Contradictory Gamism

[Mike Holmes]

It's not so much that the particular passage is annoying. It's that it's indicative of the sort of muddled thinking that RPG authors often use in design. In addition to the passage in question, I'd be surprised to find that a text with that sort of claim in it wasn't itself actually confused in other parts of it's design and presentation.

For example, such a text may have conflicting rules regarding experience for beating up mosters, and for playing characters well. Saying that one ought to do what the character would do, but also do what it takes to win. The basic Gam/Sim Incoherence problem.

Since the introductory text doesn't clarify what to do, and the system doesn't clarify, it's just potentially confusing to a group without a unified mode via tradition. Now, does that mean that this particular text overall is unclear? I can't say. But I've read lots of games that have this problem, and worse seen them degenerate to unplayability because of the problems caused because the text didn't do anything to prevent them.

It occurs to me that the thread in Actual Play right now dealing with the Dysfnctional game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7060) may be about the sort of Incoherence we're talking about here. One player has a Gamist slant and others have a Sim slant (they refer to the player as Min/Maxing as though it were a pejorative term), and they all feel justified in how they're playing. In fact they aren't even communicating about it. I'm guessing that the system that they're playing isn't doing anything to help, legitimizing both modes of play in ways that are conflicting horribly.

If you can "interperet" what these authors are trying to say despite their terms being literally contradictory, then why are you having so much trouble with the simple concept that Ron is espousing, attacking every single terms without interperetation? Aren't you holding Ron to a different standard by harping on one word and what you believe he must have meant (despite him being here and telling you otherwise)?

Mike

[Marco]

It occurs to me that the thread in Actual Play right now dealing with the Dysfnctional game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7060) may be about the sort of Incoherence we're talking about here. One player has a Gamist slant and others have a Sim slant (they refer to the player as Min/Maxing as though it were a pejorative term), and they all feel justified in how they're playing. In fact they aren't even communicating about it. I'm guessing that the system that they're playing isn't doing anything to help, legitimizing both modes of play in ways that are conflicting horribly.

Mike

Perhaps, but there is also an equally recent Hero Wars thread where the GM is running Narrativist and the players are running Sim. I think it's a given that they all feel justified in the way they're playing. Would the problems there be resolved if the GM patiently quoted the book at them? I kinda doubt it.

-Marco

[Marco]

If you can "interperet" what these authors are trying to say despite their terms being literally contradictory, then why are you having so much trouble with the simple concept that Ron is espousing, attacking every single terms without interperetation? Aren't you holding Ron to a different standard by harping on one word and what you believe he must have meant (despite him being here and telling you otherwise)?

Mike

Well, I don't think the terms are "literally contradictory" (I assume yer talkin' to me).

And Ron didn't "tell me otherwise." He told me that the first sentence meant "no winning or losing here" and could't mean anything else. He even stared at me incredulously (a trick over message boards, to be sure).

I'm not attacking him (although I guess I wouldn't blame him for being annoyed at this point). I really do like the Gamism article. OTOH Your calling RPG authors muddled is indicative of the reasons why I started this thread.

-Marco

[Gordon C. Landis]

Marco,

First point - well, it's only the last, maybe, five years (a while before joining in the discussions at GO that brought me to the Forge) that I'd even look at text like this with a critical eye.

That said - RIGHT NOW, here's the sentence by sentence rundown of my reaction:

" . . . role-playing games do not."  Well, RPGs are different than board/war games, but they *can* be about winning and losing.  What's this trying to say?

"Competitive vs cooperative."  Well, coopertative is particularly important for RPGs - a particular KIND of cooperative, I'd say.  And competitive is an entirely seperate question, but I seem to react to it differently than most people - guess I'll ignore that.  Still - "we don't work against each other, we face danger together" - maybe that's what this is trying to say.  Some RPG groups will HATE that . . .

" . . win and lose as a team."  Is the GM included in this?  Is this talking about teamwork to acheive victory vs. an in-game challenge or "winning" as "everyone has fun"?  

I don't know - I can play a wargame with a team of folks, against another team or even just against "the game" - I can play Quake as part of a team against the computer, or another team, or as a free-for-all against the other players - just WHAT (if anything) is this passage trying to say is, like, a defining characteristic of RPG play and only RPG play?

Allowing myself to get creative and make some assumptions about your last question . . . If the point of this passage is ONLY to distinguish between "traditional" RPG "us vs. the game, as moderated by the GM" play and a game of Monopoly, how about something like "instead of playing against each other, you'll be working together against the challenges posed by the GM.  Think of it as Monopoly where someone else owns all the properties, and you and your friends have to join forces to get 'em away from him."

