What's the object of the game?

[Whisper72]

As many have said, the underlying aim is simply to have fun. I believe that on a layer above that, the aim of the game is to stimulate creative thought processes. For the DM in creating a 'living breathing' world, and for the players to overcome the obstacles (puzzles, monsters, mysteries etc.) that they encounter. The fact that it is a fantasy world allows one to exercise one's creative mind beyond the limits posed by the real world. It's magic! Anything can be made possible!

 

[Painfully]

I find it fun as an exercise in creativity.

Take what is given to you by the DM and his campaign world, add-in a character concept of your own, and then play out the game. Somewhere in there you develop a kind of back-and-forth dance with the DM, in which you each test the other's creativity as you present yourselves in any particular situation.

It's that exercise that makes it fun.

But, sometimes I just do it because I like to roll the sparkly dice!

 

[S'mon]

Gamist approach - to defeat the challenges set by the GM (players), or to create interesting and only-just-beatable challenges (DM).

Simulationist approach - to explore the characters and the world (both).

Narrativist approach - to tell an interesting and gripping story (both).

 

[S'mon]

No, I'd still have to say that, even given Umbran's supposition, that the object is to have fun.
In 3E, the mission statement changes slightly.
But I think it's clear that the object is, like many games, to have fun in a cooperative atmosphere; the means to that object is the goal your specific group sets.

Using Ron Edwards' Gamist/Simulationist/Narrativist distinction, EGG's 1e approach is clearly Gamist, the 2e approach seems mostly Simulationist with maybe a bit of Narrativist, the 3e approach is less clear but primarily Gamist.

 

[Cor Azer]

If you can't remember a quote, there's always IMDB:

Ah! But that would require me to not be lazy

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!"

That's the one.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Gamist approach - to defeat the challenges set by the GM (players), or to create interesting and only-just-beatable challenges (DM).

Simulationist approach - to explore the characters and the world (both).

Narrativist approach - to tell an interesting and gripping story (both).

I have not posted since I originally started this thread, though I have enjoyed the contributions very much. Quite stimulating.

S'mon's summary of the three approaches helps me to reformulate my original question and also to take a position on the matter.

One of my fundamental questions can be put in this way: If you approach D&D with the gamist approach strictly, does it in fact work as a game?

My answer to that question would be NO. There is too much depending upon the arbitrary or whimsical judgment of the DM for it to be considered a pure game, like chess or risk, or baseball. I think that even those who think of their approach to rpgs as a gamist approach probably in actuality have other reasons as well. I would say that most of the FUN of gaming comes from identification with the character that one plays and/or enjoying the creation of a narrative.

 

[TracerBullet42]

Take out the last sentence, and add "To kill them and loot their stuff."

Geez...it took 19 posts before someone said "kill things and take their stuff"????

Shame on us. Shame on us all.

 

[Mac Callum]

One of my fundamental questions can be put in this way: If you approach D&D with the gamist approach strictly, does it in fact work as a game?

Let's see...

Gamist approach - to defeat the challenges set by the GM (players), or to create interesting and only-just-beatable challenges (DM).

Simon says....

My answer to that question would be NO. There is too much depending upon the arbitrary or whimsical judgment of the DM for it to be considered a pure game, like chess or risk, or baseball. I think that even those who think of their approach to rpgs as a gamist approach probably in actuality have other reasons as well. I would say that most of the FUN of gaming comes from identification with the character that one plays and/or enjoying the creation of a narrative.

I can't really say I agree with you.

Would you say that opening with Knight's pawn is a rule of chess, or your oponent's whim according to the rules of chess?

Would you say that a grounder to right (right through your second baseman's legs) is a rule of baseball, or a lucky hit by the other side?

Some people think it's fun to agree to arbitrary rules, and then compete with others according to those rules. The Gamist approach as put forward by S'mon seems to be competetive in nature, but there's nothing that says games can't be competetive. In fact, games can be very competetive - within the boundaries of the agreed upon rules.

The explicit rules of D&D are in the books (and on the home rule's sheet your DM hands out).

One of the implicit rules (of any game) is that no one will cheat. Once you agree to the rules, you stick to them. In this sense, one of the unspoken rules you and your DM have agreed to is that they will not confront you with a challenge that is way beyond your CR level; or that if he does he will give you a way out; and that if he doesn't give you a way out he's got a damn good reason not to (one that you will agree is a good reason). Any other challenges the DM might throw at you are a competition to "win" within the agreed upon rules - just like baseball or chess, as I see it.

And as for the difference between RPG's and baseball/chess because there's no winning or losing - pardon me, but I call bull. Last time I checked, the Yankees have never beaten the Red Sox; not definatively anyway. Even with that amazing series last fall those Sox still came back to play again at spring training. As I see it, the PCs 'win' some, and the DM 'wins' some. That's how it goes. The next gaming session you play again.

If you're a Gamist anyway. If you're a 'Simulationist' or 'Narrative' player, you win by other means. But let's get something straight - if you're talking about winning & losing, and lives or profits aren't on the line, you're talking about a game. There's nothing else to call it.

Mac Callum

 

[Tom Cashel]

The goal is to wage tantamount.

Or to gaol cantistomountly.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

The object of the game for me is to have fun, relax and excercise my mind.

I enjoy making up new characters, I enjoy coming up with creative uses for spells and it's a fun way to spend time with other people and do something fun. Some people enjoy going to clubs, or sporting events, I like gaming. It's fun above all else for me.