Gamism: The pursuit of excellence

[Mark Blaxland]

 This post, and my presence on this forum is largely a result of  Mads Jakobsen's
'Gamism is not competition' thread, and it's spill-over to RPG.net (where I heard about it).

Firstly I'd like to say that I'm not here to denigrate GNS as a theory. I've found it quite helpful in understanding what I want out of games.  However I have to say I've found it a little lacking, not to say unsympathetic in it's appreciation of the Gamist angle.  Secondly I'm not particularly interested in further discussing the semantics of 'competition'.
     I'm also aware that it isn't news that those who might categorise themselves as Gamists are commonly the strongest detractors of GNS principally for its perceived distortions. I'm also aware that these detractors are regarded here as somewhat quixotic in their attacks on GNS, if not actually deluded.

Personally, my problem is with the treatment of Gamist goals. A lot of what I have to say may come over as blindingly obvious, but as George Orwell once said "To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle."

One of my principal problems with GNS is the treatment of 'winning'.

E.g.

         "Concrete examples #1: Simulationism over-riding Gamism:-

Any text which states that role-playing is not about winning; correspondingly, chastising a player who advocates a character action perceived as "just trying to win." [This example assumes that the text/game does not state story-creation as an alternative goal.] "

This seems to me to infer that 'Gamist' games are all about winning. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "it's not about the winning it's about the taking part" concerning sport or any other competitive activity. Perhaps you disregarded it as a meaningless platitude, I don't know.
        It's only natural, after all to want to 'win'. But is that the whole point of rpgs for Gamists? Is the game a failure if the participants fail to achieve the victory conditions prescribed? Should the Gamist game facilitate the achievement of player goals?
   Certainly such goals should be possible, if not probable. Where's the fun in playing a game where there is no uncertainty in the outcome? But is it all about ego and glory? An affirmative answer to this question is an understandable reason for turning one's back on Gamism.

     So where's the fun? How does a Gamist get his or her kicks when they aren't winning all the time? Well look out - I've another platitude for you. "All that can be asked is that you do your best".  Sometimes your best isn't enough to guarantee success. Accepting this is an integral part in becoming a good player.
   The boundaries prescribed in the rules and setting exist not as impediments to be subverted or conquered, but as a necessary framework without which no meaningful progress is attainable.
     The goal then, for the Gamist is not winning, but excellence. They may engineer their characters to be maximally efficient. They may even engineer their characters to be unusually incompetent, thus increasing the challenge and hence the satisfaction of any successes.  
      Gamists expect to be challenged, any fudging diminishes the experience for them. This is where Gamists part company with Narrativists most obviously.
        Gamism does not represent therefore an immature form of gaming, although it is almost certainly the form one encounters first in games (non-rpgs most obviously). Perhaps most importantly I believe an rpg does not have to transcend Gamism in order to tell satisfying stories.      

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the excellent post, and welcome to the Forge.

I have some points to make that might disperse some of the argument.

1) The quoted section about Gamism over-riding Simulationism is specifically not presented as representative of all Gamism. The text states this, regarding each of the examples in that section, across GNS. Each example is referring an isolated instance of one of the modes of play, which happens to be appropriate for the point at hand (over-rides).

Therefore your inference that I equate all successful Gamism with winning is not supported. In fact, I think the essay is pretty good at stating that "success" (ie fun) is just as nuanced and multifaceted as it is for either of the other modes of play.

[I have noticed that nearly all the objections to my discussion of Gamism are focused on inferences - what the reader considers "may" or "must" be tacitly included. Very few of them actually deal with a stated case as written.]

2) I'd like to address the judgment issue, or the inference that Gamism "must be" some lower or immature form of role-playing. I can't say it any clearer than the essay itself - that none of the modes of play are to be taken as superior or "more developed" than any of the others. That concept is written out as one of the designated misunderstandings.

If there is any other portion of the text that contradicts this statement, then it needs to be corrected. Please let me know if you think you've found any text like that.

3) I have yet to see any instances of a reasoned counter-example to my description. The one person who has tried it, Brian Gleichman, provided a self-description that corresponded beautifully to a form of Simulationism. That does not constitute a counter-example, but a confusion on his part.

