Gamism: The pursuit of excellence

[contracycle]

or arguably, the players would be at fault for castigating Bob for his "gamism" when in fact his selfishness is much more the issue.  Queue rant about gamism = perjorative.

[contracycle]

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.  

Why?

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-12-13 06:03, contracycle wrote:
I disagree vehemently;

I actually didn't think that you would this time. But, OK.

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.

I completely agree. So, again you are disagreeing with my term. Which term would you prefer? I'll have to look at your previous (long, but well written) definition to find the apropriate phrase to replace yardsticks. Once again I am guilty of using inapropriate shorthand.

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.

If you'll remember I am not a member of the "competition" faction. I admitted that my use of the term simply was due to my feeling that it meant what you mean. But since you dislike it so vehemently, and see it as detrimental, I have agreed not to use it. And I don't mean to imply anything like what you say competition must mean by the "yardstick" thing. Sorry if it seems that way.

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

Well, I think that some players think other "yardsticks" are important (and in some games character death is not a big deal, either), but you are right in saying that they do ot comprise the sum total of Gamists, certainly. As has been said, possibly a subset. But the important thing is to note that the uses of skill in Gamism are not with the primary intent of creating a simulation or a story. That was what I meant to imply. It's difficult to find a short way to state it except as that negation. That's what I was trying to do.

That's where the biggest problem comes in as I see it. There is no easy way available to shorthand the Gamist goal. So the terms that I use end up being constantly offensive to individuals like yourself. If you could find a shorter way of stting the case that was satisfactory to yourself (and presumably other Gamists) I'd be glad to use it.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-12-13 11:20 ]

[Mike Holmes]

Mark,

The not-so-hypothetical game system that you describe (D&D) is a Gamist system. It should be no surprise that Bob used it in the manner that you describe him using it. He's a Gamist using a Gmaist system as it encourages him to do so. The problem in this case would be in the other players expecting him to do otherwise. The only case in which they would be justified in doing so that I can see is if Bob and the rest of the group had agreed before play to drift from the system's Gamist design to using it for Simulationism or Narrativism. In which case Bob is going back on his word.

Otherwise, Bob is doing nothing particularly wrong, with the possible exception of the selfishness that Gareth mentioned; he could decide to be more selfless with the group's time, but the system doesn't reward it in any way.

The point is that in a well designed Simulationist or Narrativist system the rules should explicitly support those styles of play. In such a system the Gamist has little to work with in terms of the explicit goals of the rules (though he may still take on non-rules based challenges just as easily). The point of the System Matters essay is that the explicit goals of a system are very important in facilitating any of the three styles of play.

Mike

[contracycle]

That's where the biggest problem comes in as I see it. There is no easy way available to shorthand the Gamist goal. So the terms that I use end up being constantly offensive to individuals like yourself. If you could find a shorter way of stting the case that was satisfactory to yourself (and presumably other Gamists) I'd be glad to use it.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were getting at.  But what I fear from a term like "yardsticks" is once again the perception of an externally measurable victory condition, by which the gamist is thought to judge their success.  And the problem with this is that I think it will result in designers producing explicit and external yardsticks for measurement purposes, in the misguided belief (IMO) that gamists need such a measure.  I don't find such terms offensive per se.

I think the whole yardstick thing is a red herring; the game stats ARE the yardsticks already, to the extent a gamist needs any.  After you've rolled your character in AD&D, and you know that you have a strength 14 and Bob has a strength 16 - you have your yardsticks.  You know the relationship, understand the "balance of power" in this regard.

[Mark Blaxland]

The measure of a good game in my eyes is how well the game's explicit rules support its implicit goals. Implicit goals are often very broad:

- Having fun
- Being creative

 Because having fun and being creative are not easily quantifiable goals it is unusual to find them explicitly supported in the rules.
 It is the tendency of the gamist to focus on explicit goals.

Mike Holmes wrote:
The point is that in a well designed Simulationist or Narrativist system the rules should explicitly support those styles of play. In such a system the Gamist has little to work with in terms of the explicit goals of the rules.

