Gamism: The pursuit of excellence

[Gordon C. Landis]

Great thread, everyone - at least, I think so.  I'm going to cherry-pick some quotes that I think help make my thoughts clear - please, if you think my taking 'em out of context misrepresents them, just let me know - I'm NOT trying to use selective quoting in an evil manner here.

Gareth (contra) quoted my "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.",  and asked "Why?"

Mike's statements in this area all make sense to me . . . yes, the standard I refer to can be entirely internal ("self-originated, self-imposed, and self-measured").  Sorry I was unclear.  My point in saying that there must be some standard is that there must be some way to make the determination that you did well in the challenge.  That can certainly be internal, though the behavior of doing so will have external manifestations.  But Gareth goes on to say:

"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."

I think this is an important point - the internal goals ARE given by external factors from the game, just not neccessarily by the "yardstick" measuring (e.g.) "victory".  A player knows he's done well when his mid-strength fighter defeats 6 opponents - he knows he's done well even if he loses but takes 5 opponents down with him.  He knows this not because (e.g.) of the extra experience points he gets from the encounter, but because he understands the content of the game rules in the context of a  . . . I'd say "field upon which to compete", but how about "in the context of information against and/or with which the "success" of their actions can be judged?"  Man, that's a long, awkward way to avoid saying "compete".  Sigh.  Like Mike, I'm convinved that MY understanding of competition is not wide-spread enough to make it a good word to use (unless sufficient qualifications can be added, but given the "bad press", even that probably isn't enough).  But as far as I can tell, we're still in search of a good replacement.

In that vein:

"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."

I agree that *external measurement of success* isn't neccessary - but would still claim that some measurement is going on, and that that measurement is the very definition of Gamism.  Other forms may involve measurement ("was it a good story/sim?" can be internally measured), but it is not the point of those forms, only a means to and end.  In Gamism, it is the end.  Since I see internal measurement (based on external factors) as an entirely valid form of competition, I have no need for an external straw-man . . . but I'm NOT trying to fight that battle, just being clear yet again that what I MEANT by competition is (I think) consistent with the "broad" understanding of Gamism, and not applicable (in my mind) only to power-gamers.

As far as this bit goes:

"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."

That's a VERY interesting point.  Can external measurements be useful to Gamists?  Certainly for some such measures, for some Gamists, they can be.  Are they required?  Certainly not.  When are they a good idea, and when are they not?  A fascinating question for Gamist design - Rune is FILLED with external measures, but I've not seen hordes of folks praising it for that reason . . .  I guess for this discussion, I'd just say that MY understanding of Gamism wouldn't lead me to say "Gamist designs MUST have external yardsticks".

Moving on . . . (long post, I guess) - I'll use these quotes (from Mike and then Mark, I think) to harp on subtleties a bit more:

"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."

But if the reward for the player is not the story itself, but is instead the joy of using the game rules and/or their personal skills to acheive/attempt success - that's Gamist.  THEIR goal was to "do well", NOT to tell a good story.

and

"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."

(I understand this quote to be saying, essentially, "it is possible to create good stories through Gamism".  If I'm wrong on that, my response probably won't make sense.)

Intrinsically incompatibile?  Not ALWAYS, no, but on occassion, yes.  That's why (IMO), GNS in the strictest sense is said to be about decisions, not really people or systems.  It is often possible to make a decision in game play that is consistent with both a good story (of particular types) and the thrill of "doing well" - but it is not ALWAYS possible to do so.  When that conflict does happen, which do you pick?  People who pick the thrill of doing well have made a Gamist choice.  A system that encourages/supports making that decision in a way that leads to a good story gets called a Narrativist system.  The Gamist in our first case is free to make a story-focused decision at some other time, and while the Narrativist system supports good story, it can't FORCE that decision.

Hopefully there's something clear and/or useful in all that . . . again, thanks to everyone.  

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Mike,

I think you are being awfully inclusive in your alignment argument.

Ultimately, alignment is a contract among participants about "how I'm going to play this character." The terms of that contract are distressingly absent from any version of D&D, such that every group has to work it out. I see a punishment system for "breaking" alignment, but no guidelines or standards for applying that punishment. Thus we see justifications and applications of alignment that vary all over the map.

Therefore I do not see alignment as being necessarily an element of Gamist design.

