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

[clearstream]

Winnable vs Unwinnable is not a good separation of terms either, since both imply that there are win conditions. I would probably use the terms "Closed" and "Open-ended". Closed would be games with explicitly defined end conditions (often synonymous with win conditions), while open-ended games have no predefined end conditions.

I prefer closed and open-ended also, but the matter is muddied by the possibility of an explicit metagame. D&D combats are typically closed, but they contribute toward a metagame (the campaign) that might be envisioned to be open-ended. It might be possible to relate that to the important difference in results between cases of one-off and repeated play, in game theory: players could be predicted to behave differently in a one-shot, than a campaign.

Closed and open-ended are labels applying to the rules system used by the game, but do not mandate particularly implementations. You can have a closed game that never ends, or an open-ended game that you add a win condition to. "Winning" D&D by beating the BBEG does not change the game rules, nor make it 'not' open-ended.

Likewise, the end conditions of a game are separate from player goals. You might assume that any given player may want to achieve the end/win condition for the game, but there is no requirement for that to be the case.

I prefer to think in terms of end-conditions, also. A game can have end-conditions that are not win conditions. It might be right to say that metagames do have win conditions, but don't have end conditions. For example, whoever has the highest Elo is currently winning the Chess metagame, but that does not end the metagame.

 

[clearstream]

Generally speaking 'Chess' and 'Monopoly' and 'Football' are used as descriptions of a multitude of similar games. In this sense, Chess, Monopoly, Football aren't games in the formal sense but types of games. In many instances such a description is informational enough for whoever we are communicating with, but someone really into football, might ask to further identify the particular game they are playing and may even profess opinions about that and other particular variations. Flag football, canadian football, american football, football with special teams, backyard football, etc. All of those are different games and yet all can still be described as 'Football'.

I think what we commonly label as a given game, such as D&D, is usually a cloud of closely similar games. As many as one per table and possibly one per session: one per player-cohort might be the best way to put it. Games need players, and those players must form intentions based on their grasp and upholding of the rules, so differences between players result in differences between games.

Formal variations are usually captured by adjustments to the game-as-artifact, and then themselves vary in use, of course. Generally speaking, this is one reason I think of games-as-artifacts as tools.

 

[Lanefan]

Still no idea? Even now? Invested enough to respond about not knowing who he is but not interested enough for a 10-second Google search to see why someone would bother citing him? Never heard of Ultraviolet Grasslands or Witchburner, I guess?

I've heard there's this whole RPG industry out there, somewhere beyond the Shire...

Given that my first point of contact with non-D&D RPGs is almost exclusively ye olde FLGS (I'm one of those who says if it ain't in hardcopy, I don't want it), it's hardly unexpected that I've not heard of loads of small and-or online-only publishers.

My other point of contact was GenCon, but I've not been since 2016.

 

[Lanefan]

In that instance you would have American Football and American Football v1.00001

Or you'd have Canadian (CFL) Football.

 

[FrogReaver]

Or you'd have Canadian (CFL) Football.

That's more like versions 1.3