-vertical nature of D&D advancement.

For example, there are a lot of feat choices, magic items, and etc which I find to be cool, flavorful, and interesting. However, the structure of the game tends to punish my character's ability if I choose those options over the +N options too many times.

In some ways, 5E is better at that than 3.5. Characters aren't magic-item Xmas trees like they were before, but D&D still tends toward rewarding a more-vertical approach to character building.

 

[Fanaelialae]

These are the unconventional, "we all win if we have fun" type wins, though. In the first example, they still have those characters and can use them in further campaigns or adventures, because D&D really doesn't end, even if the campaign does. They may never do that, but it's a possibility. In the latter, they still all had fun and even though the PCs lost, they still all had fun and had that unconventional win.

That's not what I was referring to. The DM sets a win condition for the players. Rescue the dragon.

If the PCs rescue the dragon, the players achieve the goal and the players win.

If the PCs fail to rescue the dragon, the players have failed to achieve the goal, and the players lose.

It is irrespective of whether they "win because they had fun". They could successfully rescue the dragon but have a miserable time of it. Or fail to achieve the win condition but have a great time of it.

It's also irrespective of whether the characters win. The players can achieve the goal but the characters all die. Presumably, most if not all of the characters would not consider their own death a win condition. Their goal was more than likely to achieve the goal AND live to tell about it. Which distinguishes it from the players' win condition.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not what I was referring to. The DM sets a win condition for the players. Rescue the dragon.

Okay, but that's not typical RPG play. I've never had a DM in any RPG tell me that he's setting win conditions on the game. But okay, if the DM wants to invent win conditions, he can.

 

[Malmuria]

D&D is not a game. It's games.

Bloody adventures of sword and sorcery with a surrealist aesthetic and an OSR sensibility.

wizardthieffighter.blogspot.com

 

[Lanefan]

That's true of basically everything numerical on a character sheet? Your character probably can't walk up to an npc and say, "I have a 13 wisdom, what's yours?" or anything to that effect.

Anyway, I don't mind giving out of character XP rewards if I think they are useful. For example, for writing the recap in a shared google doc.

You do you.

Do you create narration for level ups? Does the character know they've gotten better in some way, or do they even train during downtime as a way of narrating leveling up?

In order: often yes, usually yes and almost-without-exception yes.