Gamism or System-driven Sim?

[timfire]

Hopefully I can express myself, this is something I've thought about for a while, but have a hard time putting into words.

First background: My prefered CA Sim, but I can get pretty competitive at other games (cards, boardgames, etc.), so I guess my secondary mode is gamism. I'm sure I'm not just "Sim by Habit," because I really enjoy "experiencing" the game world. How much I "accomplish" in a given session is secondary.

OK, so I have Sim tendencies, but at the moment I'm trying to develop a Gamist-oriented game. I like the idea of working a system, but not in a "I wanna be the best" sort of way. So I wonder, do I just enjoy "experiencing" the system? For lack of a better way to explain myself, can the demands of the system become a sort of "genre expectation?" I enjoy working the system not for the challenge, but because that's how the game works?

Or am I just confusing myself? Is it just my secondary gamist tendencies popping up? What do you all think, is it possible that Sim players might enjoy "experience" or "discovering" the system? Has this idea come up before? In the Sim essay Ron leaves the possibility open for Sim exploration of system.

[edit: I mean this to be a more general thread, rather than just a thread about myself.]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Tim,

Sounds like plain old Simulationism to me, man. For some reason, there seems to be a recent rash of confusion between Gamist "success" and "plain old enjoyment" that is gumming things up for people.

Best,
Ron

[RDU Neil]

Hi Tim,

Sounds like plain old Simulationism to me, man. For some reason, there seems to be a recent rash of confusion between Gamist "success" and "plain old enjoyment" that is gumming things up for people.

Best,
Ron

To this point, Ron... could you point me in the direction of where you address this in one of your articles (defining the difference) or where a thread has defined this.

It is not as clear a difference to me as you seem to feel it is, so I'm looking for clarification.

What is the difference between "Gamist winning" and "Enjoying success" that isn't linked to any one CA?

Thanks

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Neil,

I can't understand your question. I am talking about a Creative Agenda, specifically, Gamism. Gamist play is rewarded by increased social esteem when people appreciate your strategy and guts. Note that many people casually refer to this phenomenon as "winning" even when it doesn't always correspond to, e.g., gaining the most points over everyone else.

Now, can you have fun and reach goals without doing that? Yeah. Other goals. Other kinds of fun. Those would be non-Gamist Creative Agendas.

It is that easy, my friend.

Best,
Ron

[RDU Neil]

Let me try a different tact.

Take a situation where, through my character I set a plan in action, worked it through various bumps and difficulties that make up plot, and in the end, the resolution I wanted, but was never assured, is achieved.

The question is, can I ever enjoy this type of situation, and NOT be gamist at that moment?

It could be as simple as "trying to catch the eye of the merchant's daughter and get her to dance"

or it could be as complex as "Arranging the defense of a frontier town against the oncoming lizardmen hordes"  

Both require, for me at least, clever ideas from the player, filtered through "in character" knowledge, and perhaps a die roll or two going my way if such a skill check is involved... and even then, events may come up that I couldn't forsee or plan for and everything goes to hell.

Is the fact that I view these as challenges... and I don't want them assured in outcome... because I'll only really enjoy it if I succeed when there was a chance to fail... does that make me gamist (at least in that situation?)

I totally understand you can "enjoy" a game in any CA, for different reasons... but can you enjoy "success at overcoming a challenge" without being gamist?

My reading on this doesn't make it clear.  It seems to say "Must be gamist" because...

Sim would be happy with either outcome, character success or failure, because it was just "what happened."  And either way they get to explore what happens next.

Nar wouldn't even be in that situation because challenge exists for Nar players at a higher, metagame level.  They would be more interested in examing "What does it mean to try and pick up the merchant's daughter" rather than whether they actually succeeded at it.

Only a gamist (in the moment, not overall play) would admit "I'm not happy unless I get the girl like I planned."

Or am I totally off base here?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Neil,

Is the fact that I view these as challenges... and I don't want them assured in outcome... because I'll only really enjoy it if I succeed when there was a chance to fail... does that make me gamist (at least in that situation?)

No, it doesn't. Here's why:

... can you enjoy "success at overcoming a challenge" without being gamist?

Yup. All fictional situations involve conflict, confrontation, or reflection on or contrast with those two things (even tacitly). In my Big Model, that's called Situation. It seems to me that you are confusing Challenge (the specifically Gamist version of Situation) with Situation itself.

Only a gamist (in the moment, not overall play) would admit "I'm not happy unless I get the girl like I planned."

Or am I totally off base here?

You're off-base. Gamist play is concerned with social esteem among the real people for one's own strategy and guts. Can it be very invested in the imaginative circumstances, like getting the girl? Sure. But being invested like that can be part of any sort of role-playing.

It also seems to me that you are describing Narrativist behavior at an extremely abstract level and trying to relate to the "felt" experiential level of play. That is very common, and wrapped up with the utterly mistaken notion that Narrativist play requires "separation" or "conscious" concern with Premise.

Best,
Ron

[RDU Neil]

It seems to me that you are confusing Challenge (the specifically Gamist version of Situation) with Situation itself.

This was what I was looking for.  It does explain my confusion.

Now while I might quibble that using "challenge" in such a narrowly defined fashion might be making things more confusing than they need to be... I'm willing to drop that and now understand, based on the language defined in GNS, what is meant by challenge.

Thanks

[timfire]

Thanks Ron, I think I get it. But one last time for clarification's sake: Enjoying Challenge without concerns of social esteem isn't Gamism, it's just enjoying Situation?

I think that make sense. I think maybe a point of confusion for myself was that I was equating social esteem to mean competition. I guess you can increase your social esteem without having to "beat" other players.

Thanks!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Tim,

Enjoying Challenge without concerns of social esteem isn't Gamism, it's just enjoying Situation?

You got it.

I think maybe a point of confusion for myself was that I was equating social esteem to mean competition. I guess you can increase your social esteem without having to "beat" other players.

Well, the way I look at it is this: Gamist play may not involve beating other players, but when beating other players is involved, you know that Gamist play is the context for it.

In other words, competition is an option that exists uniquely within (but does not define) the options of Gamist play.

Best,
Ron