Question on play style and characterization

[Blankshield]

Hmm.  I wouldn't class your example as the height of gamism, actually.  I would class it akin to sweeping all the chessmen off the board and saying "I win!"  Gamist play, except at it's very farthest extremes, still stays within the rules - not meaning just the by-the-book mechanics, but also the scope of plausability and consistency.
James

James,
  Just a question.  This is only from my experience, but I would almost define gamist experiences as I have seen them as "well within the rules" but "well outside plausibility."

i.e. the main thrust is "if the rules allow it then I shouldn't be penalized for using the rules in a way they allow"   Plausibility and consistency don't come into play... the great example is "Ok... large monster coming afer me, and I'm backed up to a sheer drop... but I have plenty of HP, so I'll just jump off the cliff, because the max it can do to me won't kill me, and I'll be fine to escape."

Valamir has answered most of this better than I could, so I'll just put in an example of what was abso-damn-lutely fantastic gamist play from my experience.  A local I know designed a slow moving (monthly turns) fantasy politics game, very strongly influenced by A Game of Thrones, where each participant did not play a single character, they played a faction vying to rule the kingdom.  It was a beautiful thing to watch.  People would meet over coffee and broker deals, e-mail flew fast and furious, and once a month everyone sent in all the actions they were attempting that month.  The 'GM' figured out what worked, what didn't and sent everyone the "what actually happened" turn result.

A [paraphrased - it was a while ago now]  quote from one of the players to another: "You dirty S.O.B, you stabbed me in the back.  That was completely uncalled for.  I gave nothing to you except loyalty." pause, grin. "That was the most fun I've had in weeks."

After the game was over, people were clamoring for it to be run again.

James
[hmm.  If anyone wants to respond to this specifically, it should probably get split off into Actual Play.  Well off the original topic now.]

[RDU Neil]

Valamir has answered most of this better than I could, so I'll just put in an example of what was abso-damn-lutely fantastic gamist play from my experience.  A local I know designed a slow moving (monthly turns) fantasy politics game, very strongly influenced by A Game of Thrones, where each participant did not play a single character, they played a faction vying to rule the kingdom.  It was a beautiful thing to watch.  People would meet over coffee and broker deals, e-mail flew fast and furious, and once a month everyone sent in all the actions they were attempting that month.  The 'GM' figured out what worked, what didn't and sent everyone the "what actually happened" turn result.

A [paraphrased - it was a while ago now]  quote from one of the players to another: "You dirty S.O.B, you stabbed me in the back.  That was completely uncalled for.  I gave nothing to you except loyalty." pause, grin. "That was the most fun I've had in weeks."

Ok... I get the idea of your game... but it doesn't strike me as Gamist, as much as delayed Sim of political situation.   I guess, if the e-mails and coffee shop talk were all "metagame" and not "in character" then that is different... but the back loading of all details and actions by the GM into a "here is what happened" seems to me very similar to the Illusionist technique in a Sim game...

... though now that I think about it, this could be the Illusionist technique in a Gamist mode.  I guess I would never have felt that a game about politics would ever be Gamist... since Gamist to me is munnchkin powergaming D&D.  Maybe I just don't understand how a political game can have hard and fast "rules" to it... since it really seems to me that it would benefit those who were most charaismatic and influential in persuading the GM... rather than those who knew the RULES better.

Maybe I'm focusing too much on the game rule issue, and not as much on the "attitude" of the players.  I guess you are saying than a rules light, no dice, political discussion RPG can be "gamist" because the attitude of the players is "who wins out over the others".  It's not the system (though system does matter) but the desire of the players?

Am I getting that right?

[Blankshield]

Ok... I get the idea of your game... but it doesn't strike me as Gamist, as much as delayed Sim of political situation.   I guess, if the e-mails and coffee shop talk were all "metagame" and not "in character" then that is different... but the back loading of all details and actions by the GM into a "here is what happened" seems to me very similar to the Illusionist technique in a Sim game...

... though now that I think about it, this could be the Illusionist technique in a Gamist mode.  I guess I would never have felt that a game about politics would ever be Gamist... since Gamist to me is munnchkin powergaming D&D.  Maybe I just don't understand how a political game can have hard and fast "rules" to it... since it really seems to me that it would benefit those who were most charaismatic and influential in persuading the GM... rather than those who knew the RULES better.

