Removing the Incentive for Gamism

[Jason Lee]

Such an indepth post deserves and indepth response, however I soon have a meeting, so I'm just going to hit the Sim issue real quick.  I'll get to the rest later.

I don't believe Sim exists.  I'd rather actually get some work done than have the old discussion about whether or not Sim exists.  I'm just letting you know that I'm not blowing off your Sim points anymore than I do anyone elses.  I read and think about peoples Sim posts, but I leave discussing it to those it concerns; and there are plenty of clever people here who can address it.  It's all just a bunch of 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.  (If I squint at your chart until the S's fade out it's a lot smaller.)

If you are interested in this approach, I think the most recent ideas on it are in The Roots of Sim II.  The counter-point is at Understanding: the "it" of Simulationism.  There are lots of threads on the topic (search for Beeg Horseshoe).

[Amadeus]

Ahh, right.  The thought actually has crossed my mind but I haven't come to a real conclusion about it myself.  If I really had to on the spot I'd downgrade sim to a subsection of gamism or narativism, or maybe just an aspect seen in both, but I don't really have a full opinion on it.  But thanks for the links, thats going to sure help me on the the way.  I'm not sure if I mentioned it in the above post earlier but I do feel for sure that sim is at the least the most often 'ghost'ed part of the three.

Before I start making my huge second post on how all that junk I said applies to real design, I'd like to make sure a few things are put in the light I wanted them in but that I might have lost due to all the charts etc (I really dislike charts in games, but sometimes they are useful... ;-))

Just wanted to repeat the premise the players are not ussually gn or s, but a combination of these and even changing at times. Sure sometimes you get your diehard narrativist or gamist or sim, but in the end most players are somewhere in between these bounds.

Second, something I didn't mention is that sometimes groups grow towards a certain aspect of these and it makes more sense to use a grouping such as the normal gns in a broad way, but I still believe its best to do this while not ignoring a secondary claim.

Third, I realize that in most ways, rpgs aren't games and aren't as subject to game theory as other thigns - that said in some ways they are very similar and just a type of game thats not often investigated.

I'll post the next huge blurb to conclude my point in abit.  You have been forewarned ;-).  Idiot wind this way cometh .. or somethign

[Jason Lee]

Amadeus,

Now that I've got a little more time and my bias is out in the open, I'd like to hit a couple of your other points.

This is obvious. I kinda ignored this, but I do understand this. What I'm trying to do is dissect how gns influences design - and it does, all three aspects of it. I'm sorry I didn't make it as clear as need be. I know that gns deals mostly with what players want, and secondly with how to achieve this goal through design. I also know that most people believe you must go gung-ho at one and ignore the other two, but this isn't what most of these people actually do in practice.

If one were to try to make gamism as hard as they could what would they do - take out all elements of a 'game' which gets rid of alot of the idea of 'stepping up to a challenge'. This wouldn't work really I realize at squashing gamism but its still will do alot to it. If one wanted to take out sim, one would take out of the rules of coherence to what really happens in that world. And even then incoherence is a type of environmental variable.

What we should look at here, is the true anatomy of a game. I am choosing to divide it up into the gns stances even those they aren't directly the same, the similarity is so useful it would be silly to ignore it. Of course sim is kinda weak in this model becoming more sim-gamism, but its still there. Its been said multiple times that you can't support more than one kind of view without suffering greatly, and this just isn't true - as I will explain after dealing with these points.

GNS is about an instance of play, say a session or more.  You seem to be talking about lowercase gns (as we say around these parts) - which is to say little bits of play that might be gam-ish in overall Nar play.  At the GNS level these little bits are irrelevant, because you're looking for an overall pattern; and you can't have more than one overall pattern.

Why analyze an instance of play instead of atomic moments (little gns)?  Because the greater your number of data points the smaller your statistical deviation.  You aren't so much identifying a GNS priority as you are assuming it.  People are complicated things, trying to keep track of every little priority shift is like trying to catch a bumblebee with a spoon.

What seems to help people with this, is that if play is 10% Gam and 90% Nar we call it Nar, because Nar dominates the flow of the game it can be said that Nar is of most interest to the player.  Basically, you're abstracting out tiny shifts in player mood to get a general impression of play.  I think the whole percentage angle is an incorrect simplification, but like I said, it seems to help some people.

