Run-in with a Gamist Player

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Probably time to drop in here. If it's not clear from my essay, I do not agree with Brian's interpretation of Gamism by a wide margin. Citing the differences between our views does not constitute an argument.

By my definition, his descriptions of play (and certainly his game design) do not qualify as Gamism. By my view, the concept of "challenging oneself" applies as a goal across all of role-playing, being no more nor less than a particular take on Exploration.

The only reason posed to refute this view is that he prefers to think of himself as a Gamist and is aggravated that my definitions do not permit him to do so.

Whether the shoe fits Brian is irrelevant to me. What matters to me is whether the shoe is a fair, accurate, and useful construct. I have built it based on my years of observation and experience - people often enjoy role-playing in the manner described, according to the parameters listed. That goal is distinctive enough to have its own name, and in this case, it seems that I and the original Threefold are not deviating in any meaningful way.

One last note: if there is any one phrase I am weary of having thrown in my face, it is the "Ron admits that he doesn't understand Gamism" crap. I should like to announce that I understand Gamism fine, and enjoy it frequently.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Well we seem to have descended to "more gamist than thou" argumentation.

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth,

If that's how you see it, you're free to do so. I disagree with you. I do think that's how Brian has presented his case ("I'm a Gamist and your system describes me as a Simulationist, which must be wrong"), which is why I have never bothered to debate with him about it.

I, on the other hand, have defined my terms based on real human activity and placed them in a context that makes sense relative to other goals, and to role-playing as a whole. I have yet to hear an argument that challenges any aspect of the framework.

I am not claiming to know Gamism better than anyone else. I do disavow the commonly-repeated claim that I, being me, automatically know nothing about it.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

To differentiate "player skill" from "competition" is meaningless anyway.  Brian raised many good points during his sojourn here, but I could never quite track how he managed to reach the conclusions he did based on the reasoning he used.  I could go back and cite some instances that I found very hard to follow the segue but unfortuneately those posts are lost to posterity.

But essentially while I agree with much of what Brian said, one thing seemed very clear to me that obviously was not to him.  I don't believe it is possible to talk about enjoying "player skill" without talking about competition.  In order to see ones skill as a player lead to an enjoyable outcome one must have some means of measuring the application of that skill.  What ever yard stick is used...thats competition.

I think perhaps alot of the whole "its competition, no its not" problem stems from people seeing competition only in the guise of a sporting event where people are struggling to defeat their fellow players.  That is certainly one form of competition and it is certainly a viable form for Gamist roleplaying to take (both Hero Quest (which achieves a modest level of roleplaying in some variants) and Rune have a healthy dose of player vs. player and/or player vs. GM built into them).

However, other forms of competition are equally valid and the desire to exert player skill to effect the outcome of events in the game is certainly one of them.

In fact, I found Brians theories to be of tremendous use in attempting to differentiate between a Gamist player and a Simulationist player based on whether it was the players abilities or the character abilities that were focused on.  

However, in the end...its still competition.

[James Holloway]

On 2001-10-24 15:09, Valamir wrote:
To differentiate "player skill" from "competition" is meaningless anyway.

In particular, remember that Brian stressed objective tests of player skill, which necessitates a yardstick of some kind (else whence the objectivity?) That, at least as far as I understand it, matches Ron's description of competition. I also agree that the problem is that competition as used on the Forge doesn't necessarily mean what most people think when they hear "competition"...

a problem with which I think we're all familiar.

[Valamir]

I also agree that the problem is that competition as used on the Forge doesn't necessarily mean what most people think when they hear "competition"...

a problem with which I think we're all familiar.

Oh...I could rant for days about that problem...no wait...I already have :smile:

I've pretty much resigned myself to mentally adding As Defined Here after all Jargon words people use...even as I cringe at the damage that it does to broader acceptability.

[contracycle]

Well, I think this is because there is no necessary link between an "objective test of player skill" and "competition".  As has been pointed out, there need to be yardsticks, but these may well be self-imposed.  The problem with the concept of competition conceptually is that it is then taken too far, and gamism becomes defined as competition BETWEEN players, which I think it manifestly is not.

[contracycle]

Well, I think this is because there is no necessary link between an "objective test of player skill" and "competition".  As has been pointed out, there need to be yardsticks, but these may well be self-imposed.  The problem with the concept of competition conceptually is that it is then taken too far, and gamism becomes defined as competition BETWEEN players, which I think it manifestly is not.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I have posted a long essay in the "Gamism and Premise" thread which addresses some of the posts in this thread as well.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

On 2001-10-25 12:25, contracycle wrote:
Well, I think this is because there is no necessary link between an "objective test of player skill" and "competition".

Well I would at this point have to unequivicably 100% state "you are wrong".  They are irrefuteably and inevitably linked.  Measuring oneself, ones accomplishments, ones abilities, etc against any form of yard stick is a competitive act.  Period.

I'm thinking that you have some personal ill will towards the term or idea of competition and at this point you are just flailing against having to see that term referring to something that you otherwise relate to.

As has been pointed out, there need to be yardsticks, but these may well be self-imposed.

Doesn't matter.

In the words of that old Survivor song from Rocky IV
"Its you against you.  Its the paradox that drives us all"

Whether the yardstick you are competing against is external or internal, you are still competeing against it.

The problem with the concept of competition conceptually is that it is then taken too far, and gamism becomes defined as competition BETWEEN players, which I think it manifestly is not.

Whose taking it that far?  Maybe that retard reporter in Brazil who recently described a girl's death as being related to Roleplaying which are games where people pretend to kill each other with dice.  But certainly no one here at the Forge.

[contracycle]

Well I would at this point have to unequivicably 100% state "you are wrong".  They are irrefuteably and inevitably linked.  Measuring oneself, ones accomplishments, ones abilities, etc against any form of yard stick is a competitive act.  Period.

Well you can unequivocally state that to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which gives comeptition as:

Main Entry: com·pe·ti·tion
Pronunciation: "käm-p&-'ti-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin competition-, competitio, from Latin competere
Date: 1605
1 : the act or process of competing : RIVALRY: as a : the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms b : active demand by two or more organisms or kinds of organisms for some environmental resource in short supply
2 : a contest between rivals; also : one's competitors

I'm thinking that you have some personal ill will towards the term or idea of competition and at this point you are just flailing against having to see that term referring to something that you otherwise relate to.

And I think that yopu are so obsessed by the concept that you apply it in circumstances for which it is manifestly innapropriate.

Whether the yardstick you are competing against is external or internal, you are still competeing against it.

An entirely sense-less statement

Whose taking it that far?  Maybe that retard reporter in Brazil who recently described a girl's death as being related to Roleplaying which are games where people pretend to kill each other with dice.  But certainly no one here at the Forge.

Ron, quite clearly in his essay, frames gamism as competition between real people.  Right there, chapter two, explaining the 3 branches of the GNS, says:

Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the competition.