Maybe I'm focusing too much on the game rule issue, and not as much on the "attitude" of the players.  I guess you are saying than a rules light, no dice, political discussion RPG can be "gamist" because the attitude of the players is "who wins out over the others".  It's not the system (though system does matter) but the desire of the players?

Am I getting that right?

Yup.  The game rule issue is, as I understand it, very secondary to the attitude of the players.  If what people are interested in is competing towards a goal, then that's gamist.  Creative Agenda are ultimately and only about what the players care about.  If they care about competition and winning, it's gamist.  

I tend to equate the proverbial "twink" gamer that everyone looks at and says "Oh.  That's gamist?  I hate gamist" with the guy who cheats at poker.  Some folks enjoy that, but they're a minority, and most people it just ruins the game for.  People can still get together and enjoy a friendly game of poker without cheating.  People can play gamist without twinking out.

James
[and now this is definately drifting from where it started.]

[Ron Edwards]

Callan (Noon), is this discussion of Gamism relevant to your questions in this thread?

Everyone else, please wait on posting here until Callan replies.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

Hi Ron,

It's, ah, drifted a little. I don't think I'll be able to tackle those actual play examples properly, so I'll move on, because its sort of about gamism in terms of trying to do one thing, while designing things another way.

It could all be summed up as simply deploying the wrong tools for the job.

If your group had agreed to do a lot of talking with NPC's, and then the GM plants you in a dungeon full of mindless killing machines, he's deployed the wrong tools for the job.

Now, if you had all agreed to play it like a game, to win or get as high a score as possible (whatever 'score' would mean for you), and then the GM deploys NPC's who react based on their character and subtle peculiarities of human nature, what has he done? Will these NPC/tools aid you to achieve your goal? And how will the players treat them…will they end up breaking these tools, as they try to use them the wrong way eg, treating basically human NPC's like their obstacles or objects to be pushed around, until that breaks any remaining concept that they might be human? How long will it be before the game worlds starts to fill with broken pieces?

I mean, why has the dungeon been a recurring theme in the hobby? Particularly for gamist sessions? Because none of these humanised NPC's, the ones which just aren't suited for aiding this type of game, are deployed. Typically mindless monsters or ones who speak in riddles rather than character, inhabit the place. Prisoners encountered are typically mindlessly happy to be rescued, and so weak they can't show any character through action. On with the game!

Mike has a post saying that you can't sneak up on mode. That the GM can't try to introduce a different mode by stealth, it has to be honest. So what happens when inadvertently the GM populates the world with human(or human like) NPC's, which don't aid the groups preferred mode? They inadvertently begin to change mode by stealth. Any effort put into them by a GM, will get channelled in a direction set by their design. The only way around it is to use them in a way against their design, or dismantle and recreate the tool instantly during play.

Chris:

I think you're misunderstanding a critical point. Characters do not enforce mode, HOW players(including the GM) USE characters(along with the other Explorative elements, Color, Setting, Situation, System) are what enforce mode.

I can give you a set of characters from any game text, and your group can play them in ANY mode. We have threads that show folks playing D&D in a Narrativist mode, Heroquest in Sim, etc. Characters alone, do not enforce anything. A group of techniques, utilized by the group, are what enforce anything and everything you see at the table.

I just can't agree with this. Using a wrench as a hammer, doesn't make it a hammer. It makes it a wrench that will soon chip, then break from incorrect use. NPC's are typically cast as a certain type, which makes them useful for certain modes of play. As tools, they tend to channel effort put into them, in a specific direction.

An example of incorrect use might be spider man focusing on winning, and as well as it being clear to any NPC that by his action this is all he cares about, and MJ's leg gets sliced off in the rescue. Then the GM plays her so she still says he's great and wonderful. Bang, bang, bang, knocking in that nail with a wrench.

The only exception is if they were so bland/non focused in design to begin with, they can be used for any purpose. Part of what I'm suggesting is that it’s a repeated mistake to try for one type of mode, then the GM populates the world with tools/NPC's that work another way and aren't bland or focused in the direction the group wants. I just can't agree, clearly to me doing this does cause significant friction.