By contrast, many of Gareth's (contracycle's) points about the nature of competition have been relevant and thought-provoking, and as I said before, will probably factor strongly into a revision. This is a slow process, just as it was for Simulationism throughout the past year.

In conclusion
So why is the Forge not full of Gamists-as-I-see-them embracing the definition to themselves and confirming my notions? I suggest two reasons, both speculative.

a)Confirmed Gamists represent the healthiest, happiest role-players out there, in terms of reaching their goals through the activity itself. They are probably busy actually playing, rather than seeking insight or conversation on the internet.

b) People who play according to the description of Gamism in the essay have put up with a phenomenal amount of crap from other role-players, over the decades. They are vilified as power-gamers, as immature, as mean, as non-cooperative, as dice freaks, and more. I speculate that teh non-confirmed, or closeted Gamist-oriented people are gun-shy about discussing role-playing, preferring to practice a more covert form of role-playing satisfaction, much as many Narrativist-oriented players had to do in the middle-late 1980s.

Mark, again, thanks for the excellent post that actually allowed me to state my case. All comments are welcome.

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

I'm going to indulge in a little emotional outburst here -"thank you Mark, Thank you Mark, Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!"  I can't tell you how much I appreciate your approach in this post to the issues you see around Gamism.  I'm on the same page with most everything you said.  Gamism is NOT an "immature" form, and it's not all about winning.  Two aspects to explore in detail that I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on.

First - Gamism vs. Simulationism.  Your quote from the essay and the reference in Ron's post to the Brian Gleichman-Gamist-Simulationist issue brought this to my mind . . .  Let's see, here's the claim - the excellence/challenge attributes of Gamism you point to are important differentiators from a form of Simulation.  When a Gamist is (I'll use your example, but there are many similar situations) choosing to play an "unusually incompetent" character, they do it for the reasons you cite - it increases the challenge, and thus increases the satisfaction they get when "succesfully" playing that character.  Or perhaps they have other reasons for choosing the "incompetence", but it is their Gamist acceptence/craving for challenge that allows them to enjoy playing the character even though he/she is incompetent.

A Simulationist, on the other hand, might play an incompetent "to see what effect it has on the Setting", or "to see if the simulation can handle that kind of thing".  This is why (I think) in the past, some Forge discussions have stressed the importance of "knowing you did well" (which was occasionally mis-stated/mis-understood to be "winning") as the key indicator of Gamism - you're an incompetent for the challenge, not for the fascinating intellectual excercise or to see the interesting consequences.

It's a subtle point, and that's why I mention it here for your (or anyone else's) thoughts.

Now, point 2 - "transcend[ing] Gamism in order to tell satisfying stories".  This is where I came in to the Forge, basically - here I thought I was all about story even when I was Gaming/Simulating, and these folks are saying I'm NOT about story unless I'm Narrativing.

They're not saying that.  I refer you to Chapter Two of the GNS essy, the part that begins with "Most generally, there are (1) forms of Simulationist play with a strong Situation focus, which provide a story for the participants to imagine being in; and (2) forms of Gamist play in which dramatic outcomes are the stakes of competition, which produces story as a side-effect of that competition."

A Gamist CAN have a very high desire that their play produce a "good" story, and Gamism CAN end up telling satisfying stories (just like, oh, a Narrativist can have a desire for a deep, meaty feel to the setting).  It's just that the focus during play is on the game elements, and when there's a "showdown" between a choice that would enhance the story and one that is consistent with the game . . . the game wins.  A Gamist who desires a satisfying story tries to avoid such confrontations, and there're lots of ways to manage that - e.g., keep the story "about" things that are managed well in the Gamist context - but there WILL (in my experience) be moments when that breaks down.

I also have found that it often takes a LOT of Gamist play (6-8 hours) to generate a relatively small amount of Story.  Now, if you're a dedicated Gamist, that doesn't matter - a story that compromised on the game elements would not get the job done for you.  I think there are a number of people like this in my current play group, and that makes my recent attempts to sway things in a Narrativist direction a bit annoying to them.  I'm not sure I've got room in my life for 8+ hours of RP every weekend though, so . . .

