D&D 5E Game theory, D&D, and infinite games

[Lanefan]

We should remember that what we think of as a "campaign" these days differs from how some thought of it back in the day. Today, a campaign is often pretty character-centric - it is the exploits of one particular group, plus or minus as some characters die, some players come and go, and such.

But, back in the day a campaign was, in essence, everything one GM ran, and it had a life of its own. Players were apt to have a troupe of several characters each they could call on to play. In this form, you could play that module, because you had lower level characters to play it with.

The second paragraph is how I still define "campaign" today.

 

[Lyxen]

The second paragraph is how I still define "campaign" today.

And the first one is how I’ve defined what a campaign is almost ever since I’ve started playing, although I’ve played the other way as well, in particular in clubs.

 

[MarkB]

WotC stats show that level limits are more often a theoretical limit than a practical one, as few campaigns actually hit that upper limit.

The division between player and character in the OP feels a little meaningless. In most games that aren't being played for money or other rewards, the player isn't getting anything tangible out of winning beyond satisfaction. So how is it different when the player, as a result of their good performance, wins tokens such as XP or level-ups that they can spend on improving their character? It's a prize the player earned through their success at the minigames, which will let them buy options to help them perform better in future minigames.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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?

Perhaps you addressed it and I missed it, but something I think you've overlooked is that the DM can easily impose win conditions for the campaign.

This might be established at the beginning of the campaign. "In this campaign, the dragon has been kidnapped by the evil princess. Your goal is to rescue the dragon. Once you complete the rescue, this campaign will conclude, and if you are successful your characters in the next campaign will all start with a magic item."

It could instead emerge organically from play. "You've made great strides in your attempt to overthrow the Garlean Empire. If you do so successfully, this campaign will conclude, and your characters in the next campaign can start one level higher."

Obviously, this isn't necessary to play the game, but in my experience it isn't all that uncommon. Typically, at least in my experience, the win condition emerges naturally from play and the players' goals, though the DM has a significant amount of influence in this. Most of the campaigns I've played in eventually established a win condition for the game, unless (for whatever reason) the campaign fizzled out before a condition could emerge from play. In at least a few campaigns we even had bonus win conditions assigned (such as defeating an extremely powerful enemy) that weren't required for a win, but would grant an extra starting bonus in the next campaign.

 

[Blue Orange]

I'm not sure how much game theory (ironically) applies to D&D at the party level, which is usually highly cooperative--the rules are designed so that no class is truly self-sufficient. Usually game theory (from what I've seen) is used to study the options and optimal strategies of actors in a situation that's at least potentially somewhat adversarial.

Game theory does make sense when evaluating, for example, whether monsters would wish to try to buy off the party or fight, or how the various factions in a large dungeon like Undermountain would interact. As such I think it would be a worthy topic of discussion.

 

[pemerton]

Gygax is crystal-clear in his PHB and DMG that XP are earned by the player as a reward for playing the game well. He also advises the GM not to manipulate the outcome of combats, because that would be contrary to the major precepts of the game. It's very clear that he has a conception of what it means to play well and be rewarded for that.

This is further reflected in the scorn he shows (eg in the intro to ToH) towards players who have PCs with levels/stats/magic-items that exceed what their skill as players should entitle them to.

Whether or not one wishes to call this "win conditions" in the strictest sense, he has a clear conception that there is a real-world, not just in-game, sense of what it is to play well and merit reward and respect as a player. And levels, treasure and magic-items are important parts of that conception.

 

[chaochou]

Mostly just tired of the silly attempts at point scoring and gotchas some people do.

People generally try to win debates, they don't try to win conversations.

This thread is a point-scoring exercise and an attempt to 'win' a debate.

Otherwise you could have continued in one of the others.

 

[Blue Orange]

Gygax is crystal-clear in his PHB and DMG that XP are earned by the player as a reward for playing the game well. He also advises the GM not to manipulate the outcome of combats, because that would be contrary to the major precepts of the game. It's very clear that he has a conception of what it means to play well and be rewarded for that.

This is further reflected in the scorn he shows (eg in the intro to ToH) towards players who have PCs with levels/stats/magic-items that exceed what their skill as players should entitle them to.

Whether or not one wishes to call this "win conditions" in the strictest sense, he has a clear conception that there is a real-world, not just in-game, sense of what it is to play well and merit reward and respect as a player. And levels, treasure and magic-items are important parts of that conception.

Indeed. I just wonder how much we have to be 'originalists' about Gygax's intention--IMHO you can play D&D any way you want. It's a game. In the early years there were tournaments with standardized dungeons and actual rankings, but it's not like chess where everyone has to play by the same rules.

 

[Umbran]

The second paragraph is how I still define "campaign" today.

Hooray for you?

 

[Lanefan]

WotC stats show that level limits are more often a theoretical limit than a practical one, as few campaigns actually hit that upper limit.

Agreed, but perception matters; and 3e-4e-5e carry a much greater perception of being closed-ended than did 0e-1e-2e.