There are a couple of important points: first, there are games where you can "win" without necessarily beating someone else.

Second, the idea of a game where one doesn't traditionally defeat other (human) opponents, or where the game as such doesn't end, has become part of our lexicon in a huge way.  Many computer games (and not just computer RPGs) haven't got the traditional model of "win conditions" (even though many of those same games have somewhat more traditional "lose" conditions).  And these are in some cases the main games people under a certain age tend to play these days.

So I'm saying that the point of view people have about "win conditions" in this thread are antiquated.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;589956There are a couple of important points: first, there are games where you can "win" without necessarily beating someone else.

Second, the idea of a game where one doesn't traditionally defeat other (human) opponents, or where the game as such doesn't end, has become part of our lexicon in a huge way.  Many computer games (and not just computer RPGs) haven't got the traditional model of "win conditions" (even though many of those same games have somewhat more traditional "lose" conditions).  And these are in some cases the main games people under a certain age tend to play these days.

So I'm saying that the point of view people have about "win conditions" in this thread are antiquated.

You're missing the point. I already talked about RPGs without "win conditions", which is what I'm talking about as "RPG as pastime". What I'm saying is that there's a group of people who see RPGs as *requiring* win conditions, and see win conditions as objective rather than subjective, so they take exception to people who don't play that way. And I'm accusing the people with this particular problem of being the source of most of the conflict in the myriad eternal debates.

Here's something from my first post, with emphasis added.

Quote from: talysman;587283A pastime is something to just pass the time. It's entertainment. It may have some rules, but sometimes not many, and sometimes the rules are ad-hoc. There may not be a definite ending point; maybe you just play until lunch is over. There may not be a win condition; the point probably isn't to beat the other guy, but just to keep playing, and to be as creative and interesting while playing as you can.

A game is a pastime that you *can* win, or at least can lose. It has a definite end point. It has definite rules. Cheating is wrong. Getting into a situation where it's unclear if someone is cheating or playing fairly, or where some has won or lost, is a scary thing; you can have an impartial ref make a ruling, but it's something you try to avoid.

The point is not "this is how you define the word 'pastime' and 'game', and anyone who says otherwise is wrong". It's "here are two types of play I see in the RPG community, and I'll use the word 'pastime' for the first, more inclusive type and 'game' for the second, narrower type, then discuss the way i see opinions on these types affecting communication." Getting hung up in the official definition of the word "game" is a distraction; call the first one "Fred" and the second "Barney", if you want.

Focus on what I'm saying about people's understandings of Fred vs. Barney. Barney is stricter than Fred. Some people almost always play Fred. Some people choose to play Fred or Barney, based on how they feel, and even in the middle of playing Fred, they may temporarily switch to Barney until they've met (or given up) some goal. But there's this group of "Barneyites" who can't think of RPGs as anything but "Barney", don't like it when people play in a non-Barney way, call books with non-Barney elements "broken", "unbalanced", "incoherent", or "brain-damaged", and fight with people online if they say anything even vaguely non-Barney.

Does that make sense to you now?

Quote from: RPGPundit;589956So I'm saying that the point of view people have about "win conditions" in this thread are antiquated.

They're not antiquated, they're simply wrong. Having a win condition that ends the game has never been a defining qualifier if something is a game or not.

Quote from: talysman;590129Does that make sense to you now?

So your big conclusion is that arguments about RPGs are caused by playstyle and expectation clashes?

Isn't that kinda a known quantity at this point?

Quote from: talysman;590129You're missing the point. I already talked about RPGs without "win conditions", which is what I'm talking about as "RPG as pastime". What I'm saying is that there's a group of people who see RPGs as *requiring* win conditions, and see win conditions as objective rather than subjective, so they take exception to people who don't play that way. And I'm accusing the people with this particular problem of being the source of most of the conflict in the myriad eternal debates.

And, I suppose, you take exception to them talking about it in this forum. So this is yet another rehash of the "denner invasion" fooferaw.

Except I think this is something of a strawman; I don't think that non-denner gamers don't feel like there are "winning" elements, and I can't be sure but I suspect that most of the "denners" probably feel like there are far more elements to the game than just "winning".

RPGPundit