RPGs: Win, Lose, or Draw?

[Gundark]

hhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Selma Hayek..........now I must kill the other 28.33 % who voted for that option.....she will be mine....right?....

 

[Desdichado]

It is the struggle that defines you, not the victory.

You don't say that if you lose, though.

I M teh RPG WINNAR!!!!!111

 

[GMSkarka]

It's sort of a an oddly-phrased question.

I don't think it's possible to win "at" an RPG, but the questions make it sound like you're talking about any sort of victory at all, which, to my mind, would be winning "in" an RPG.

 

[sniffles]

A lot of people are talking about PCs succeeding as a form of winning. Does "success" = "win"?

I voted for punch and pie because I like pie.

 

[Chris Tavares]

The RUNE RPG from Atlas Games explicitly has a winner at the end of a session.

The GM wins if he hurts every character really, really badly, but doesn't actually kill any of them. It was a neat idea which failed due to lack of network effect.

 

[d20Dwarf]

I think it's up to every DM to decide if his world can be destroyed, redemed, or otherwise fundamentally altered.

Yes.

Even in Midnight.



As I've said, adventures are winnable. You solve the mystery, beat the bad guy, get the loot, and save the town. But in a traditional sense, you don't define a winner of an RPG, or a campaign, and a bunch of losers, unless you have significant RP awards or something that could actually define a per-session winner.

 

[Arnwyn]

Some of you already know my feelings on this. I respectfully disagree with d20 Dwarf (though I loved Midnight and look forward to picking up the second edition). However, I'm interested in your thoughts. Should game worlds be designed with an end in sight?

No, I don't think a game world should actually be designed with an end in sight. I far prefer an open-ended world in which a myriad of different types of adventures can take place. But that's just me.

However, I do believe that a campaign needs goals, otherwise AFAIC it'd be so close to pointless that I wouldn't bother... and with goals, you either succeed or don't succeed - or if you prefer, you either win or lose. [And, regardless of what d20 Dwarf says, Midnight has a pretty blatant "goal" staring you right in your face (even though it wasn't designed that way).]

But I voted Salma Hayek. Really, now.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Depends on how you play.

If the game is set up in such a way to move toward an end goal that the players are trying to achieve, with a definate ending, then you can say whether or not the game was won or not. For example, say you're playing the Return of the Big Bad Monster of DOOM mega-adventure which ends in an encounter with Demogorgon's father's, brother's, uncle's, nephew's, best friend's, former room mate. If you kill him the game ends with the players winning the campaign. Everyone rejoices and the game is over. If you die in the encounter then the game ends with the players losing the campaign. Everyone dies and the game is over. Rejoicing might ensue as well.

If you just play with no overall ending, no end goal, but new goals being created constantly as old goals are fulfilled, then the game goes on with no winning and losing in the long run. Short run wins and losses will ensue, but you can't really say the game has winners because its a constantly flowing series of events. One day the PCs win, the next they lose, then they win again.

So, it depends on the playstyle.

 

[Shemeska]

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.

Win? *ponder* Of course I've been accused of running Planescape like a campaign of Call of Cthulhu.

You can triumph over the odds thrown at you, but evil still exists and nothing any PC can do will stop that.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Arbiter of Wyrms is wise.