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="Kinematics" data-source="post: 8437209" data-attributes="member: 6932123"><p>A game has rules of play. That's what makes it a game. A win condition is an optional rule that defines when the game is over, but is in no way a requirement in order for an activity to be a game.</p><p></p><p>Baseball is a game. One side throws a ball, and tries to keep runners from making it around the bases. The other side tries to hit the ball and run around the bases. Certain events allow the teams to switch sides. All that stuff (and other rules) defines the game.</p><p></p><p>On its own, there is no particular end to the game. Maybe you decide to play for a set number of innings, and/or til someone has more points (overtime). Or maybe you play for as long as you have time during recess, or til your mom tells you it's time for dinner, or til you get tired and decide you want to go watch TV instead. Or maybe you continue the game every single day for years.</p><p></p><p>Winning is just one way to mark the end of a game. In particular, a "professional" game will most likely require a win condition (usually as a means of determining who gets the reward, which is explicitly not part of the game itself); a non-professional game does not.</p><p></p><p>In game theory, there are single instances of a game, iterated plays of a game (the same players keep repeatedly playing), and evolutionary games (where the players may change over time). As already noted, there is no real finite vs infinite, but the OP does seem to define the finite game as one that has implemented the optional win condition rule. Yet at the same time, there's no guarantee that the win condition can be achieved in a finite amount of time, so it's still not the best term.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Which finally brings us back around to game theory. Game theory is primarily focused on player goals, not end conditions. It may introduce end conditions as a side-effect of how it tries to illustrate problems (eg: a single instance of the prisoner's dilemma), but it's mainly interested in player behavior with respect to player goals within a given context. The most common is seeing how players behave when the assigned player goal is to maximize personal benefits (profit/payoff/etc).</p><p></p><p>Game theory also has extended relevance with respect to ethics, and by extension personal interactions. This can be a point of analysis for roleplaying, but it is quite complicated, and hard to pinpoint how and where you might want to use it in this analysis. It's part of moral theory.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kinematics, post: 8437209, member: 6932123"] A game has rules of play. That's what makes it a game. A win condition is an optional rule that defines when the game is over, but is in no way a requirement in order for an activity to be a game. Baseball is a game. One side throws a ball, and tries to keep runners from making it around the bases. The other side tries to hit the ball and run around the bases. Certain events allow the teams to switch sides. All that stuff (and other rules) defines the game. On its own, there is no particular end to the game. Maybe you decide to play for a set number of innings, and/or til someone has more points (overtime). Or maybe you play for as long as you have time during recess, or til your mom tells you it's time for dinner, or til you get tired and decide you want to go watch TV instead. Or maybe you continue the game every single day for years. Winning is just one way to mark the end of a game. In particular, a "professional" game will most likely require a win condition (usually as a means of determining who gets the reward, which is explicitly not part of the game itself); a non-professional game does not. In game theory, there are single instances of a game, iterated plays of a game (the same players keep repeatedly playing), and evolutionary games (where the players may change over time). As already noted, there is no real finite vs infinite, but the OP does seem to define the finite game as one that has implemented the optional win condition rule. Yet at the same time, there's no guarantee that the win condition can be achieved in a finite amount of time, so it's still not the best term. 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. 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. Which finally brings us back around to game theory. Game theory is primarily focused on player goals, not end conditions. It may introduce end conditions as a side-effect of how it tries to illustrate problems (eg: a single instance of the prisoner's dilemma), but it's mainly interested in player behavior with respect to player goals within a given context. The most common is seeing how players behave when the assigned player goal is to maximize personal benefits (profit/payoff/etc). Game theory also has extended relevance with respect to ethics, and by extension personal interactions. This can be a point of analysis for roleplaying, but it is quite complicated, and hard to pinpoint how and where you might want to use it in this analysis. It's part of moral theory. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Game theory, D&D, and infinite games
Top