Winning and losing in RPGs...

[overgeeked]

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.

Hey, we agree on something. Woot.

I did a thread a few years back about fun and preferences. This thread wasn’t about that topic.

Here’s that thread for anyone who wants to check it out.

D&D 5E (2014) Thread 'What's fun?'

Nov 12, 2022

People keep talking about this or that being "fun" or this or that being "not fun." Hopefully we can all recognize that fun is entirely subjective. There's no right or wrong way, either something is fun for you or it isn't and there's no point in arguing about why someone else doesn't have fun in exactly the same way as you.

Some people have fun playing games on easy mode, some people have fun playing Elden Ring. There's all kinds of genres, all kinds of styles of game (board, war, tabletop, video, etc), and there's all kinds of fun to be had. From Civilization on settler to Darkest...

• overgeeked
• Replies: 68
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

 

[Mannahnin]

There are a couple of clips of Gary talking about the game, including about winning and losing, in this recent short BBC piece. Closing with:

"I think winning is less important than the overall experience. This is, afterall, something that challenges the imagination and exercises the mind and creativity in problem-solving. And so I guess everyone feels that they win if they survive."

Witness History - My dad created Dungeons & Dragons - BBC Sounds

In 1974, Gary Gygax created the fantasy roleplay game.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Umbran]

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.

Do you think we should expect people to respond to losing a 20-minute game of magic in the same way as they'd react to a loss involving a character they've invested a goodly part of a campaign - dozens or scores of hours - in?

While I suppose they can be similar for some people, it does not seem we should expect them to be similar, broadly.

 

[soviet]

Do you think we should expect people to respond to losing a 20-minute game of magic in the same way as they'd react to a loss involving a character they've invested a goodly part of a campaign - dozens or scores of hours - in?

While I suppose they can be similar for some people, it does not seem we should expect them to be similar, broadly.

If you mean the loss of a character, then I definitely agree that's different. If you mean more of a failed adventure or a story defeat then I can see how people could feel disappointed but not to the extent that it would make the session unenjoyable.

 

[Umbran]

If you mean the loss of a character, then I definitely agree that's different. If you mean more of a failed adventure or a story defeat then I can see how people could feel disappointed but not to the extent that it would make the session unenjoyable.

I am trying to phrase it without prescribing how people "should" feel about stuff. So, you get to feel how you might feel. Someone else in a similar (or entirely dissimilar) situation could validly feel differently.

 

[Bae'zel]

No it does not.
Or, have you never lost playing solitaire?

I was speaking in the context of TTRPGs.

But point taken; a DM could act as a wholly neutral referee and the players could “beat” the scenario.

 

[Umbran]

I was speaking in the context of TTRPGs.

But point taken; a DM could act as a wholly neutral referee and the players could “beat” the scenario.

Or, you could have an RPG in which the traditional "GM" role has been shifted to more of an active collaborator in a form of asymmetric play. Or, you have no "GM" at all, and the tasks of adjudicating resolutions and adding conflicts merely rotates around the table.

Once you step away from the wargame-root concept of "beating" a scenario, other alternate play forms open up, in which "success" might look significantly different from our typically action-adventure play.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I just don't believe that RPGs have the win/lose states found in many games. As a category of games, RPGs have more in common with Marco Polo, Ghost in the Graveyard, "Cowboys and Indians", and the like, in which there are minor victories and defeats in passing, but nobody ever formally wins or loses. You keep playing for as long as you are having fun (or until your parents yell that it's time to come in...).

 

[prabe]

I just don't believe that RPGs have the win/lose states found in many games. As a category of games, RPGs have more in common with Marco Polo, Ghost in the Graveyard, "Cowboys and Indians", and the like, in which there are minor victories and defeats in passing, but nobody ever formally wins or loses. You keep playing for as long as you are having fun (or until your parents yell that it's time to come in...).

I don't think anyone has said that the win/loss conditions/states in TRPGs are the same as those found in more conventional games. I think there are people who think they aren't there, and there are people who think they are.

(And some of those games you mention do have win/loss conditions, or at least can readily be played to a state where they're "done.")

 

[Umbran]

As a category of games, RPGs have more in common with Marco Polo, Ghost in the Graveyard, "Cowboys and Indians", and the like, in which there are minor victories and defeats in passing, but nobody ever formally wins or loses. You keep playing for as long as you are having fun (or until your parents yell that it's time to come in...).

That may be true of D&D, and many other traditional RPGs. But, there are RPGs that have an explicit end point.

Scum and Villany, for example, is designed for a campaign to run for a dozen to twenty sessions, and then be done.
Deathmatch Island canonically has the PCs working their way through three islands, and then the game is done.
Ten Candles, as I understand it, runs for a single session of play, and then is done.
Always/Never/Now, a game I'm playing through now, has a fixed set of scenarios, and then is complete.

So, "the game has no end, and so has no win/loss" may be common, but is not categorically true.

Deathmatch Island, specifically, has explicit end states that pretty solidly map to traditional win/loss scenarios: Only one player wins, all players win, or all players lose.