But that's a seperate subject.  What I'd be interested in on point 2 (from you, or, again, anyone out there) is an opinion about how much (and what kind) of story you get in your Gamism, and what happens when something that'd be good for the story ("man, that blow MUST have knocked him over the railing - time for him to confront his fear of heights!") conflicts with what works well in the game("Nope, sorry, he made his Balance roll and has moved into the room - no falling over the railing today").  Is your experience consistent with what GNS seems (to me) to be saying?

Thanks again for the post,

Gordon

Edited to correct the line "A Simulationist, on the other hand, might play an incompetent . . ." from "just to see what it's like", or "just to see how it turns out"." - a form of description SPECIFICALY derided in the essay.  Oh, I have sinned, and my Cult membership will soon be stripped :smile:

[ This Message was edited by: Gordon C. Landis on 2001-12-12 03:04 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Quickie point: I wanted to distinguish the phrase "Narrativism transcending Gamism" from the phrase "Narrativism overriding Gamism." The first implies improvement or transformation to a more developed form of play, and is not in my essay. The second places the two modes on equal footing and is in my essay. As I hope to have shown, any mode can override any other mode.

Others? Thoughts?

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

I was thinking about a game I was in a while back: it was a points based game, I was a moderately low-point character but was built to be very combat capable. In one scene my character took on about 6 people at once and won.

I wouldn't have been satisfied building and playing that character (with that scene in mind) in say FUDGE or The Window--it took careful design, tactics, (and a little luck) to make the scene an accomplishment. In a points-free/rules-light (or drama driven) system the *framework* for making that character wouldn't have existed so the design and tactical elements wouldn't have existed. Having my character 'perform' (in the sports-car sense, not the actor sense) was gratifying. While the fight was tangential to the plot (the resuolution of the adventure had nothing to do with combat) I would say that the scene was speaking directly to my 'inner gamist.'

I think that someone's defintion--I don't remember who--"demonstrating player skill" should be considered for the re-write. I felt that I'd accomplished something with the character and the combat.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Marco,

Another excellent post, and thanks.

Part One
My problem with the "demonstrating player skill" issue is that it applies across many modes of play. It might not apply to all of them; Turku play insists on entirely internal priorities, hence "demonstrating" is questionable. But I think that just about any other kind of role-playing is or may be concerned with that same thing.

Part Two
Your example is an excellent one ... but it's kind of tricky to identify it as Gamism, necessarily. That is, based on what you said, I agree that it probably was, but let's look at just what was satisfying about it.

1) Your own performance/effort/acumen. That's what you were referring to, and I agree, that's a valid and important aspect of role-playing, a lot of the time.

2) Performance in reference to what? A tactical challenge. There it is, to my thinking. Not just a "challenge," which is universal to role-playing successfully (having fun), but a tactical challenge. It had to have been presented in such a way that you, personally, thought, "Hm, I'm gonna have to bust butt and/or get lucky to deal with this."

I'd like to distinguish, by the way, between a tactical challenge and a fight scene. The latter is a very broad category and can propose or resolve tons and tons of different role-playing goals. The former is a very interesting thing - the PERSON, the actual human being, is being challenged in the imaginary situation's and system's tactical terms.

Example A: A fight scene such as you described sounds Gamist to me (or a form of Gamism), because that precise form of challenge seems to have been the case. I stand by my argument that such a challenge cannot occur without another human being involved in some competitive way. Please note that "some competitive way" may include referee status; that is a broader concept than "opponent."

Example B: The final fight scene in many Illusionist games (Simulationism + Situation emphasis), as Jesse has stated very clearly, is usually pre-planned in terms of set-piece and outcome. The illusionism comes in by the group essentially pretending that it is not (this pretense may be very enjoyable; I'm not knocking it).

Example C: A conflict-resolving fight scene in many Narrativist games is more like (A) in some ways, as the real-people players' judgment and decisions are "on the line," so to speak; but it is also more like (B) in some ways, as the concerns of the imaginary characters, and maintaining their integrity as story elements, is still a big priority.

[If you read the three examples carefully you will see that I am not claiming to represent ALL of Gamism, ALL of Simulationism, or ALL of Narrativism in them.]

