PDA

View Full Version : It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game



Mr. Friendly
2008-03-14, 06:43 AM
I'm turning a sideline discussion in another thread into a topic of it's own. Is it possible to win or lose playing D&D?

Sure, you can say that "as long as you are having fun, you are winning" though the same can most certainly said of any game, that doesn't make it true. At least not in a literal "hey look at the scoreboard" true. It could be objectively true, I suppose; however this is Game Theory, not Philosophy. :smallbiggrin:

Aside from Tournament settings, can you lose at D&D? I think you can. In fact, I have run many campaigns where the PCs lost. "City of the Spider Queen" in an excellent module for such things. It has a timetable that the BBEG follows; failure to stop them eventually results in major NPCs becoming involved to stop them and costs hundeds of thousands their lives.

I would say any campaign which involves the PCs stopping the BBEG from destroying the world is a de facto win-lose situation. If the PCs fail, they lose. It's that simple.

/dons flame-proof armor
/dons helm of rebuttal
/wields acidic, flaming, vorpal greatsword of trollslaying

Duke of URL
2008-03-14, 06:58 AM
The mark of an epic storyline (not necessarily epic levels) in a role playing game is that the players have the power to change the world (or even multiverse). The only natural consequence to that, however, is that not all of those changes are always for the best.

As an example, I was playing in a NWN-based persistent world based on the owner's PnP campaign setting. Players affected the event of the world, and there was indeed a major "plot finale" where the current campaign wrapped up. In that finale, the epic characters faced off against the BBEG, the other high-level characters had to defend the source of magic in the world from another attack, and the mid-level characters were defending the capital of the most powerful nation from attack.

Any of the groups could have failed. The chance of failure was what made it exciting. One group actually did fail -- the third one (and the one I was in), and the new campaign prominently features the fact that the city is under the control of an evil little fascist. The first group succeeded, but even that victory had effects which caused repercussions in the rest of the world.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-14, 07:54 AM
Players can't win or lose, but the characters can, which often amounts to the same. (And should, really; if the players don't care whether their characters succeed, they're not very involved with the game.)

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-14, 07:58 AM
Players can't win or lose, but the characters can, which often amounts to the same. (And should, really; if the players don't care whether their characters succeed, they're not very involved with the game.)

Right, but if we want to extend that logic, then *you* the player can never actually lose a video game since it was your avatar that lost.

I suppose that does open a second front to the question: Is character failure the same as personal failure?

loopy
2008-03-14, 08:04 AM
The mark of an epic storyline (not necessarily epic levels) in a role playing game is that the players have the power to change the world (or even multiverse). The only natural consequence to that, however, is that not all of those changes are always for the best.

As an example, I was playing in a NWN-based persistent world based on the owner's PnP campaign setting. Players affected the event of the world, and there was indeed a major "plot finale" where the current campaign wrapped up. In that finale, the epic characters faced off against the BBEG, the other high-level characters had to defend the source of magic in the world from another attack, and the mid-level characters were defending the capital of the most powerful nation from attack.

Any of the groups could have failed. The chance of failure was what made it exciting. One group actually did fail -- the third one (and the one I was in), and the new campaign prominently features the fact that the city is under the control of an evil little fascist. The first group succeeded, but even that victory had effects which caused repercussions in the rest of the world.

That sounds amazing, I want in, haha.

Winterwind
2008-03-14, 08:10 AM
[In a different RPG] I have a knight. I told the gamemaster that my wishes for the story of this knight to come would be, that he first falls to "the dark side", so to speak - that overwhelmed by all the times he loses, by all the times he witnesses evil to prevail, he finally snaps and turns to evil himself. I want this, because I think I would enjoy roleplaying a redemption arc.
The gamemaster agreed to my preferences and, at the moment, the knight, while often prevailing against evil, still often suffers losses - victories which have, in fact, aided his arch-enemy in some way, deaths of NPCs he befriends, and such. Which is exactly what I asked for.

