RPGs: Win, Lose, or Draw?

[The_Universe]

I think that player's should have a chance at succeeding within the bonds of whatever campaign the DM has set up. There may be conditions to "victory," and it may not be precisely what they expect, but they should have a chance to achieve whatever goals they set for themselves, as long as they're reasonably tied to the story.

So, if the campaign involves an extraplanar invasion, it's perfectly alright that the PCs may not be able to drive every last invader back through the gates of wherever. That being said, they ought to have a chance to ensure that *somewhere* in the game world survives, or (alternatively) they might be playing to ensure that they strike a blow against the invaders so terrible that it leaves a *chance* that someday the invaders may indeed be repelled.

What that *doesn't* mean is that if the PCs don't establish their dominion over the world, ruling by their benevolent right of conquest, they've lost.

It also *doesn't* mean that the PCs have to "win." The important thing is that they have a chance. If they make poor decisions, ignore clues, or get caught up in their own little side plots, they probably *won't* succeed, in fact...but a way was there, and in that sense, the game has fulfilled its promise.

Another example? While I do think that players should have a chance at success, there are limits...

In a game where the players decide they want to destroy the moon, they probably can't. Even if they do, even if they think it a victory, it probably won't actually be one, because the world is going develop some serious problems.

...Not every goal the players choose must have a potential victorious end...

Anyway, I voted for the 3rd choice, but this one was my favorite:

PCs in RPGs are doomed to fail and lose. Would you like to hear some of my angstful poetry now?

 

[The_Gneech]

Every time I crush my enemies, drive them before me, and hear the lamentations of their women, I win!

-The Gneech

 

[hexgrid]

If rpgs can't be "won," why are there rpg tournaments at Gen Con?

I've always thought this was a contradiction.

 

[EricNoah]

I think I would like to know ahead of time (maybe not directly but possibly through implied information) to what extent my PC will be permitted to change the nature of the setting. If the setting's "core story" is immutable, I would imagine I'd start getting the picture pretty early on, and then I wouldn't attempt to change it any more and would settle into a different mode (survival, small-scale changes, etc.). I think it's up to every DM to decide if his world can be destroyed, redemed, or otherwise fundamentally altered.

 

[MonsterMash]

If you are playing Vampire maybe this is the appropriate one

PCs in RPGs are doomed to fail and lose. Would you like to hear some of my angstful poetry now?

 

[howandwhy99]

RPGs are sort of like like. Meaning you have fun just playing. If you believe you can win or lose at life, I guess the same can be done regarding RPGs.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

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).

I do count that as winning (or losing). You had an obstacle you defeated it or were defeated by it. How else can you describe it?

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.

I play every game for fun. How is an RPG different from any other game in that regard? It most certainly does not entail that the DM has to be an adversary of the players. That is a little silly. The DM would win automatically. I think the term 'victory' might be a little loaded in this poll. I look at victory coming from smaller things than beating up everything in sight and 'winning' because you are the last man standing. I love the sense of accomplishment that comes from playing a well crafted story and reaching its end. All good stories have endings (Robert Jordan notwithstanding).

 

[diaglo]

RPGs are sort of like life. Meaning you have fun just playing. If you believe you can win or lose at life, I guess the same can be done regarding RPGs.

he who dies with the most toys winz.

diaglo "they can have my OD&D when they pry it from my cold dead fingers" Ooi

 

[radferth]

I used to have fun playing RPGs, but now I am just pining for Selma Hayek.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

I voted "everybody wins punch and pie, even though we don't usually serve punch and only get pizza occasionally. I guess that while I would love to have Ms. Hayek's attention, I don't really hope to secure it by responding to this poll. As for the winning and losing, I feel like to "win" or to "lose" at a game, one player must defeat another. This is one of the things I really like about RPGs (okay, D&D). One player doesn't defeat another player. If one player loses (dead PC), we all usually suffer as though a character on our favorite tv show died, but sometimes, knowing that a favorite character could die at any time just heightens interest. That's why networks always push trailers for dead characters at the season finale or when ratings flag. A TPK doesn't mean that the DM "wins." When a bad sitcom gets cancelled, the producer/director gets fired just like the actors. As a matter of faith, I try to avoid competition and engage in cooperation. D&D does that.

The gothic horror of Ravenloft focuses on loss, betrayal, comeuppance and despair, so, in a sense, maybe everybody loses, but that's like saying that everybody loses when they see Titas Andronicus or Hamlet, when they read Frankenstein or Dracula. Heavy, moralistic tragedy can still be enjoyable, so I still think everybody wins.

The desperate, torturous "struggle-against-the-odds" that is Dark Sun makes vistory rarer for the PCs, but that's what makes it so much richer. Some people like Jeopardy while others prefer Wheel of Fortune. Either is fine, but as an observer (who can skip commercials) rather than a participant (and even they never come out owing money), presumably, the person watching from home always wins.

Planescape, at least for me, can feel like an "Amazing Race" finale where all the challenges are created by fiendish versions of Jon Stewart, Dennis Miller, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Plato, but hey - win or lose, you still get to have an all-expenses-paid world tour and minor noteriety, so win or lose, you still win.

PCs can win or lose. If players lose, you're doin' it wrong.