D&D 5E Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

[Mannahnin]

This isn't the same, because unlike Football, there is no loser, so there can be no winner. Everyone, including the DM just had fun.

This is incorrect, and RPGs aren't the only cooperative games. There are co-op boardgames, for example, where the players all win or lose together. If they win, there is no loser.

 

[pemerton]

This is incorrect, and RPGs aren't the only cooperative games. There are co-op boardgames, for example, where the players all win or lose together. If they win, there is no loser.

Further to this:

If I sit down to play a hand or three of five hundred, and I'm playing with friends and we have some interesting hands and clever play, then I have "won" at the game of can you spend a pleasant afternoon with friends. But of course that doesn't mean I haven't lost the odd trick, the odd hand, and perhaps the whole game.

This notion that D&D is special because we win if we have fun and there's nothing more to be said is something I find unpersuasive. That's not to say that D&D always has win conditions. For instance, in some 2nd ed Planescape-y type modules, it seems like the whole point is just for the players to "experience" the events of the module as narrated by the GM, and there's nothing they're expected to accomplish beyond that.

But the reason such modules might lack win conditions doesn't follow from any general notion that we're all here to have fun. It's a particular feature of those modules based on the particular sort of engagement they expect from participants. The point certainly won't generalise to a module like ToH, even if people are having a great time and laughing it up as their PCs get pulverised, annihilated and so on.

 

[Maxperson]

This is incorrect, and RPGs aren't the only cooperative games. There are co-op boardgames, for example, where the players all win or lose together. If they win, there is no loser.

Those board games are also not like RPGs. Those boardgames, like Arkham Horror, involve all the players being on the same side. RPGs(the vast majority anyway) have a DM on one side and players on the other. They are not in competition, but neither are they the same with exactly the same goals and abilities within the game. In an RPG, there are not traditional winners and losers. Sure they all "win" if they have fun, but that's not winning. Football on the other hand is a direct competition of one vs. the other and does involve traditional winners and losers.

 

[Umbran]

Seasons are discrete in and of themselves. The win-loss records don't carry over. They are winning football for the Superbowl Champion. D&D can't be won in even in a single campaign. Goals can be achieved, but there is no win-loss.

This is why I mentioned that we can choose win conditions for ourselves, but the game rules don't have them explicitly, like, say, the game of chess does. There are ways that our games can play out that are immensely satisfying, that feel like a win, and that's totally fine - indeed it can be great to strive for those feelings.

But, reaching that state does not necessarily end even the session of play, much less end the game with a "winner".

 

[Mannahnin]

Those board games are also not like RPGs. Those boardgames, like Arkham Horror, involve all the players being on the same side. RPGs(the vast majority anyway) have a DM on one side and players on the other. They are not in competition, but neither are they the same with exactly the same goals and abilities within the game. In an RPG, there are not traditional winners and losers. Sure they all "win" if they have fun, but that's not winning. Football on the other hand is a direct competition of one vs. the other and does involve traditional winners and losers.

I disagree that the DM is on the opposite side from the players in the sense of playing a game of D&D. He controls the antagonists, but he cannot lose, and functionally only wins when the players have a good time.

I agree that RPGs work differently than other games, but I'm less certain that they don't have winners. They certainly can and do in the short term (scenarios or modules or player-set goals), without needing anyone to lose for there to be winners.

You made a categorical statement that in games there can be no winner if there is no loser, and I think that's demonstrably false.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree that the DM is on the opposite side from the players in the sense of playing a game of D&D. He controls the antagonists, but he cannot lose, and functionally only wins when the players have a good time.

I agree that RPGs work differently than other games, but I'm less certain that they don't have winners. They certainly can and do in the short term (scenarios or modules or player-set goals), without needing anyone to lose for there to be winners.

You made a categorical statement that in games there can be no winner if there is no loser, and I think that's demonstrably false.

I said in the traditional sense, and 5e agrees with me.

"There's no winning and losing in the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game-at least, not the way those terms are usually understood."

It then goes on to say what you and I have both said, and that's that if everyone has fun, they all win.

 

[prabe]

I agree that RPGs work differently than other games, but I'm less certain that they don't have winners. They certainly can and do in the short term (scenarios or modules or player-set goals), without needing anyone to lose for there to be winners.

I think that the primary difference with TRPGs is that win-lose isn't as zero-sum around the table as it is in ... Monopoly, or five hundred. If the PCs don't achieve their goals, that doesn't mean the GM won. It also doesn't mean the players didn't have fun (as @pemerton seemed to get at, with the idea of enjoying time with friends being a potential goal of five hundred); enjoying the game doesn't have to be 100% correlated with winning it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think that the primary difference with TRPGs is that win-lose isn't as zero-sum around the table as it is in ... Monopoly, or five hundred. If the PCs don't achieve their goals, that doesn't mean the GM won. It also doesn't mean the players didn't have fun (as @pemerton seemed to get at, with the idea of enjoying time with friends being a potential goal of five hundred); enjoying the game doesn't have to be 100% correlated with winning it.

No, of course it doesn't. I often enjoy myself even when playing games where I lose clearly. Chess can be a good example -- if I'm beaten by a clever and good play, I find that rather enjoyable. It's when I lose through my own blunders that I'm less happy.

And that's why I find the objective of "have fun" to not be useful at all when discussing RPGs -- it's trivially obvious and not a specific feature of RPGs. "We all win if we have fun" is true of any game. It's not something unique or even uniquely suited to RPGs. I more care about what goals are put in play and how those resolve. Having fun is a baseline for me for any game -- and an explicit reason why I hate Fluxx, because it is not fun for me at all.

It's quite possible to have a game that interests the hell out of you (general), and where the goals/win conditions are very much things you want to engage, but that the actual play of the game includes things that are unfun for you. At which point, the win conditions of the game don't really matter because the floor function of "games should be fun" is not met. "Play to have fun" always seems like a minimum requirement to me, not an end goal.

 

[Mannahnin]

I said in the traditional sense, and 5e agrees with me.

"There's no winning and losing in the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game-at least, not the way those terms are usually understood."

It then goes on to say what you and I have both said, and that's that if everyone has fun, they all win.

Here's the post. Nothing about "in the traditional sense" in there.

D&D 5E - Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

You think football isn’t a specific game? Wow. Good luck. I thought @chaochou's point was this: a football club is, in principle, an open-ended/"infinite" endeavour. Just like a D&D campaign. Hence, if this is sufficient to show that there is no winning or losing in D&D, it follows by parity...

www.enworld.org

 

[Maxperson]

Here's the post. Nothing about "in the traditional sense" in there.

D&D 5E - Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

You think football isn’t a specific game? Wow. Good luck. I thought @chaochou's point was this: a football club is, in principle, an open-ended/"infinite" endeavour. Just like a D&D campaign. Hence, if this is sufficient to show that there is no winning or losing in D&D, it follows by parity...

www.enworld.org

It didn't have to be in there. Football is in there and football does in fact have traditional winning and losing. That makes it different from RPGs that don't have it. That was where my disagreement was. In the incorrect equation of football and RPGs as being the same with regard to winning.