My character is losing. I am winning. :smallwink:

___

This said, no, I don't think players can lose (unless they are not having fun), even though characters can very well. Of course, one may feel the character's sadness if the long pursued goal ultimately proves unreachable - but at the same time, I consider such important moments, in which immersiveness reaches its apex, the most fun. So, even then, I count them as wins for the player.

So, sorry, but I guess I follow strictly the old, stale phrase - the only way to win is to have fun, the only way to lose is to not have it.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-14, 08:21 AM
Right, but if we want to extend that logic, then *you* the player can never actually lose a video game since it was your avatar that lost.

I suppose that does open a second front to the question: Is character failure the same as personal failure?

Video games are a different kettle of fish. It's about goals. If your goal in a video game is to win, then losing is losing. If your goal is to have fun (I can think of many games where you never "win" - UnReal World, Guild 2, etc.), losing is not losing.

The goal in a tabletop-RPG is to have fun and maybe tell a story. How you lose is very important there. If it's frustrating, pointless, random, or otherwise hinders fun and stories, then I guess you could say it's losing - I'd say it's more the game failing. If your character's loss is parlayed into a cool story path by you and the GM, you still win!

I try not to let character loss be player loss. If they get defeated and captured (or left for dead), that's just the start of another chapter of the adventure. If the BBEG wins, that's going to lead to a very interesting adventure as the PCs try to recover their loss.

Matthew
2008-03-14, 08:32 AM
Player Characters can lose battles, they can lose items, they can lose friends and they can fail to complete objectives. None of these equate to 'losing the game'. The reason you generally will not lose the game is because the campaign world is ongoing. Of course, if the world is destroyed as a consequence of characters failing, that could be considered 'losing the game', since you have actually lost the campaign world.

However, the point with RPGs, as has been described in some detail before, is that they do not create two groups at the end of play [i.e. winners and losers]. It has even been said that on account of this they are not really games at all, but rituals. I don't necessarily agree with that, but the point in the 'no winners and losers' slogan is this:

1) The DM is not attempting to defeat the Player Characters

2) The Players are not attempting to defeat one another

In some games the above is happening, but I'd rather eat my own leg than play in one. :smallwink: (generally speaking).

Sleet
2008-03-14, 08:33 AM
I suppose that does open a second front to the question: Is character failure the same as personal failure?

Not at all. If a character loses, but loses awesomely, then the player wins. Winterwind provides a fine example of this.

kamikasei
2008-03-14, 08:51 AM
Right, but if we want to extend that logic, then *you* the player can never actually lose a video game since it was your avatar that lost.

Depends on the game.

Obviously it is possible for you, personally, to lose a match in Quake, say, because you personally are competing with others within the game.

Is it possible to lose in an RPG like, say, KotOR or Planescape? Not really; you can die along the way or get a bad ending, but you can always go back to an earlier save and try again. You try again until you "win", which is essentially getting to the end of the defined plot. You can "fail to win" if you haven't yet progressed through the game to the end condition, of which there may be several. You haven't "lost KotOR" whether you get the light side or dark side ending, but you haven't "won KotOR" if you've only just gotten your lightsaber and haven't played any further.

The essential difference between any of these games and D&D is that there is no defined plot in a PnP game. The DM can continue to provide a world for you to play in, challenges and story elements to interact with, however things turn out. The story may reach a point - TPK, world destroyed, whatever - where you don't want to continue because it would seem to contrived or would be too different to the game you set out to play in the first place, but that's about it. The closest you can come to "losing" is not getting to the end of some pre-written adventure, because you know there's a chunk of it you didn't get far enough to see play out.


I suppose that does open a second front to the question: Is character failure the same as personal failure?

No. If you have a "character" you're playing and not just an avatar you're playing through (the distinction between an RPG and an FPS above) then the character may succeed or fail in his goals but the act of playing that out is a success for the player if he's enjoying it. Of course, a player may set goals for himself to achieve in the game and those may coincide with the character's goals, but this is not necessary. Indeed you could have a character succeed but player fail - say the character is an evil overlord, and takes over the world with minimal resistance, but the player wanted to have to fight heroes and eventually be defeated by them, because it'd have been cool.