To everyone, I believe this thread is starting to wander. Various extraneous issues have emerged and sprawled about, and I'd like everyone to look at the issue Mark raised and decide whether we've reached a point in which everyone has expressed themselves clearly (and been acknowledged as such). If so, then we can call it a day, and a useful one too, speaking as the essay-author and reviser guy; if not, then let's get those points dealt with instead of wandering.

Best,
Ron

[Mark Blaxland]

Mike Holmes wrote:
But the difference is that the [alignment] system only supports the Gamist decision, and penalizes certain Simulationist or Narrativist ones.

  Ah this is what they call the 'nitty-gritty'. Well yes exp penalties or whatever that exist if a character breaks alignment certainly penalise the character. They only penalise the player if the player cares more about the welfare of their character's progress in game terms than they do about drama or about exploring the nuances of their character's personality.
    There is a clearly potential for GNS conflict here. If a player honestly feels that his character would act against his own best interests, well he might do so. The player might be applauded by his fellows, even as his character suffered.
    This ties into my original point about people who enjoy Gamism not being all about winning. Recognition from one's peers is at least as important as recognition from the 'yardsticks' of the game.
       

[Mike Holmes]

Yes, but the game does not provide the applause yardstick. The system in this case only supports Gamist play (though Ron may have a point). Sure the other players may support with applause, but that doesn't make Alignments Simulationist or whathaveyou.

And here we go again with the "not about winning". How many times do we have to agree with you before you'll accept that we really mean it? Yes, Gamism is not always about winning, that's just one of a jillion possible forms of Gamism. And we can debate it's commoness as well. But who really cares? A person playing to win is using Gamist technique. Just as is a person playing to overcome his character's class struggle to rise to nobility, or whatever challenge including peer recognition. It's just not trying to make a good story or trying to create verisimilitude. Those are Narrativism and Simulationism.

Do we still not agree somehow?

Mike

[Mark Blaxland]

Do we still not agree somehow?

   I don't think we are disagreeing here.

    I believe that all game mechanics are accessible to gamism, regardless of their intent. I think this is a good thing.
   You seem to be saying that games that don't encourage Simulationism or Narrativism in their mechanics are not by nature Simulationist or Narrativist. This is tautological.
   I accept that certain systems may more easily devolve into types of play that are not conducive to Narrativism or Simulationism, by virtue of (or rather lack of) their rules.
     I think that the main obstacle to the appreciation of Narrativist of Simulationist goals in Gamists is therefore not the players, but the games.*
    It is in no way necessary to 'de-programme' Gamists or purge Gamism from your games in order to facilitate the achievement of Narrativist or Simulationist goals. You just have to make sure your mechanics support Narrativist or Simulationist goals. If you take a thirsty horse to water you can be fairly sure it will drink.

*ADDENDUM:-
One point of GNS is that if players are happy with the games they are playing then there is no reason to mess with them. The aspect of the gaming a player enjoys the most could be exclusive to that game or style, and anything that dilutes that enjoyment is distracting and superfluous. It doesn't necessarily follow however, that they are incapable of appreciating other styles, provided they are open-minded.
   

[ This Message was edited by: Mark Blaxland on 2001-12-13 19:25 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Mark Blaxland on 2001-12-13 19:26 ]

[Gordon C. Landis]

Let me try and sum up what I've seen in this thread.  This is risky, as I might seem to be restating someone's thoughts to be consistent with my opinion, so please forgive me if I get something wrong - it just seems to me if it really is time to "move on", we might be well served if we wind down the thread gracefully.  So here's my attempt:

Competition and winning have a very negative connotation for many RPGers (including, or perhaps especially, Gamists).  Since what are widely considered very unpleasant forms of RPing have been labeled with these words, that's quite understandable.

What GNS is talking about with Gamism is NOT those unpleasant forms.  While Gamism includes the possibility that those forms can be made fully-functional by acknowledging and agreeing to a flatly competitive/win-based structure, it is not meant to be limited to that.  

Nor is it meant to be limited to taking advantage of obvious, in-game-rules indicators of "winning" (overcoming challenge, demonstrating skill, or whatever variation is eventually deemed the best description of the concept).

Those are the main points I see in Mark's initial post in this thread, and I think there is widespread agreement that what he says about Gamism there and what GNS says about Gamism are not actually in conflict.