Now, that's a very particular kind of RPG play, and I think the passge is intended to cover MORE than just that style of play - but my best analysis of the particular passage leaves it as applying ONLY to that style.

Gordon

[Mike Holmes]

One way to do that is to take responsibility for one's own interpertation when text seems paradoxical (rather than assuming the author is 'muddled')

So I'm being some victims advocate, now? I'm only attacking bad authorship because I'm some bleeding heart liberal who doesn't believe in personal responsibility? That's so silly I don't even know how to respond. There's plainly a difference between personal responsibility and liability. I suppose you'd argue that if a person is poisoned at McDonalds they ought not sue them because they should have had the responsibility to test the meal for poison first.

We're not worried about people like you who can parse this successfully. We're worried about those who are unable, not unwilling. It's my opinion that your experience has convinced you that such people do not exist. It's my experience that they do, and in droves. And that even amonst players who are aware of the issues, good design leads to better play as regards GNS issues.

Either you can help people understand GNS issues as they pertain to a particular RPG and better writing helps in this regard, or this is not true. Which do you believe? I think the former, obvously, and given that, I'll look for what it is that is the bad writing.

Now, if you're argument here is that this particular sort of text never leads to any bad play, I guess that we're going to have to disagree. Because it's been my experience that this is exactly the sort of contradictory information disseminated in RPGs that causes problems in their play.

I think that the statement is contradictory because people reading it often are not be able to parse it in any meaningful way (again, given that I've experienced this myself) that will help them avoid incoherent play. And given a system that is also designed so that it will tend to Incoherence, this is a bad state of affairs likely to produce problems for many groups. (I would agree that for a well designed system the text is somewhat moot).

Mike

[Marco]

Marco,

First point - well, it's only the last, maybe, five years (a while before joining in the discussions at GO that brought me to the Forge) that I'd even look at text like this with a critical eye.

I dig it. It's not that I'm suggesting you read with an un-critical eye, it's the getting hung up on--and then creating problems for everyone else at the table that I'm wonderin' about. What do you see there that would be an excuse for confict with other players (not that I think you're looking for one--but if the text is seen as causing problems, that's what's happening).

That said - RIGHT NOW, here's the sentence by sentence rundown of my reaction:

" . . . role-playing games do not."  Well, RPGs are different than board/war games, but they *can* be about winning and losing.  What's this trying to say?

I agree with you here. I mean, I think he's talking about the singular case--but yeah, he's distinguishing them--and he's not necessiarly clear how yet.

"Competitive vs cooperative."  Well, coopertative is particularly important for RPGs - a particular KIND of cooperative, I'd say.  And competitive is an entirely seperate question, but I seem to react to it differently than most people - guess I'll ignore that.  Still - "we don't work against each other, we face danger together" - maybe that's what this is trying to say.  Some RPG groups will HATE that . . .

I think your guess is spot on. I don't know specifically what your take on cooperation vs. competition is--but I can philosophically see how the two are not opposites. In context, he's contrasting them--so I think you're right to read the way you said you did.

Yes, some people will hate it. I agree I don't think he's being all that inclusive.

" . . win and lose as a team."  Is the GM included in this?  Is this talking about teamwork to acheive victory vs. an in-game challenge or "winning" as "everyone has fun"?  

I don't know - I can play a wargame with a team of folks, against another team or even just against "the game" - I can play Quake as part of a team against the computer, or another team, or as a free-for-all against the other players - just WHAT (if anything) is this passage trying to say is, like, a defining characteristic of RPG play and only RPG play?

I'm not sure he's trying to be that definitive--he he's saying it's team play. He's saying you win together. I'd guess having fun is part of the deal as well but so far it seems a lot like team rock climbing.

Allowing myself to get creative and make some assumptions about your last question . . . If the point of this passage is ONLY to distinguish between "traditional" RPG "us vs. the game, as moderated by the GM" play and a game of Monopoly, how about something like "instead of playing against each other, you'll be working together against the challenges posed by the GM.  Think of it as Monopoly where someone else owns all the properties, and you and your friends have to join forces to get 'em away from him."

Now, that's a very particular kind of RPG play, and I think the passge is intended to cover MORE than just that style of play - but my best analysis of the particular passage leaves it as applying ONLY to that style.

Gordon

I don't think he's trying to be that inclusive--that might be short sighted--or it might just be the way he wants his game played. I'm not sure--I read it as applying to team-coopertive-no-inter-party rivalry-vs.-the-world.

