RPGs: Win, Lose, or Draw?

[JustaPlayer]

Selma Hayek already digs me.

 

[Mystery Man]

I had a dream once that Salma Hayek was my highschool sweet heart and I was taking her to prom. I woke up before prom.

 

[diaglo]

Salma Hayek, maybe. But not Selma, nor her sister Pattie...(or even jubjub)

but Marge is a hottie.

 

[JoeBlank]

Like high magic/low magic, PCs risk of death, and other such debates, I think this question results from the flexibility of RPGs. If you want to play an RPG where you can win or lose that option is available. As others have mentioned, a campaign in any genre and any game system can have a story arc that completes the game. If the PCs manage to do this, the players certainly feel like they won.

But I think in most RPG games, and certainly most D&D, there is no winning or losing. There may be temporary victories, but then you go on to tackle the next problem, where your PC may die or otherwise fail.

While Selma is an attractive woman, I already have one of those, so I voted for the punch and pie.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I truly have sold my soul to the Gods of Nuetrality, so I would be playing with fire not to vote so!

Seriously though, it's not about winning or losing, but having fun. Players need to feel a sense of accomplishment every now and then in order to continue the fun, but it's still very fun for the DM to give the players a little slice of terror and sadness upon occasion. It's all part of building a fun, dynamic, and interesting storyline.

Kane

 

[CGoat]

Should you be able to win at an RPG?

Now I've played in games where... the GM wouldn't let us win. So for the question... Yes a player should be able to win. (the key word being should... now if your stupid I think the gm has the right to beat you up and leave you for dead)

But with that said... I play for the fun of roleplaying. But I'll never go back to a GM that is just playing to beat up the PC's Thank the gods I've got a couple of really good GM's to play under.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I feel the PCs should get the taste of victory in an RPG (in this case I am going to read RPG as generic D&D game). It doesn't have to been a huge, epic, world shattering conclusion though. Small victories can taste just a sweet, imo. I guess I don't like to fail so, for me, I need a sense of accomplishment and prgression - to me that means being 'victorious' over my obstacles.

 

[DragonLancer]

I voted for the Dynamic option. You don't win or lose in an RPG (unless you count killing the Big Bad or character death, but then I don't). Instead you play the game to have fun. For the game to be about winning or losing it has to be a contest between the DM and the players.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Victory is simply over comming an obstacle so PCs can win (and will eventually loose in all likelihood just cause eventually your dice will screw you over). If you say there is no winning or loosing in an RPG thats like saying characters in a book or people in real life for that matter can't win or loose ultimately. So I think this really comes down to how you defind win or loose and big of a picture you want to look at.
In fact after the end of my last campaign after the PCs had been victorious I told them that they had 'beat the game'.

 

[Ferret]

Minsc and Boo are in charge now, punch and pie for everyone!

I mean.... You never win the gaame and it ends, but you are always able to suceed. The DM can win by successfully challenging the players, so that they have fun, and the players win by besting the DM, this goes on untill the end of the game or forever (crazy epic levels)