Details - perhaps quite important ones - remain at least not FULLY resolved (an example - the internal vs. external nature of the manner in which Gamists measure their success), and might be best resolved in new, seperate threads (I intend to do just that with internal/external).  Many interesting side issues were raised, including Story in Gamism, or Marks' last Addendem about how while GNS may be unnecessary for satisfied RPGers, it could still be useful for helping them try something different.  They could also prove to be great material for threads of their own.

Well, that's my attempt,

Gordon

[contracycle]

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?

Hmm - take Rune.  Sure, maybe not on a hefty literary basis, but there quite obviously is a system which is designed with the intent that the players will, through Gamist behaviour, construct stories for themselves, in rotation.  "Being the GM" is now a Gamist funciton and Gamists would need to produce scenarios if they are to play the game.  So Mark is absolutely correct, based on actually existing products.

[contracycle]

Some thoughts one what constitutes a "good game" in the broader context.

Professional sports players usually shake hands before and/or after a match, principally to limit the rancour possible in any competitive endeavour.  they say "good game" by which they meen a hard-played, interesting game, I believe.  Possible this is the same as a highly competitive game; they hard to work hard to achieve their victory.

I used to play chess with my uncle as a kid, he being a regional champion and me being 14-16.  He used to routinely thrash the hell out of me with only half the pieces I had.  I had little realistic chance of winning, why did I play?  For the experience, the practice, the joy of playing, of making decisions.  Why did he play, seeing as I presentyed to meaningful challenge?  Partly out of indulgence, partly out of boredom, partly I believe out of much the same joy of action, decision, control.  I would measure my performance against his judgement as the manifest expert; even a loss could be a victory if it was a hard-fought loss above my level; "punching above my weight" as it were.

When I did Karate I greatly enjoyed kata.  This is a semi-ritualised chain of movements against an imaginary opponent or group of opponents, the object being to oblige repition of certain movements so that they become virtually autonomic reflexes.  I always found kata very interesting; I would enter an almost meditative state, very aware of my balance, my muscles, their movement in relation to one another.  Kata is an endless pursuit of "the perfect punch"; you can never reach it but you can feel yourself getting closer and closer to that unnatainable ideal.  You CAN do kata competitively, in that they are judged, but their function is essentially as a device for SELF-training.

I think that to the extent that there are concerns for gamists, boxes which designers need to check, I would say they are these:

The terms of the struggle must be known and understood mechanically; this is the parties may think clearly and strategise over their options.

There must be a legitimmate RISK; in cases where character death cannot serve as such a risk, something else must be elevated to a suitably significant plateau (say, social status in a game like En Garde or honour in L5R, arguably).  This I am aiming at the system, design level.

The resolution of the struggle must be in the hands of the players; ideally they should be given the opportunity to propose their own strategy and tactics, to implement plans in a preparatory as well as reactionary manner.

So the necessary elements I can think of are: explicit terms of conlfict; valuable stakes; authoring the plan of action.

Any thoughts?

[Mike Holmes]

Excellent basic principles. I'd think that designers would do well to stick to these ideals. I like that we've gotten beyond the definition and into what makes for good Gamist play.

One small clarification:

The terms of the struggle must be known and understood mechanically; this is the parties may think clearly and strategise over their options.

Seems that we should change "known" and "understood" to be "knowable" and "understandable", IMHO. As you pointed out earlier, sometimnes part of the challenge is discerning how difficult the challenge is.

Mike

[contracycle]

Seems that we should change "known" and "understood" to be "knowable" and "understandable", IMHO. As you pointed out earlier, sometimnes part of the challenge is discerning how difficult the challenge is.

Well said, that man

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'm looking over Mark's last post, Gordon's last post, Gareth's (contra's) last two post, and Mike's' last post.

I agree. Totally.

The essay was written in the attempt to express these things.

Remember when Gareth suggested, just after the essay was posted, that I seem to start extreme and become more reasonable? And that he and I agreed that it was impossible to tell (from within) who was really becoming more reasonable, the speaker or the listener?

If I'm not mistaken, the two are now looking at one another, saying, "Well, why didn't you say that before?" and "But I did," and, "Then what are we arguing about," and "But that means that we're actually friends," and, "Then we better get going and stop Dr. Doom together!"

I love old Marvel Comics.

Best,
Ron

P.S. If you think I'm being revisionist, then in the interests of peace I will concede the possibility. Rest assured the essay will be revised (EVENTUALLY) with the contributors to this discussion given credit.