S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism

[Lanefan]

Again, I think we have a failure to communicate, which I can point out by noting:

1. A TPK may, or may not, be a failure condition in D&D (think "heroic last stand and sacrifice").

A TPK is always, objectively, a failure or "loss" condition regardless how it was arrived at.

Note that this is different from a 'moral victory' where one takes a loss and spins it in a positive manner.

Same thing as getting checkmated in chess. You could have pulled off some of the best moves of your life trying to defend your king but, objectively and even though you can claim a moral victory by your fine late-game play, in the end you still lost.

 

[Lanefan]

To make this concrete-
Imagine you have a Warlock whose patron is the positive energy plane (UA Undying Light). His long-term goal, written down by the character, is to join with his patron.
He is adventuring with another character. We will call him Fred.

The Warlock gains an artifact that allows him to rip open a rift to the positive energy plane, which has the effect of making him, um, one with the plane. And the unfortunate side-effect of killing Fred.

Both characters die. From the same thing, at the same time.

Warlock is happy.
Fred? Oh, Fred is really really angry. But that's a story for another time.

That the two players react to it differently doesn't change the fact that when looked at objectively they both achieved a defined "loss" condition: the (one must assume in this case permanent) death of their PCs.

 

[generic]

That the two players react to it differently doesn't change the fact that when looked at objectively they both achieved a defined "loss" condition: the (one must assume in this case permanent) death of their PCs.

But, I mean, what if dying isn't a loss condition? Either in that the character intended to die or in that you gained satisfaction/enjoyment even though the character died, there is the possibility that dying is not a loss condition. I don't see how this is absolute or objective.

 

[Fenris-77]

But, I mean, what if dying isn't a loss condition? Either in that the character intended to die or gained satisfaction/enjoyment even though the character died, there is the possibility that dying is not a loss condition. I don't see how this is absolute or objective.

I can easily envision cases where permanent character death wouldn't be a loss condition for me. Sometimes a good death can be one of the most satisfying things a TTRPG has to offer.

 

[Lanefan]

But, I mean, what if dying isn't a loss condition? Either in that the character intended to die or in that you gained satisfaction/enjoyment even though the character died, there is the possibility that dying is not a loss condition. I don't see how this is absolute or objective.

I can easily envision cases where permanent character death wouldn't be a loss condition for me. Sometimes a good death can be one of the most satisfying things a TTRPG has to offer.

Those are moral victories, not actual ones.

I could play the best game of chess in my life and feel really great afterwards about how I played, but if I end up getting checkmated I still achieve a loss condition.

Same thing in an RPG: I could set up for the best death ever, and pull it off spectacularly. I could be completely giddy about it afterwards. Doesn't change the fact of my achieving a loss condition.

There's various loss conditions in most RPGs; and to be sure, some are more wishy-washy in their definitions than others. Character death, however, is perhaps the most clearly defined of all, other than TPK.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

Are you telling me what my victory is? That's not very generous of you. If, just to make up an example, I was playing a Paladin who sacrificed himself to defeat a great evil, that would be an actual victory, not a moral victory. Character death is not always a loss condition any more than character survival is always a win condition. Mostly, sure, but the exceptions are significant and important. This is one place where you need to differentiate between player victory and character victory. It's the former that's important to the aesthetic appreciation of RPGs, not the latter, although the latter can certainly lead to the former.

 

[Umbran]

A role-playing game is what is created in the interaction between players or between player(s) and gamemaster(s) within a specified diegetic framework.

And again, I respond yes... and no.

Because, yes, we can totally talk about the GM as game designer.

But we can (and should be able to) ALSO talk about the theory and design of the things we buy off the shelves, that we also happen to call RPGs. If we call them both RPGs, we are going to be hopelessly confused.

 

[Umbran]

Those are moral victories, not actual ones.

With respect, that's prescriptive, and maybe not for you to say single-handedly. I mean, you can say it.. but I think you'll need to do a whole lot of work to prove that to folks.

You cannot really speak about win conditions without speaking about the goals of play. And the goal of play may not be directly tied to the RPG sub-game you are considering at any given moment.

 

[Lanefan]

With respect, that's prescriptive, and maybe not for you to say single-handedly. I mean, you can say it.. but I think you'll need to do a whole lot of work to prove that to folks.

You cannot really speak about win conditions without speaking about the goals of play. And the goal of play may not be directly tied to the RPG sub-game you are considering at any given moment.

I would think it would be a given that the first goal of play is for one's PC to survive. (or, in the case of systems like CoC, survive and remain functional for as long as possible)

In games where PC death is off the table then either other loss conditions will replace it (loss of wealth, or status, or health, or whatever) or the game will be in win-only mode - and given the definitions we've seen so far, would win-only mode even still count as a 'game'?