Winning and losing in RPGs...

[dragoner]

RPG's can be like a "guerilla game" and same as to that, the guerillas win by not losing. Which in this case is not dying, basically.

 

[Pedantic]

I've never found discussions of "fun" particularly useful or relevant. It's clearly something people can get from games, but isn't exclusive to games, and if you can do it wholly outside the structure of a game, then its either irrelevant or actually harmful as a design consideration.

Obviously, if your game isn't fun it probably needs work, but "make it more fun" isn't an actionable design directive. Fun is a byproduct, not the product.

 

[Li Shenron]

So, for the people who think you as a player can "lose" RPGs...please explain how that works.

I generally consider "winning/losing" as succeeding or failing quests objectives, but it's a range of outcomes, not a simple black or white. And it's a shared outcome of both characters and players, because while the dice rolls may determine the results of individual actions, it's the player's decisions which generally directs a whole quest towards a certain resolution.

 

[Umbran]

I don't really see the connection between winning and feelings/enjoyment.

When I play card or board games, I often lose. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy myself. In Australia, at least, we describe someone who can't enjoy a game unless they win as a "poor loser".

Mod Note:
The idea that you literally do not see the connection between winning and entertainment stretches credulity, sir. Doubly so when you claim to not see it, but somehow manage to put a shaming insult about it into the very next sentences.

Since I generally warn folks not to call people trolls, or disingenuous, they will probably not feel safe to call you on it.

So, I am here to tell you - this sophistry is pushing your luck. Don't push it farther.

 

[Bill Zebub]

When I play card or board games, I often lose. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy myself. In Australia, at least, we describe someone who can't enjoy a game unless they win as a "poor loser".

In the rest of the world we say "sore loser". You crazy Aussies. /shakeshead

And thank goodness for sore/poor losers! Where would the joy in winning be if everybody accepted defeat graciously? Winning isn't fun unless the loser cries. Conan had it right.

(EDIT: lest anybody take offense, note that I am being totally facetious...)

 

[soviet]

I don't really see the connection between winning and feelings/enjoyment.

When I play card or board games, I often lose. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy myself. In Australia, at least, we describe someone who can't enjoy a game unless they win as a "poor loser".

Whether a game can be won or lost depends on how it is structured. Eg playing kick-to-kick with some friends doesn't have win conditions. But playing a friendly game of "touch" with the same group of friends does.

Some RPGing is structured to have win conditions: the examples I'm thinking of are about beating the module or solving the mystery. An instance of the first: if you sit down to play White Plume Mountain, or Tomb of Horrors, and you don't get the treasure, you've lost. (That's not to say that you can't replay, even perhaps with the same characters. Replays are a common thing in games.)

Another example: a few years ago I ran a freeform murder mystery for one of my kids on her birthday during a lockdown. (We had a lot of lockdowns in my city.) I adapted an old Traveller scenario: 3 family members played 3 characters, one of them also controlled her character's husband as a (largely cipher) NPC, and I played the 3 or so important NPCs. The players got all the clues, but didn't workout whodunnit. After we finished, I told them. They agreed that the clues were fair. I think that counts as losing, even if they had a good time doing it.

I'm with you.

I used to play Magic the Gathering at a semi-competitive level (two GP day twos and one PT), and I still play at local game nights and such. I definitely play to win, and try to gain every (sportsmanlike) edge I can.

But, I don't feel bad when I lose, unless maybe it was because I made an obvious boneheaded mistake. I don't particularly feel happier when I win, unless maybe it was because I made some particularly clever play that swung it. What I enjoy is the competition, the battle of wits, and having a fun game experience with my opponent.

 

[soviet]

In the rest of the world we say "sore loser". You crazy Aussies. /shakeshead

Maybe 'the rest of the world' just means the US, but in the UK poor loser and bad loser are common and sore loser is not.

 

[prabe]

I've never found discussions of "fun" particularly useful or relevant. It's clearly something people can get from games, but isn't exclusive to games, and if you can do it wholly outside the structure of a game, then its either irrelevant or actually harmful as a design consideration.

Obviously, if your game isn't fun it probably needs work, but "make it more fun" isn't an actionable design directive. Fun is a byproduct, not the product.

Yeah, ideally you can enjoy the game, whether you win or lose. I didn't understand the OP or the conversation to be about enjoyment, as such. I think whatever enjoyment people get from games might as well in most cases be called "fun," though I agree it's not exclusive to games and it's probably not a super-helpful measure outside of one's personal preferences.

 

[billd91]

You almost got there. You win, as a player, by having your character achieve their goal/s--this can be kinda fractal, goals can be nested or nearly so. You lose, as a player, by having your character fail to achieve their goals--again, this can be fractal and goals can be nested.

Second post and I think the thread already had a pretty good and workable answer. Open-ended, ongoing games have any number of informal wins/losses involved in play. In that sense, it's not that different from bowling leagues - any of which may have a series of wins/losses (though in this case based on formal definitions) - yet which are ongoing and that you come back to week after week.

That said, in the best games I've experienced, players are able to laugh and cheer when characters die, even their own. In those games you really can't lose.

True, but I think we can make a distinction between wins and losses based on specific goals, encounters, snapshots of the campaign and generally "being a loser" at the game in the sense of not deriving any fun out of it. As as been pointed out, it is possible to have fun while, in fact, losing at games either by formally being outscored as in baseball, bowling, or darts or informally by failing at the challenges being attempted that otherwise don't keep score and measure wins/losses. And it's entirely possible to be miserable while playing, in which case you're pretty much losing at the game of "finding an enjoyable pastime".

 

[Bill Zebub]

Maybe 'the rest of the world' just means the US, but in the UK poor loser and bad loser are common and sore loser is not.

Where's that? Is it a Canadian province? Or part of New Zealand?