[Callan S.]

Vallamir: I think your missing something as well.

A cliff, for example, is a wonderful tool to use for sim or gamism (or nar for that matter, but lets focus on the others).

See, a cliff doesn't care if your a hero...you fall down it, you take damage.
A cliff never falls in love and feels so good it decides to do less damage when you fall down it.
A cliff never decides all this killing is purposless and does no damage to you when you fall down it.
A cliff never grew up under a sacrifice faith and decides to do more damage to you when you fall.
A cliff doesn't have a good/bad day and adjust damage on that.
A cliff doesn't do more damage to you if you look at it funny.

A typicially designed NPC (those with human traits), who can dish out damage to you, can do all of these.

Gamism means sticking within the rules to get the big bragging rights. This NPC doesn't work via rules, to determine damage. A significant effect on your chance of winning is not based on rules. What does this do to your gamist goal, when this humanised NPC/tool is used in game?

Its an antithesis to gamism. The incorrect tool is spoiling the mode attempt.

[W. Don]

Hi guys:

Gamism means sticking within the rules to get the big bragging rights. This NPC doesn't work via rules, to determine damage. A significant effect on your chance of winning is not based on rules. What does this do to your gamist goal, when this humanised NPC/tool is used in game?

I'm trying to follow this discussion, but I'm afraid I might be getting a bit lost.

Callan: the question you're asking is - Do humanised NPCs break Gamist play?

Is this correct?

- W.

[Bankuei]

Hi Callan,

You will not find another person MORE in agreement with the fact that a tool has a specific use, it is an analogy I have been using for a long time here.  What I am saying is that it is NOT the NPC that is acting in a different mode, but the GM who is playing that NPC.  

Now, the questions that need to be asked regarding this are:
-Did the player(s) and the GM come into the game with different mode expectations?
-Did they verbally discuss it and have a miscommunication?
-Is either the player or the GM acting out of the "agreed" mode, and if so, is it out of habit, or "punishment" based on an ego power play, or some other issue?

Again, the ONLY point that we are not agreeing on is the source of the modes, and all I am saying is that the people at the table are the origin of all function or dysfunction.  The character itself, does not exist, until someone plays them, and that someone is in control of how that character is played out.  

Chris

[Callan S.]

Chris:

The character itself, does not exist, until someone plays them, and that someone is in control of how that character is played out.

Your premise here relies fully on that someone being in complete control of that character.

Let me put it to you, that once an NPC/tool has been deployed into the shared imaginative space, it is NOT under the complete control of it's original creator.

You need concensus from all the other people you shared it with, in the way you use it. It doesn't need to be verbalised consensus, it can just be that no one raises an eyebrow when NPC X does Y. The less consensus you get, the more the shared space fragments, until it falls apart.

Now, assuming this is established between us, what happens when the player and GM want gamist, but then they inadvertantly deploy humanised NPC's? Despite what everyone wants in play, you wont get a consensus on a humanised NPC being run differently. It isn't a problem amongst all those involved with forming consensus, its human nature.

Its even clearer if you go to the other example of players who want to talk with NPC's but then are clearly planted amongst mindless killing machines. You will not get a concensus/you will get raised eyebrows when the mindless killing machines begin chatting with your PC. Everyone at the table might want a particular mode, but they don't want to get to it through sillyness (well, unless they agreed on it before play).

WDFlores: My original post actually suggests more, but its become clear to me I need to establish some basics first. The primary hypothesis could be given as : Humanised NPCs cause significant friction against Gamist play, sometimes enough to break it.

[Blankshield]

WDFlores: My original post actually suggests more, but its become clear to me I need to establish some basics first. The primary hypothesis could be given as : Humanised NPCs cause significant friction against Gamist play, sometimes enough to break it.

I will cautiously agree that this can be the case, and quite possibly is with most gamist play that happens, but I will flatly deny that this must be the case.

Reference my post higher up about a gamist political situation.  There, non-humanized characters would have actually damaged the gamist agenda by removing a critical part of the situtation, and rendering it quite flat and boring.  What point competing for the hearts and minds of the people if they are two-dimensional caricatures?