One last thing - the role of system. I think that your comments about the necessary aspects of the game itself, necessary to that form of enjoyment, are important. But I also think that they, too, apply to many different styles and modes of play beyond Gamism. (As I've had to say many times, Narrativist play often benefits from highly structured systems rather than free-form or Drama-based ones.)

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Great post eveyone, especially Gordon. I think that despite jargon or semantic differences in definitio an important thing to remember that Gamism is still fairly easily identified. Even if the criteria is as vague as "I knows it when I sees it." And once identified, this allows analysis to occur, which is the benefit of GNS.

$.02

Mike

[Marco]

On 2001-12-12 10:25, Ron Edwards wrote:
Hi Marco,

Another excellent post, and thanks.

:smile:

Part One
My problem with the "demonstrating player skill" issue is that it applies across many modes of play. It might not apply to all of them;

Okay--I can accept this--but if your primary goal in a scene is to demonstrate player skill (even if only to yourself) aren't you in a gamist *mode* then? I agree: most RPG'ers enjoy a good tense combat--it's exciting (and appropriate to many games). That includes generally Nar and Sim players--but isn't a combat where the outcome revolves on your skill/luck a gamist pleasure?

Part Two
1) Your own performance/effort/acumen. That's what you were referring to, and I agree, that's a valid and important aspect of role-playing, a lot of the time.

Again, yes--I agree--but isn't that the GAME part of rpG rather than the Role-Playing part?

snip: tatical challenge vs. fight scene -- I agree completely.

Example A: A fight scene such as you described sounds Gamist to me (or a form of Gamism), because that precise form of challenge seems to have been the case. I stand by my argument that such a challenge cannot occur without another human being involved in some competitive way. Please note that "some competitive way" may include referee status; that is a broader concept than "opponent."

I think that "some competitive way" is a very poor way to describe the involvement of a referee (I'm not saying it's incorrect--but isn't there a better way to say it?) If I'd run the antagonists myself would that make a difference?

(Snip: Sim-Ill.)

Example C: A conflict-resolving fight scene in many Narrativist games is more like (A) in some ways, as the real-people players' judgment and decisions are "on the line," so to speak; but it is also more like (B) in some ways, as the concerns of the imaginary characters, and maintaining their integrity as story elements, is still a big priority.

I'd say is is the gamist-aspect-ascendent if the otherwise nar-player is enjoying a close fight with his own judgement on the line.

One last thing - the role of system. I think that your comments about the necessary aspects of the game itself, necessary to that form of enjoyment, are important. But I also think that they, too, apply to many different styles and modes of play beyond Gamism. (As I've had to say many times, Narrativist play often benefits from highly structured systems rather than free-form or Drama-based ones.)

Best,
Ron

'Highly-structured' here is very vague. Can you give me an example of a Gamist or Sim game where the combat mechanics are _beneficial_ to Narrativist play? I suggest that in those games when/if a Nar/Sim player finds themselves enjoying the combat for the pure tactical joy they are simply indulging the Gam part of their RPG spectrum.

-Marco

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-12-12 11:44, Marco wrote:

'Highly-structured' here is very vague. Can you give me an example of a Gamist or Sim game where the combat mechanics are _beneficial_ to Narrativist play? I suggest that in those games when/if a Nar/Sim player finds themselves enjoying the combat for the pure tactical joy they are simply indulging the Gam part of their RPG spectrum.

Marco--

I think what Ron's referring to here isn't detailed combat mechanics being beneficial to Narrativist play, but highly-structured mechanics involving the creation of story, or application of the premise.

Examples: Sorcerer, of course, has highly structured mechanics involving Humanity and the summoning of demons, all supporting its premise. Fudging these rules would be bad for play.

Hero Wars is a highly-structured game with rules that greatly influence story (the quantification of relationships, for example.) Fudging these would be bad for story.

[Short aside: I find it interesting that often, in Narrativist games, no matter the complexity, the rules for normal combat resolution and combat are unified, while in Gamist games, and often in Simulationist games, they are different methods. Perhaps in Narrativism, combat is best served as a story element, not necessarily thematically more important than, say, an argument with a lover, while in Gamist games, combat has traditionally been the element that gives the most chance to display proficiency. (This doesn't necessarily have to stay that way. See Pantheon, by Hogshead, for a great example of Gamism outside of combat.)]