Roderick_BR
2008-03-14, 09:12 AM
The real question is: Are the player actually competing against something? What actually means losing in RPGs? When the BBeG wins? When the PCs lose? Remember that the DM is not playing against the PCs. I actually get a bit sad in some games if the players fail to reach the "ending" of the adventure, dies before fighting the BBeG, etc, because it cuts me out of the game too.
So, yes, characters can lose, but players don't have to claim they lose, any more than the DM can claim the same.
That said, I almost TPKed a party in the FIRST trap in Tomb of Horrors. one of the characters did die. While he had to sit out for the rest of the session, we all there having enough fun while the survivors were trying to survive the folowing trap. He already said he'll bring a paladin next, that he's more used to play, and the others players already agreed that they'll go back to the city to hire a replacement for the dead wizard, thus including the paladin (and possible a 4th player if he wishes to join).
The wizard lost. The others had to flee. Everyone had fun in the game. I'm sure none of the players (even the wizard's players) will say they lost.

Indon
2008-03-14, 09:19 AM
Not at all. If a character loses, but loses awesomely, then the player wins. Winterwind provides a fine example of this.

You know, I have a friend in my gaming group to which this wholly applies.

Examples:

-As a caster, he mocked a powerful demon and got Feebleminded for I think a bit more than a session as a result.

-A more arbitrary example: This same guy was playing a character who got his head exploded by a Polar Bear (in a temperate climate). Not a polymorphed Druid, just a Polar Bear.

-In fact, that guy's characters tend to die with a frequency greater than anyone else - once his character got turned into a greasy smear when the party was beating up an NPC which was going to be the Big Bad Evil Guy of the campaign some levels from that point. We weren't intended to attack him... but we still got surprisingly close to killing him before the BBEG-to-be parleyed.

But, yeah. More often than not, player objectives equal character objectives. But they don't have to.

Duke of URL
2008-03-14, 09:29 AM
That sounds amazing, I want in, haha.

They're still running, it's called Layonara (http://forums.layonara.com/), but from what I can tell, they're kind of wrapping up things right now as they prepare to launch their own game independent of the NWN engine. They are still accepting players, however, so if you own NWN, enjoy.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-14, 09:37 AM
Is it possible to lose in an RPG like, say, KotOR or Planescape? Not really; you can die along the way or get a bad ending, but you can always go back to an earlier save and try again. You try again until you "win", which is essentially getting to the end of the defined plot. You can "fail to win" if you haven't yet progressed through the game to the end condition, of which there may be several. You haven't "lost KotOR" whether you get the light side or dark side ending, but you haven't "won KotOR" if you've only just gotten your lightsaber and haven't played any further.

Right, but...

You could also severely gimp your KotOR character, not level as much as you needed too, be ill equipped and get yourself backed into a saved corner, where all you can do is fight Revan and lose.... over and over....

Wouldn't that be losing?


The essential difference between any of these games and D&D is that there is no defined plot in a PnP game. The DM can continue to provide a world for you to play in, challenges and story elements to interact with, however things turn out. The story may reach a point - TPK, world destroyed, whatever - where you don't want to continue because it would seem to contrived or would be too different to the game you set out to play in the first place, but that's about it. The closest you can come to "losing" is not getting to the end of some pre-written adventure, because you know there's a chunk of it you didn't get far enough to see play out.

If there is a BBEG then there is a plot. (typically anyway) If you run a purely simulationist style of game, where the world simply exists and the characters just wander around and get in adventures like Kane from Kung-Fu, then yeah, there is no real winning or losing and the world goes on. I personally have never played, nor run a game like this without some over-arcing agenda, typically because the players know that all they have to do is exterminate goblin villages over and over and eventually level to a point they are comfy with.