Judging from the text, I don't think Zody'd be too surprised with that read.

One point of note: I liked your text--however when you got to the GM part, you might be read as casting him as an adversarial land-lord hoarding the treasure against the players (and still perhaps in possesion of the traditional power split)--that could be read a lot of different ways too, no?

-Marco

[Gordon C. Landis]

One point of note: I liked your text--however when you got to the GM part, you might be read as casting him as an adversarial land-lord hoarding the treasure against the players (and still perhaps in possesion of the traditional power split)--that could be read a lot of different ways too, no?

Yeah, one of the things missing from the snippet of text we're looking at is anything specific about the GM as distinct from "players", so I went ahead and inserted an adversarial one - that seemed to make the most sense with everything else in the passage, why "winning" was still there even though the game isn't about "winning."  You're right though, that would need more explanation - I think your request allows me another sentence or two :-)

But focusing that role focuses the game further - which is perhaps desireabe, or perhaps not.  If we've got more sentences, we could outline a number of possible roles for the GM - and maybe the appropriate rules-tweaks that would help make 'em work.

So - I don't know, if your point is that the intent behind this passage is entirely valid, sure, that's seems true.  I'm not convinced it does a particularly good job of conveying anything, and partly that's because there's at least one reading in which it is flatly self-contradicting.  But maybe the fact that it's also not very clear is the more important point.

I find it, and Ron's claim about the inherent contradiction, interesting because of my experience with folks who were just as fuzzy about their actual RPG play as the passage itself is.  For a while, things would cruise along like a wargame (with varying degrees "competition" among the participants), and then folks would suddenly realize "hey, wait a minute, we're not supposed to be about winning," and the play style would change, then start drifting back into a wargame again.

Those sessions seemed entirely unclear about just what kind of game was happening  -  they clearly weren't *TRYING* to wander in and out of various styles, it just happened.  Whether that's because of confusion or contradiction . . . I don't really have the energy to argue over that detail.

But obviously, I do have the energy to argue in favor of the idea that there's SOMETHING very wrong with RPG-descriptive passages like this one.

Gordon

[contracycle]

As a long-standing critic of the use of the term competition, I find myself mostly comfortable with the present context.  I don't think it is meaningful to claim team games are not competitive; clearly they are at the team level.  In most team games done outside of the closed RPG group, there is often a second layer of cpmetition about being selected for the team in the first place.

All that said I do like the team rock climbing scenario, although I fear we have been round this loop before.  I agree that the rock is not fighting back, but I also attempt that we often, let us say choose, to see ourselves in "competition" with inanimate objects.  Additionally, a good argument can be made that certain kinds of competition (mortal ones) requires objectification of the opposition.

I can accept the use of competition in the context of team activities; I think it is unfortunate that this will however still tend to be interpreted as individual on individual competition, because I think that concept does badly distort the picture of what happens in RPG.

[epweissengruber]

Contracycle's description of challenges that are not strictly competitive reminded me of an idea that might be a big enough box to contain the conepts of "competition," "challenge" and "winners v. losers."

I came across a good description of the pleasure people take in having their wills opposed, be it by another person who engages them in conflict, or by an non-sentient object that presents a challenge (to use two terms that have come up again and again in this discussion of Gamism.)

One can win by overcoming an unpredictable opponent, or one can lose.  You don't have to lose to another player or lose to the GM to experience the excitement (and frustration) of interaction.


http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/darkside.html

Interaction can only take place where there is a perceived disrepancy of volition. The child throws the ball, declaring, "You go away!" The ball bounces back; in the child's view, the ball answers, "No, I'll come back!" The various angles, energies, and spins with which the ball bounces back are perceived by the child as manifestations of its volition. After much experimentation, the child induces the laws of physics that determine the ball's behavior. This triggers a fundamental shift in the child's perception of the ball. It is no longer an agent with free will, capable of interacting with the child, but instead an inanimate object reacting according to understandable rules. The ball is left lying on the floor as the child seeks out new agents with which to interact.

Ron is right when he says that most RPG texts uneccesarily fudge the issue of conflict or competition.  Players may not twist the "Step on Up" dial to 11 in their interactions with each other -- but the basic challenge of interacting with unpredictable agents always involves, to some degree or other, clashing volitions.  

The contradictory texts that have served as the basis for this discussion are unclear regarding what kinds of interaction is encouraged by RPGs, or how RPG interactions are different from boardgame interaction