My own experience with gamist play is that elements of the SIS that are not the focus of the gamism will distract and cause friction if they are emphasised.  If the competition is over 'who can build the baddest-ass fighter', then anything that gets in the way of building those fighters and getting to fights will distract from the gamism.  But that is by far not the only kind of gamism, even if it does seem to be the most common.

To me, the 'slit the king's throat' solution is a cop-out from the real gamism.  It's not Step On Up, it's Dodge To The Side.  Really Stepping On Up* would be accepting the parameters of the situation as writ, and then going ahead and beating it anyway.  Solving the riddle of the Sphinx is much more satisfying than hacking it's head off.


James

*With the caveat that each group is going to have their own different defintions of where Step On Up is, and what is "good gamism".  I'm giving my opinion, YMMV, et ceterta.

[Bankuei]

Hi Callan,

I agree that inconsistancy in how characters are played will not fly for most groups.  What I am saying is that however the characters were designed, before play doesn't matter.  No one in a group will raise eyebrows about the character in play not matching up to the piece of paper they will never see.  

No matter what you put on the paper, that alone cannot support, nor hinder any mode of play.  It's only what is put forth in play itself and how its used with the other Explorative elements, that supports, or denies any given mode.

Chris

[Callan S.]

Hi James:
Your political example re-enforces the hypothesis. You can not approach a humanised NPC without either treating/making them two dimensional (damaging the tool) or exploring their character. If you approach them in a gamist mode, they loose dimension the more you try and use them in a mechanical principle for achieving a goal (hell, people do this to each other in RL, that's why I gave the dating example previously). The nebulous human properties of the NPC start to become concrete mechanical principles, two dimensionalising them. Either that or they clash with the gamist mode, as they resent the way your treating them and their reactions don't facilitate that mode (ie, they tell you to piss off cause they think you’re a con man). Broken tools or mode breaks.

But, you might say, only a blunt/mechanical approach makes NPC's end up becoming blunt/mechanical themselves. And a suave word or two will certainly help avoid the still humanised NPC from just thinking you’re a con man, showing them you nice and human will draw them back.

I have something controversial to suggest here (which I did earlier in the thread, too early). This isn't playing gamist. This is examining the character of a PC who lives his life like a grand game. By not being mechanical, and by letting NPC's examine your character (which lets everyone present do so too, including yourself), your actually examining character. It's not gamist, its narrativist character exploration. Your just so far in to this PC's compelling 'life lived like a game' that you think your gaming because the PC is gaming.

I would even like to suggest it was the initial gamist mode that, along with humanised NPC's, forced the mode change itself. The humanised NPC's just don't facilitate a win state for the player, these NPC's are just too nebulous to be manipulated aptly. However, the more PC character is engaged in play, the more it becomes clear the PC by himself CAN win. The more he asserts his humanised character, the more these humanised NPC's respond positively. The more the player explore the PC's character, the more his PC wins! The more the player changes mode, the more the PC, at least, can win.

Okay, that was too much at once. I'll prepare to be shot down. But I bet there's no one who doesn't find this a tiny bit interesting.

Chris:
One problem with this is that NPC's are heavily influenced from foreshadowed/assumed elements in the world which are common knowledge in the SIS. Eg, someone who comes from a village full of nose to the grind stone villagers, can only give a certain range without raising eyebrows.

Obviously, you can counter that by giving a back story as to why he behaves a certain way. The problem is, this typically fails to be done. A certain mode of behaviour isn't seen to be needed, the NPC then has nothing to say he'll act any different from where he came from. And typically they come from humanised little villages, towns or cities.

Unless you have the foresight to counteract this humanised background element, your going to end up with a humanised PC whether you like it or not. Part of what I'm suggesting is that that foresight is often lacking because no one thinks twice about whether its needed or not.

[Blankshield]

I have something controversial to suggest here (which I did earlier in the thread, too early). This isn't playing gamist. This is examining the character of a PC who lives his life like a grand game. By not being mechanical, and by letting NPC's examine your character (which lets everyone present do so too, including yourself), your actually examining character. It's not gamist, its narrativist character exploration. Your just so far in to this PC's compelling 'life lived like a game' that you think your gaming because the PC is gaming.