The real question is: Are the player actually competing against something? What actually means losing in RPGs? When the BBeG wins? When the PCs lose? Remember that the DM is not playing against the PCs.

Aren't the PCs competing against something? Agreed, the DM isn't necessarily playing "against" the players, indeed, most DMs are on the player's side, however, for the sake of vermicelli, if the BBEG is on a time-table (e.g. it will take him 6 months to finish his ritual in his super secret fort of doom) and the PCs keep getting killed or screw around making magic items the whole time, doesn't the BBEG need to finish that ritual regardless of player actions?

Is it any way believable or rewarding that the BBEG just got to "almost at the end of the ritual" a week ago, til the mage decided to sit back and make a magic item and a month later the BBEG is still "almost at the end of the ritual"?


I actually get a bit sad in some games if the players fail to reach the "ending" of the adventure, dies before fighting the BBeG, etc, because it cuts me out of the game too.
So, yes, characters can lose, but players don't have to claim they lose, any more than the DM can claim the same.
That said, I almost TPKed a party in the FIRST trap in Tomb of Horrors. one of the characters did die. While he had to sit out for the rest of the session, we all there having enough fun while the survivors were trying to survive the folowing trap. He already said he'll bring a paladin next, that he's more used to play, and the others players already agreed that they'll go back to the city to hire a replacement for the dead wizard, thus including the paladin (and possible a 4th player if he wishes to join).
The wizard lost. The others had to flee. Everyone had fun in the game. I'm sure none of the players (even the wizard's players) will say they lost.

I also like it for the players to make it to the end, but if they screw up, as players and as characters (for example, the players decide to waste time and the characters die a few times) and the BBEG finishes the super evil ritual of doom.... then haven't the Players and Characters both failed?

The first time we played ToH, we all had 4 characters ready to go. We knew it was a death trap going into it. We played it as a tournament module. Our first party was TPK'd. On the first trap. Our second party was TPK'd. On the second trap.

We never even came close to the end. But it was fun. We as players may have "won" in the sense that we had fun, but we also lost, in a very real and literal way. We failed to meet the objectives of the mission. Our group in particular failed to score more points than other groups, so that is another literal failure.

hamlet
2008-03-14, 10:07 AM
Honest Question: If, as has been claimed by some here, it is not possible to "lose" a table top RPG, then why is it a bad thing when an unavoidable negative consequence strikes your character (say insanity from gazing upon Dread Cthulhu) or your character unexpectedly dies?

Wouldn't that just provide a new opportunity to enrich the ongoing narrative?

snoopy13a
2008-03-14, 02:55 PM
Whether or not the players win depends on whether or not they are having fun. However, the definition of "having fun" depends on the player. I believe that a key for RPGs is that the players share the same sense of fun.

For example, a TPK would be not fun for most players. Yet, a group made up of a bunch of goof-offs may consider it to be funny. That is why player compatibility is important for RPGs. A powergamer is not going to have fun with a bunch of silly players while a silly player is not going to have fun with a bunch of powergamers.

Indon
2008-03-14, 02:58 PM
Honest Question: If, as has been claimed by some here, it is not possible to "lose" a table top RPG, then why is it a bad thing when an unavoidable negative consequence strikes your character (say insanity from gazing upon Dread Cthulhu) or your character unexpectedly dies?

Wouldn't that just provide a new opportunity to enrich the ongoing narrative?

Yes, but that requires work, and we're lazy, so it's better when we can see it coming and plan out... though, sufficient quantities of awesomeness (or just impulsiveness) mitigate that.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-14, 03:35 PM
An RPG is essentially a sequence of sub-games (adventures, combats, dice-manipulation exercises). You generally can't lose the whole game (in the same way that you can't actually "lose" at a computer game, because you always get to try again) but you can most certainly lose the sub-games.

Some RPGs attempt to remove the sub-games, removing the possibility of "losing" altogether. This has had varying degrees of success.