I concur with your first point and disagree with your second - If a game explicitly supports certain goals in the rules then these goals will be identified and pursued by the Gamist. That's the whole point. If the game has NO explicit rules supporting goals, only implicit ones then you make Gamism impossible. What puzzles me is the question why anyone should want to do that in the first place, if they did not think Gamism was somehow dysfunctional.

[Marco]

Hi,

Someone suggested to me that the terms I might be looking for for expressing what I liked about my gamist interlude (and perhaps gamism in general) is an 'obejective demonstration of skill'--that is I demonstrate player skill against objective measures (player skill in creating a good story or simulating a genre is comparatively subjective).

I realize that nothing in gaming (and perhaps in reality) is truly objective in a lot of given senses--but I think that as a starting point this is pretty good. Contra?

I guess I'm officially in the 'know it when I see it' camp for now though--although I think "competition" is a fairly poor word-choice from people who use routinely worlds well enough to (IMHO) make a better one.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-12-13 13:28, Mark Blaxland wrote:
The measure of a good game in my eyes is how well the game's explicit rules support its implicit goals. Implicit goals are often very broad:

- Having fun
- Being creative

 Because having fun and being creative are not easily quantifiable goals it is unusual to find them explicitly supported in the rules.

One of the primary points of GNS is that ALL games have fun and creativity as uber-goals. The question of GNS is how does one achieve those goals.

It is the tendency of the gamist to focus on explicit goals.

Why is that?

Mike Holmes wrote:
The point is that in a well designed Simulationist or Narrativist system the rules should explicitly support those styles of play. In such a system the Gamist has little to work with in terms of the explicit goals of the rules.

I concur with your first point and disagree with your second - If a game explicitly supports certain goals in the rules then these goals will be identified and pursued by the Gamist. That's the whole point.

No, no, no. If a game has a goal of telling good stories, and that is made explicit in the rules (it can be and is in some games) and a player identifies and pursues this goal, they are being a Narrativist. By definition.

If the game has NO explicit rules supporting goals, only implicit ones then you make Gamism impossible. What puzzles me is the question why anyone should want to do that in the first place, if they did not think Gamism was somehow dysfunctional.

Again, not true. I'm not sure that there is a system with no explicit goal, but if there is, a Gamist could still try to do things like defeat opponents, or overcome obstacles, etc. These are just a couple Gamist activities that have nothing to do with the rules.

BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by the last phrase, but keep in mind that GNS does not condemn certain sorts of Gamist play that others have in the past. This includes, for (the extreme) example, power-gaming. In a proper gamist context, this is a perfectly functional and enjoyable type of Gamist game. Just because some people are put off by a certain specific style does not mean it is invalid for others.

Am I making any headway here, or am I still being confusing?

Mike

[jburneko]

I concur with your first point and disagree with your second - If a game explicitly supports certain goals in the rules then these goals will be identified and pursued by the Gamist. That's the whole point. If the game has NO explicit rules supporting goals, only implicit ones then you make Gamism impossible. What puzzles me is the question why anyone should want to do that in the first place, if they did not think Gamism was somehow dysfunctional.

Wait a minute.  First of all GNS was desinged SPECIFICALLY answer the question what does "having fun" mean to you?  What do you find "fun" about roleplaying games.  After much observation we find that there are three general methods for having "fun" and those have become the three goals stated in the model.

Now you're saying that if a game system EXPLICITELY supports Narrativist goals.  That is, if the system explicitly supports the co-authoring of Themes on a Litterary Premise, then the a player who pursues that goal is a Gamist?  Am I reading you correctly?

Jesse

[Mark Blaxland]

On 2001-12-13 10:58, contracycle wrote:
or arguably, the players would be at fault for castigating Bob for his "gamism" when in fact his selfishness is much more the issue.  Queue rant about gamism = perjorative.

That in short was my main point - the identification of such behaviour as "Gamist" does a disservice to Gamists. A Good Player is identifiable by their appreciation of implicit rules as well as explicit ones. Implicit rules include things like "keep actions in character" and "don't take up game-time pursuing selfish goals at other players expense" otherwise recognisable as "don't split the party!"

   The uncompromising pursuit of any one goal in a game to the detriment of the game itself/the enjoyment of other players is an indication of dysfunctional gaming in my eyes.