Callan, I think you're misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of gamism.  The character is not (necessarily) competing - the player is.  I have never played gamist with a character who was 'out to win', excepting in the service of some other goal.  Even in the standard example of the dungeon crawl, which most folks around here agree is pretty straight up gamism, the characters aren't going "I want to see if I can beat this", they are motivated by some in-game reason - money, or "save the town" or something like it.  It's the player who wants to beat the dungeon.

Even, as in my politcal example, when the characters are competing, they aren't doing so "as a grand game" as you suggest.  They are doing so for fairly complex reasons.  Again, it's the player who is treating it as a game.

Character motivation is not what determines CA.  Player motivation is.  Or I'm completely out to lunch, and don't understand GNS at all.

James

[clehrich]

[Edit: my browser missed that there was a second page to this discussion, so I posted something grotesquely out of date.  Back soon....]

[clehrich]

Hi Callan,

I have something controversial to suggest here (which I did earlier in the thread, too early). This isn't playing gamist. This is examining the character of a PC who lives his life like a grand game. By not being mechanical, and by letting NPC's examine your character (which lets everyone present do so too, including yourself), your actually examining character. It's not gamist, its narrativist character exploration. Your just so far in to this PC's compelling 'life lived like a game' that you think your gaming because the PC is gaming.

Let me get this straight:

1. Manipulating objects and whatnot to win is Gamist.
2. Manipulating people to win is exploration of someone else's Gamism.

I don't buy it.  As you say, in real life, people actually do manipulate other people.  Sometimes they dehumanize each other, and they get called ruthless or sociopathic or whatever you like.  Sometimes they don't, because their victory conditions are mutual and based on shared positive interaction.  By extension, the design of victory conditions can be such that exploration produces victory, in which case the hypothesis goes out the window.  Sure, Gamist games aren't often designed that way, but that's not a question of CA -- it's Technique.

You brought up the dating situation, right?  Now we've got a PC, an NPC, a Player, and a GM.  

The PC and the NPC, if they were real people, would have shared victory conditions: they would like to have a nice evening.  If their shared sense of what "nice" amounts to continues for quite a while, they may both achieve a very large victory and <censored>.  But it's quite possible that their mutual sense of "victory" is satisfied with a nice conversation, a good meal, a few glasses of wine, and an open invitation to do this all again some time soon.  Extrapolating from this situation, we generate the Player's and the GM's victory conditions.

The Player has victory conditions.  But we have no idea what they are.  Maybe they're "get laid before an hour is up."  Maybe they're "succeed at X number of die rolls during the evening" (cf. InSpectres).  Maybe they're something entirely different.  Who knows?  But exactly what these conditions are will drastically affect how we read the scene.

The GM also has victory conditions, which may or may not be the same as the Player's, though usually opposed.

So for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the Player's victory conditions are: "Get at least 2 points by the end of the evening, where you get 1 point every time you roll a 6."  The GM's victory conditions are: "Don't let the Player get 2 points."

Okay, so what the Player wants to have happen is for lots of intense, interesting things to happen, because these will demand rolls.  

Meanwhile, what's happening with the PC and his date?  We have no idea.  It doesn't matter, in fact, if the PC is not in any way a ruthless person, and actually wants a nice time for all.  Exploration of the NPC's character is likely, because the PC after all is interested in this, and probably exploration of the PC's character will happen too, vice-versa.  What's this got to do with the Player and the GM?  How does friction necessarily arise?

In fact, if there are lots of interpersonal skills and such, it may be exceedingly important for the Player to do lots of NPC exploration, because this will cause die rolls.  It is also important for the PC not to be annoying, because then the evening will end, possibly causing the Player to lose.

In short, I just don't buy that exploration of NPC's has anything necessarily to do with Gamism or its lack.  Sure, if you design your conditions such that mechanical treatment of people produces victory, you will get mechanical treatment of people, and it's possible that non-mechanical treatment of NPC's will jar.  But why do the victory conditions have to be constructed that way?

Chris Lehrich