Winning and losing in RPGs...

[Bae'zel]

Win vs. lose implies competition (player vs. GM, player vs. players). I don't "get" how it applies to this particular hobby, unless you're playing a game that is competitive by its very nature (eg. antagonistic DMs in OSR games, Paranoia where you actively sabotage the other PCs etc...).

That being said, I've experienced my fair share of players who come to the table with an antagonistic attitude towards the DM. Trying to outsmart them or beat them with "GOTCHAS". To the point of being flat-out confrontational. Had a player shout "IN YOUR FACE" at me as they countered a monster attack with a special character ability.

I took them aside later and told them that as a DM I can literally declare: "your character suddenly has an aneurism and they're dead" so what is this battle of wills going on?

 

[prabe]

I personally have found that open ended nature to be the most useful way to explain the design/structural challenges of the RPG vs. other kinds of games. Players get to set their own victory conditions (or at least pick between several) and play continues after the evaluation of victory, generally including on loss.

Indeed. There's nothing about "winning" or "losing" at TRPGs that inherently means "play ends." That seems to be one of the areas of misunderstanding.

 

[prabe]

Win vs. lose implies competition (player vs. GM, player vs. players). I don't "get" how it applies to this particular hobby, unless you're playing a game that is competitive by its very nature (eg. antagonistic DMs in OSR games, Paranoia where you actively sabotage the other PCs etc...).

That being said, I've experienced my fair share of players who come to the table with an antagonistic attitude towards the DM. Trying to outsmart them or beat them with "GOTCHAS". To the point of being flat-out confrontational. Had a player shout "IN YOUR FACE" at me as they countered a monster attack with a special character ability.

The idea of winning/losing at TRPGs lines up pretty well with my experience of co-op board games--which are the only ones we play at my house, these days. The interactions at the TRPG table don't have to be antagonistic for success and failure (winning and losing) to both be possibilities--at the tables I run, they aren't, and they are, respectively.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think @Umbran had it right, but reversed it to make a point. The more important point, IMO, is that if it FEELS like WINNING, then you've won. And that's the only way you win, in RPGs. The good news is, it's easy to create that feeing!

 

[Pedantic]

Generally speaking, RPGs aren't rogue-likes so you don't lose everything and have to start from zero with a new random map if your character dies.

I actually think roguelikes are a better comparison here than you credit, it's just the player avatar is the party, not any individual character. The real defining feature of the roguelike isn't loss of resources, it's run based gameplay, where you acquire stuff to solve newly generated problems each time. If you look at the characters in an RPG as a single unit, they start to look a lot more like roguelites, with some meta progression between rounds.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah. Your character can succeed or fail at a task in the game or a goal in the game, but that in no way carries over to the player winning or losing the game.

You can't win or lose at life, either, but people still talk about life having winners and losers, and we all know what they mean. Success or failure still feel like winning or losing, even in an open-ended scenario with no final predefined victory condition. RPG campaigns can have an intended arc and end point, but if they don't, the players will tend to define their own instead. Similarly to how we define our own "win conditions" in life- the things we want to do and achieve to feel satisfaction and fulfillment.

Win vs. lose implies competition (player vs. GM, player vs. players). I don't "get" how it applies to this particular hobby, unless you're playing a game that is competitive by its very nature (eg. antagonistic DMs in OSR games, Paranoia where you actively sabotage the other PCs etc...).

No, it doesn't necessarily. There are plenty of cooperative games out there where players win and lose together.

Heck, while I enjoy challenging my players and making them feel in danger of losing a scenario/their characters, I still tend to feel like we've all lost if and when they do die or TPK. The game is fundamentally a cooperative one between me and the rest of the players, even if I'm playing the antagonists.

 

[Umbran]

I think @Umbran had it right, but reversed it to make a point. The more important point, IMO, is that if it FEELS like WINNING, then you've won. And that's the only way you win, in RPGs. The good news is, it's easy to create that feeing!

I actually feel that it works in both directions, win and loss, and that's actually important.

Specifically, if your GM is one of the, "there is no losing, so it is not acceptable for you to feel like you lost," types, that can be a problem for players who feel put out when their characters die.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I actually feel that it works in both directions, win and loss, and that's actually important.

I figured that you did!

Specifically, if your GM is one of the, "there is no losing, so it is not acceptable for you to feel like you lost," types, that can be a problem for players who feel put out when their characters die.

Yeah. I mean, I try to respect people's feelings, generally, but I don't - quite - understand why anyone is too put out by that sort of thing (barring some sort of internalized trauma). I guess what I'm saying is, while I think that your hypothetical GM ought to show more empathy, I get why they fail at it.

I sympathise with both sides here.

 

[overgeeked]

Win vs. lose implies competition (player vs. GM, player vs. players). I don't "get" how it applies to this particular hobby, unless you're playing a game that is competitive by its very nature (eg. antagonistic DMs in OSR games, Paranoia where you actively sabotage the other PCs etc...).

That being said, I've experienced my fair share of players who come to the table with an antagonistic attitude towards the DM. Trying to outsmart them or beat them with "GOTCHAS". To the point of being flat-out confrontational. Had a player shout "IN YOUR FACE" at me as they countered a monster attack with a special character ability.

I took them aside later and told them that as a DM I can literally declare: "your character suddenly has an aneurism and they're dead" so what is this battle of wills going on?

Exactly. There seems to be a least some undercurrent of competition and competitiveness. I'm lucky that I haven't had that experience yet. I'm not sure I would have handled it as well as you did. I'd probably just smirk and say, "Rocks fall, you die," then tell the player to leave and never come back.

Someone winning necessarily implies someone else losing. If you can win an RPG that means someone else has to lose. Only in a competitive setup or mindset does that even work. And having a competitive mindset or an "us vs the referee" attitude will generally end with a lot of dead PCs and new faces at the gaming table.

There's nothing about "winning" or "losing" at TRPGs that inherently means "play ends." That seems to be one of the areas of misunderstanding.

It is one of the areas of misunderstanding because winning and losing inherently implies the end of the game. You haven't won or lost the game until it's over. You see it in sports all the time. A team's down and they give up. The coach has to remind them it's not over until it's over. And this only applies in those games with win or loss conditions. RPGs, generally speaking, don't have those conditions. Players can decide they "win" or "lose" if certain conditions are met, absolutely, but that's the player bringing something into the game that's not inherent to the game itself.

You can't win or lose at life, either, but we still talk about life having winners and losers.

Exactly. We have a weird habit of talking about things that aren't competitions as if they were competitions. That's a bizarre trait of ours, but it's not inherent to life or RPGs.

Success or failure still feel like winning or losing, even in an open-ended scenario with no final predefined victory condition.

Exactly. Feelings don't always match reality and players can impose their own self-determined win or loss conditions onto a game that doesn't actually have any. But again, that's the player not the game.

 

[Golden Bee]

You can lose in a tournament module.

(You can, I won't.)