_________________
Clinton R. Nixon
http://www.heartburngames.com">Heartburn Games
indie-rpgs.com webmaster
http://www.acid-reflex.com">www.acid-reflex.com

[ This Message was edited by: Clinton R Nixon on 2001-12-12 12:03 ]

[Marco]

Hi Clinton!

I completely agree--aboslutely. *I* was refering to combat (specifically how my gamist itch is sometimes scratched by detailed combat systems). I acknowledge that *system* complexity is GNS-neutral (that seems obvious) but complex player-tactical combat seems N-negative G-positive to me (is that notation clear enough?)

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-12-12 11:44, Marco wrote:

Part One
My problem with the "demonstrating player skill" issue is that it applies across many modes of play. It might not apply to all of them;

Okay--I can accept this--but if your primary goal in a scene is to demonstrate player skill (even if only to yourself) aren't you in a gamist *mode* then? I agree: most RPG'ers enjoy a good tense combat--it's exciting (and appropriate to many games). That includes generally Nar and Sim players--but isn't a combat where the outcome revolves on your skill/luck a gamist pleasure?

Marco,

I think that what Ron was saying is that one can "demonstrate player skill" at something like portraying his character well, or at forwarding the plot in a judicious manner. These would be examples of non-Gamist displays of skill.

Gamist demonstrations of skill are those that focus on measuring up to the yardsticks of play. Defeating a tactical challenge, for example, or gaining experience points. This is why Ron objects to the general usage of simpe phrases like "overcomming challenges" or "demonstrating skill". It depends on the kind of challenges, and the intended outcome of the skill use.

Mike

[Marco]

Agreed. Adding the 'yardsticks of play' isn't bad--although I think there might be a better term out there somewhere since I'd suggest that most 'gamism' isn't about *points* but about excelling in some in-game sense (like beating up six guys with a mid-point character).

"Demonstrating player skill at handling events in the game" maybe?

-M.

[Gordon C. Landis]

I think that what Ron was saying is that one can "demonstrate player skill" at something like portraying his character well, or at forwarding the plot in a judicious manner. These would be examples of non-Gamist displays of skill.

Gamist demonstrations of skill are those that focus on measuring up to the yardsticks of play. Defeating a tactical challenge, for example, or gaining experience points. This is why Ron objects to the general usage of simpe phrases like "overcomming challenges" or "demonstrating skill". It depends on the kind of challenges, and the intended outcome of the skill use.

This is very well said Mike, and matches my understanding as well.  I think about it this way - what is the point of the demonstration of skill?  If it's an end unto itself, if the whole (or great majority) of the player reward/enjoyment comes from facing the challenge as a challenge, a) it's Gamism, and b) there must be SOME standard by which it is judged, weighed and interpretted.  If the satisfaction from the demonstration of skill only exists because it allows a good story, or because it feels "right" in the simulated environment . . . the point isn't the skill itself, it's the goal that was acheived through it.  The player does get the general satisfaction of a demonstration of their skill, but that's not the point of the whole excerise.  If it is, then you've got a Gamist competition about story (Once upon a Time?), or a Gamist competition about success-in-simulation (Pantheon?).

At the risk of creating synecdoce (he says, trying out Ron's term), I think this is true for all three goals.  To continue the focus on Gamism, a Gamist can get satisfaction from having depth in the setting, or getting a good story out of play.  In fact, some Gamists may feel unsatisfied with their play unless there's some amount of setting-depth and/or resulting story.  But this is NOT synecdoce, as incorporating elements from Sim or Nar - even aspiring to some of the goals that those other styles seek - doesn't prevent the reward for the player, primarily, and especially in those "Game and Story (or Sim) goals are in conflict" situations, from being Gamist.

Here's hoping I used synecdoce correctly . . .

Gordon

[contracycle]

Gamist demonstrations of skill are those that focus on measuring up to the yardsticks of play. Defeating a

I disagree vehemently; as I have argued before, just like life, ANY game has an implicit reward system.  You would not be TRYING, striving, struggling to achieve something if it were going to happen anyway.  If the way the world was going was already tending to produce your desired outcome, you have no need to intervene, to act.  By necessity, ANY act for which dice are rolled is some form of struggle to achieve outcome A as opposed outcome B.  These "yardsticks" are self-originated, self-imposed, and self-measured IMO.  An external measurement as regards success, beyond the decisions of dice and referee, are not necessary IMO and only serve to further distort the point.  It seems to me to me important only as a rationalisation of the competition straw-man than an actual description of the behaviour.

