Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Game theory, D&D, and infinite games
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8435450" data-attributes="member: 86653"><p>In game theory there are two types of games: finite games and infinite games. Finite games are bound by specific rules about how <em>players</em> win and lose, how many players there are in the game, time limits, etc, and the goal is definite: <em>to win</em>. Infinite games, on the other hand, are not bound by specific rules about how <em>players</em> win and lose, there are no time limits, no limits on how many players, etc, and the goal is indefinite: <em>to continue playing</em>. </p><p></p><p>One example is the difference between a formal debate (finite game) and a conversation (infinite game). One interesting point is you can have <em>finite games nested within an infinite game</em>. 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 <em>finite players</em> will inevitably get frustrated by the actions of the <em>infinite players</em>...or two players focusing on different finite games nested within an infinite game butt heads. This stems from the fact that <em>the finite player is trying to win</em>, whereas <em>the infinite player is trying to continue the game</em>...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. </p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>player</em> with the <em>character</em>. There are indeed win conditions for the <em>characters within the game</em> but there are no win conditions for the <em>players at the table</em>. The <em>player</em> doesn't win but the <em>character</em> can. The <em>player</em> doesn't level up but the <em>character</em> can. The <em>player</em> doesn't gain XP but the <em>character</em> can. The <em>player</em> doesn't gain treasure but the <em>character</em> can. The <em>player</em> 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 <em>player</em> with the <em>character</em>. "I win as a <em>player at the table</em> when my <em>character wins within the game</em>." Which is a perfectly valid approach, but that is an explicitly <em>self-imposed choice</em>, <em>not a function of the game itself</em>. 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 <em>character</em> succeeds or fails, lives or dies based on the <em>player's</em> decisions and the dice, but the <em>player</em> 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 <em>to continue playing</em>. Exactly like any other infinite game. </p><p></p><p>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. <em>Finite games nested within the infinite game</em>. 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 <em>within</em> 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 <em>focusing on one or two mini games to the exclusion of the others and the infinite game as a whole</em> misses the forest for the trees. </p><p></p><p>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. <em>focusing on one of the finite games nested within the infinite game</em>. 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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>for the players</em>, 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 <em>for the players</em>. 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 <em>player</em> wins or loses D&D. Quite the opposite. D&D and several other RPGs explicitly state there are no win conditions <em>for the players</em>...because D&D is an infinite game. </p><p></p><p>So...with all that said...how about we try something completely different for a change? </p><p></p><p>Why don't we try to have a conversation about all of this instead of a debate?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="overgeeked, post: 8435450, member: 86653"] In game theory there are two types of games: finite games and infinite games. Finite games are bound by specific rules about how [I]players[/I] win and lose, how many players there are in the game, time limits, etc, and the goal is definite: [I]to win[/I]. Infinite games, on the other hand, are not bound by specific rules about how [I]players[/I] win and lose, there are no time limits, no limits on how many players, etc, and the goal is indefinite: [I]to continue playing[/I]. One example is the difference between a formal debate (finite game) and a conversation (infinite game). One interesting point is you can have [I]finite games nested within an infinite game[/I]. 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 [I]finite players[/I] will inevitably get frustrated by the actions of the [I]infinite players[/I]...or two players focusing on different finite games nested within an infinite game butt heads. This stems from the fact that [I]the finite player is trying to win[/I], whereas [I]the infinite player is trying to continue the game[/I]...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 [I]player[/I] with the [I]character[/I]. There are indeed win conditions for the [I]characters within the game[/I] but there are no win conditions for the [I]players at the table[/I]. The [I]player[/I] doesn't win but the [I]character[/I] can. The [I]player[/I] doesn't level up but the [I]character[/I] can. The [I]player[/I] doesn't gain XP but the [I]character[/I] can. The [I]player[/I] doesn't gain treasure but the [I]character[/I] can. The [I]player[/I] 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 [I]player[/I] with the [I]character[/I]. "I win as a [I]player at the table[/I] when my [I]character wins within the game[/I]." Which is a perfectly valid approach, but that is an explicitly [I]self-imposed choice[/I], [I]not a function of the game itself[/I]. 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 [I]character[/I] succeeds or fails, lives or dies based on the [I]player's[/I] decisions and the dice, but the [I]player[/I] 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 [I]to continue playing[/I]. 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. [I]Finite games nested within the infinite game[/I]. 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 [I]within[/I] 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 [I]focusing on one or two mini games to the exclusion of the others and the infinite game as a whole[/I] 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. [I]focusing on one of the finite games nested within the infinite game[/I]. 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 [I]for the players[/I], 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 [I]for the players[/I]. 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 [I]player[/I] wins or loses D&D. Quite the opposite. D&D and several other RPGs explicitly state there are no win conditions [I]for the players[/I]...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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Game theory, D&D, and infinite games
Top