Winning and losing in RPGs...

[Autumnal]

You’re right about the authorial part. Lots of things can be a good time for me. At its most essential: Am I glad we played? Do we look forward to playing more? For me in particular, was it worth all the medical, mental, and physical effort to take part? (For others, other challenges can create the same question.) usually it’s a matter of whether we got the type of play we intended, though sometimes the answer is “that was so not what I expected, but it was great”, said with happy expression and good feeling.

 

[aramis erak]

Not to me. Systems are interesting in how the mechanics interact with each other. I can present challenges that can be honestly engaged with using any system, even an utterly minimal one. All you need to a basic level of consistency.

We're defining game differently. To you the game is the mechanics, rules, and constraints laid out by the system. To me the game is the conversation and the fiction those mechanics, rules, and constraints are meant to represent.

It's the distinction between the rules and the game. The rules for hockey are found in a book and they define and constrain the game, but they are not the game itself. The game is what happens on the ice when players suit up and the clock starts.

This is why we're talking past each other on this point.

You're choosing to use half the accepted definition of the term, where both the rules and what happens in play are the game; you are then complaining that others are using the full definition.

You're basically coming across as arguing in bad faith by redefinition of terms for other than standard understanding.

 

[Older Beholder]

I've always been uninterested in competition.
Not caring about the need to win or lose is a large part of the attraction to RPG's for me.
Roleplaying my character is the fun part for me.