Ultimately, most games have one very explicit, very public, and very final yardstick: character death.  I don't think any others are particularly relevant.

[Mark Blaxland]

   I've taken some time to articulate further input to this thread because I'm still on quite a steep learning curve as to the application of GNS to actual play. Even though I have a fairly strong idea of the definitions in mind, recognition of a particular stance as implicitly G, N or S is still something I'm grappling with. Particularly in attempting to avoid "synecdoche" as identified by Ron in his essay.

Thesis: Conflict of interest is a central tenet of GNS theory. One element will necessarily prevail over the other two in specific instances, depending on the priority these elements enjoy in the minds of the players. Ergo, players that share the same priorities are likely to be more harmonious than those that exhibit divergent or undefined priorities. Also groups that prioritise a specific aspect of GNS are best served by games that accord with their goals.
 
It seems clear that G, N and S elements are evident in all rpgs to a greater or lesser extent. It is a question of emphasis and focus.  The principal application of GNS theory as described by Ron is to act as a means of diagnosis of gaming dysfunction, based upon the possible divergent goals of the players.
   By gaming dysfunction I mean anything that significantly disrupts or reduces the enjoyment of the players. Now there are plenty of instances in which different game modes can conflict. Whether or not they are reconcilable without undermining the integrity of the game is a moot point.

   If you have story oriented goals for instance, it is quite possible to reconcile Gamism and Narrativism through reward mechanisms focusing upon this aspect of the game. As I understand gaming  - most players derive satisfaction from games by pursuing and fulfilling certain objectives. Gamism is identifiable in my eyes through particular attentiveness to the objectives of the game.  Nebulous objectives such as "having fun" are generally eschewed in favour of games that have more explicit criteria for measuring success.

    This is at the core of my appreciation of Gamism. Gamist approaches to rpgs tend to focus on the explicit goals of the game as defined in reward systems etc. In certain instances of Gamist influenced decision making then, it would appear that Gamism is likely to conflict with the implicit goals of the game (particularly as understood by Narrativism and Simulationism)  
     In the example of Simulationism overriding Gamism I quoted in my original post this appears to be the case - although no direct reference to actual play is illustrated I can think of a number of instances it would apply to. For example:-
The group has just finished an adventure. All bar one of the PCs have gone up a level. This last PC (lets call him Bob) is only a few exp short of his level. According to the rules the PCs need to train in town before their skills can actually go up. Soon the PCs will leave town to go adventuring once more. This leaves Bob's player in an unfortunate position. Only through overcoming in game challenges can PC's gain exp. Bob's player decides to seek out challenges in town in order to accrue the required amount of exp to level up. Bob wanders the streets at night in an effort to get mugged. If this doesn't work Bob tries to provoke fights with people in bars. There is probably no "in character" reason to do this, although such reasons may be provided if Bob's player is pressed on the subject. This behaviour also has the effect of slowing down the progression of the story as no plot advancing activity is undertaken or intended. Hence Bob's player may come under fire from the other players for selfishly pursuing his "Gamist goals" at the expense of everyone else's fun.
So who is to blame in the above example? Arguably Bob is to blame for wasting time. Arguably the game is at fault for encouraging PCs to perform tasks that are detrimental to the game's implicit goals. Arguably the GM of the game is at fault for not recognising the shortcomings of the rules and applying them inflexibly. Arguably even the other players are at fault for not cutting Bob's player some slack if an out of character argument develops as a consequence of Bobs actions.
The point I'm trying to make with the above example is that when games break down it is usually as a consequence of one or more players not taking the desires or requirements of others into consideration. The game can be at fault to, but you can take them or leave them. Getting into an argument with AD&D 1st edition DMG is unlikely to prove fruitful for either party. Although beating another player over the head with one might prove briefly therapeutic.
   I've run out of time if not things to say. Congratulations if you made it this far