Menu
Home
Post new thread
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
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
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
Find Us!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
EN Live
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
Biggest TTRPG Kickstarter Creators
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
Chat/Discord
Podcast
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
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE!
X Marks the Spot: Piratical Resources for your 5E game
Home
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="clearstream" data-source="post: 8436661" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>Suppose that I accept a contention that I am not playing a game if I am not playing with the goal of winning. On surface, that could imply that so-called infinite games are not actually games, because one is expected to play them without the goal of winning. If so, then it turns out that only players at the table who are trying to win, are really playing an RPG as a game.</p><p></p><p>The infinite games theorist might grasp the horn of the dilemma, and uphold that infinite games are games, but for some reason they get a pass on the goal of winning. I think that will make their arguments less compelling, as they have built their result into their definition, whereas so far as I can make out they might have hoped that their concept was going to explain or entail that result. Seeing as they have now defined that a game can be a game without being played with a goal of winning, they might also be expected to explain why finite games <em>must</em> have that goal?</p><p></p><p>Alternatively, they can say that a game can be a game <em>without</em> being played with a goal of winning. Perhaps then the best place to land will be to concede that I can play <em>Chess </em>as a game without a goal of winning, but that players ordinarily would not. They can say it is an expectation about so-called finite games that you try to win them. It is hard to see though, why I couldn't have the same expectation about infinite games. In any case, their theory becomes one about behavioural norms, rather than ontology. I assume that is the case, and am asking what power the infinite/finite theory delivers to that discourse given it comes with some rather messy baggage?</p><p></p><p>Or they could accept the dilemma, and say that infinite games are not games. Our third sentence above is right (or RPGs are not 'infinite'.) I don't see that leading to a theory that will be widely embraced by those seeking to understand games.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8436661, member: 71699"] Suppose that I accept a contention that I am not playing a game if I am not playing with the goal of winning. On surface, that could imply that so-called infinite games are not actually games, because one is expected to play them without the goal of winning. If so, then it turns out that only players at the table who are trying to win, are really playing an RPG as a game. The infinite games theorist might grasp the horn of the dilemma, and uphold that infinite games are games, but for some reason they get a pass on the goal of winning. I think that will make their arguments less compelling, as they have built their result into their definition, whereas so far as I can make out they might have hoped that their concept was going to explain or entail that result. Seeing as they have now defined that a game can be a game without being played with a goal of winning, they might also be expected to explain why finite games [I]must[/I] have that goal? Alternatively, they can say that a game can be a game [I]without[/I] being played with a goal of winning. Perhaps then the best place to land will be to concede that I can play [I]Chess [/I]as a game without a goal of winning, but that players ordinarily would not. They can say it is an expectation about so-called finite games that you try to win them. It is hard to see though, why I couldn't have the same expectation about infinite games. In any case, their theory becomes one about behavioural norms, rather than ontology. I assume that is the case, and am asking what power the infinite/finite theory delivers to that discourse given it comes with some rather messy baggage? Or they could accept the dilemma, and say that infinite games are not games. Our third sentence above is right (or RPGs are not 'infinite'.) I don't see that leading to a theory that will be widely embraced by those seeking to understand games. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Game theory, D&D, and infinite games
Top