[Mike Holmes]

Mark,

If actual Gamism is besmirched by the definition of Gamism, that is not it's intent. You came up with the example, and what we find fault with is not the player's pursuit of Gamism, but with selfishness. A fault that can ocur in all three styles and has nothing to do with Gamism.

But playing "In-Character" is probably a simulationist or possibly narrativist means to an end. That's not to say that Gamists cannot, or do not play "In-Character". Simply that it is not required for Gamist play.

That's what I've been trying to get through to you. Even though you may not like the idea of what we refer to as Pawn mode (making decisions on player motivations and player motiovations only), it is recognized as a legitimate form of Gamist play. Few players like this taken to extremes, but if a group all decided to play this way, they there is no dysfunction.

What you describe is simple violation of social contract. You assume that "sensible gamers" would decide before the game that playing IC is a must. If they did, then the player violating that Social Contract (usually made informally) is guilty of breaking the contract. But if no such clause in the contract exists, or the contract explicitly allows Pawn mode, then the player is playing correctly, completely within his rights.


disclaimer: Once again, this would only be indicative of a small (possibly insignificant) subset of the totality of Gamist players, and does not come close to characterizing the majority of Gamists (nor is this post intended to imply such).

Mike

[Mark Blaxland]

If a game has a goal of telling good stories, and that is made explicit in the rules (it can be and is in some games) and a player identifies and pursues this goal, they are being a Narrativist. By definition.

   You might say that. Ron might say that any good story that comes about as a result of Gamist play is a by-product of such play - NOT the objective. The objective of the Gamist as I understand it in my original post is the pursuit of excellence though objectively defined goals. Defined in the rules* of the game. This appears paradoxical only while you believe the goals of the Narrativist and the Gamist to be fundamentally incompatible.  
   These objectives could be completely arbitrary: collecting treasure; killing monsters; staying alive; immortality through legendary or glorious acts... The possibilities are infinite and they are not intrinsically incompatible with the meta-game goal of creating good stories.

*If is important to differentiate rules from text. An rpg can claim anywhere in its contents that a goal of the game is to create good stories, but it only becomes of relevance to the Gamist when it is explicitly applied in the mechanics of play.        
   

[Mark Blaxland]

Mike Holmes wrote:
[Pawn mode] is recognized as a legitimate form of Gamist play. Few players like this taken to extremes, but if a group all decided to play this way, they there is no dysfunction.

   I agree. It is only dysfunctional when it occurs in a group whose members care about actions being IC. Even in D&D players are expected to maintain coherence in their actions based on character motivations. This is explicit in the rules on alignment.
     While it may be a 'recognised form of Gamism' it is also a widely reviled form of Gamism, and hence inappropriate in most games - even those with a Gamist focus. Because even games with a Gamist focus will nearly always have some Narrativist or Simulationist concerns, even if these concerns are not made explicit in the rules. To assume otherwise would be "classic synecdoche".

   

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

For those who are interested, these two threads provide some background on some of the participants in this discussion.

The first thread about big essay is http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=747&forum=3&41">here, and the one about Gamism that it spawned is http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=792&forum=3&37">here.

Best,
Ron

(had to edit in some verbs!)

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-12-13 15:31 ]

[Mike Holmes]

Mark,

One might note that, in fact, alignments are a very Gamist method of enforcing character motivation. Can't kill baby kobolds because we gotta stay good, and gotta stay good because otherwise we lose our Paladin abilities, right? Thus the character (Peldrick of Glon) may want to kill the baby kobolds a lot (their parents ate his wife) but the player (Mark) wants to still be able to use his character's Paladin abilities. So if he decides to go with his alignment, he is playing Gamist (Pawn stance), not Simulationist(kills the kobolds because he's sure his character is enraged) or Narrativist(kills the kobolds because it makes for a good plot twist). Note that all three style players could legitamately not kill the kobolds, as it could lead toa good story, or be "realistic". But the difference is that the system only supports the Gamist decision, and penalizes certain Simulationist or Narrativist ones.

GNS is all about how players make decisions, and why.

Mike