<< Favorite Games I | Main | Favorite Games II >>

May 30, 2003

Wish 49

Is there a way to win or lose in a roleplaying game? Are you in competition with other players, NPCs, or the GM? What are the rewards for winning or the penalties for losing? Do you feel like your characters have to “win” to enjoy a game?

hmmm...

Well, there clearly are for some games. Rune, for example, is actually a competitive game, with the GM and players both limited by the rules and fighting over Victory Points. But that's an exception. The big difference between most RPGs and most other games is that RPGs aren't "zero sum" or "winner-takes-all"; some or all participants can win, and no one needs to lose.

Some people focus on character power-gathering as victory, or on changing the world in their desired way, and if they achieve their goals, they consider it a "win", so good for them!

But IMO, the object is to tell a good and genre appropriate story (either at the character or the overall level). That can end with failure if the genre is Cthulhu or or if it's Toon and you picked the Coyote as your role model (in fact, the humor in Toon is pretty much always based around failure, which is the major way it differs from the other animation-based humor game, Teenagers From Outer Space, which bases its humor on excessive success). Failure is, in fact, an appropriate story in many genre. For some character concepts (evil masterminds such as Brand-as-painted-by-Corwin, for example) it's almost the only genre-appropriate story from the very beginning (since some genre don't allow for the bad guys winning the day).

One "wins" an RPG if, in the end, your character has achieved a genre appropriate, satisfying ending, be it to an episode or to their full story. Thus, some players can win while others lose, though in most situations all the players, including the GM, are working together to achieve a mutual win. You "lose" if the ending you achieve is not genre appropriate (the bad guys win after the heroes give up instead of fighting on even though facing only slight resistance, for example, is almost never genre appropriate) or if you never achieve closure (the game falls apart without wrapping up anything, as happens all too often).

Now, many (perhaps most) games establish a genre (or, I suppose, actually a sub-genre within their setting as genre) that is "character vs. universe conflict", where the only appropriate ending is success against all odds, and this tends to create false player vs. GM conflict, as the GM provides the "all odds" you need to succeed against. But it is a false conflict; the GM's goal is the players' success just as much as the players' is. Which tends to make for the odd situation where the GM "wins" by the NPCs under the GM's control losing.

Posted by ghoul at May 30, 2003 11:53 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://noneuclidianstaircase.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/12

Comments

"...the odd situation where the GM "wins" by the NPCs under the GM's control losing."

That last bit is an interesting notion. As a GM, I've never invested in the "bad guys" and a lot of "horror story" rping examples have a GM who does.

Nice points.

Posted by: Arref at May 30, 2003 01:37 PM

I have to admit that I tend to invest in the "bad guys" on a fairly regular basis, though I also tend to design at least a couple supporting NPCs that are pretty well-developed as well. Thinking of a game vis a vis story structure, I tend to find that the more backstory and depth one gives the opposition, the more challenging the game. And maybe that's one of the things I'm looking for as both a GM and a player to have a "winning" game.

Posted by: Jenn at May 30, 2003 04:40 PM

It's the GM being emotionally invested in a bad guy that I hate. "You can't beat my bad guy because I'll get mad" is a disastrous GM impulse. I've been in games where it was carried out, and they were all bad.

Posted by: Ginger at May 30, 2003 07:07 PM

Overall, I think that it fundamentally has to do with how the gaming group as a whole views the game. The group here at home tends to view "winning" as good triumphing over evil (in sometimes very strange ways). The players understand that the GM *is* the supporting cast - "extras", antagonists, allies, etc., all rolled into one. I don't _think_ that the players view me as an opponent, and we're all striving for a good (if not great) story with lots of twists and turns.

Posted by: Louis R. Evans at May 30, 2003 07:52 PM

I'm not sure emotional investment is a problem except when it leads to forgetting your goal. If the GM gets so involved with the bad guys that he wants them to win (and this isn't a story where that is an appropriate ending, and there are only a few such stories), they can start working against the good of the game. Unfortunately, this is far too easy a trap to fall into.

But emotional investment without goal slip is a very good thing. The GM should want their NPCs to do the best job of their role they can, even if that role is, ultimately, to fail (as it usually us). But it's much better if they fail big, after costing the heroes significant effort. And preferably to a significant final action, not nibbled away (which, sadly, many game mechanics tends to favor). If the GM puts their effort to gaining this end rather than to trying to make their NPCs succeed inappropriately, everybody wins!

Posted by: Ghoul at May 31, 2003 10:52 AM

That's a good point. I don't necessarily want the Omphalos to win, but I don't want it to be a piece of cake for the people in SB to deal with the threat, either. The dramatic "final effort" to win the day, I agree, is much more cinematic.

Until that victory, however, small ones can help keep the faith, so to speak. Like a trail of bread crumbs to the *real* major conflict.

Posted by: Paul at May 31, 2003 11:01 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?