Yes yes, but this is not what I'm trying to say (I admit I'm doing it rather poorly. I'm better at papers than forum babbling - I'll try to get this into a real paper and put it up sometime on my site and link it here.). Any one game does only 'inherently support' one agenda, but the tools it uses borrows from the other agendas areas within the system. This is why I believe nars can mold d&d easily into a nar game if they want to - because it has ghosts of that that can be picked up and developed (as written, or if you go ahead and ignore whats written, you are using a different system. this system will obviously be more suited to your whims, and you have went and redesigned the system.)

Well, you can drift anything, it's just a question of how much work you want to put into it.  When it's snowing outside I could ride a bike to work, but I'd be better off driving.  If the mechanics do not impede an agenda, no biggie.  The problem is when they directly impede the other agenda.

Gam and Nar are in direct conflict; theme and challenge are not compatible.  To use a conventional example, a level playing field is important for a game, whereas a story is hindered by the concept of game balance.  I can't think of a story where everyone was equal.  Drama requires you to dig a character deeper into a conflict, whereas with challenge the point is to dig yourself out.  I'm actually having trouble explaining this because it seems so obvious that I can't think of anything to say.

Those with a short view would assume then that the best path is to just cater to one type and let the rest suffer. This would be a GREAT solution if in real life people tended to game in groups that all shared the same strategy. However it seems to me that this often times isn't the case (especially where gaming is more of social activity than a game for the sake of a game.) Often times a group will contain a gamist, two nars, and a sim or two sims, a gamist and a nar, or whatever. The point is this mix almost certainly makes the previous method plain out bad practice. Game design should help the gamemaster achieve ALL the players goals. Your view of game design simply doesn't and the assumptions that any game can be played equally well in gn or s is wrong due to the mix of groups. Most people leave this up to whoever is running the game to cater. This is much like Ron's reference to system not mattering and how it really does.

Lets examine the options.

We know from experience that catering to all three g n and s is simply too much for a game to handle. Theres too much load. You get baggage, and conflict. Everybody loses. Further more we know that if you pick any one that one wins, and the rest in the gaming group must be catered to by the gm. Given that not all gm's are as skilled enough to cater to different players, by default the others will lose. You must assume the worse.

Uh oh.  I think I see an assumption that a good GM can make any group work.  That basically means the GM controls the agenda of the group, which in turn means you are in fact only supporting one player's agenda - that of the GM (I suppose that's coherent then - nothing to conflict with).  The GM sure does have more responsibility than the rest of the players, but his agenda isn't more important.  I dare say it's less important.  I'm personally very wary of solutions that shift power from the players to the GM.  I like to let everybody play.

[M. J. Young]

To start, let me say that your ideas for a theory of role playing are very interesting, and have a lot of potential; however, you seem to be badly misunderstanding and/or misusing creative agenda terminology, and you would probably be a lot better off (particularly around here where there are so many of us that have very refined definitions of those terms) dropping them completely from your discussion. They're only interfering with your ability to communicate your ideas, because almost every time you use one of the agenda names my reaction, at least, is that this is incorrect. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Just to make a few points--

Although many gamist games are very heavy on mechanics, many are very light on mechanics; further, there is another well-supported myth that heavy mechanics means simulationism. You can have mechanics-heavy narrativism, although it's rare. Your assertion that mechanics rules are specifically connected to gamism is mistaken both because mechanics-heavy games can be connected to narrativism or simulationism, and because gamist games can be extremely rules light. Fudge is usually played highly gamist, from what I've observed. Rolemaster is, I think, usually labeled simulationist.

Simulationism is not equal to verisimilitude or emulation. There is nothing at all about simulationism that requires the world be especially detailed or even created at all before play. The thread on The It of Simulation, cited above, delves into this significantly. You can have high-detail verisimilitude in narrativism or gamism; you can have tightly structured game physics and internal causality in narrativist and gamist play. This is not "simulationism in support of X". It is merely strong verisimilitude as a technique in support of X. Strong verisimilitude is an incredibly useful and common technique in supporting simulationism, but it neither makes something simulationism nor is necessary to that agendum.

"Games that reward good role playing with character points" are not narrativist, and that is not a narrativist mechanic. Narrativist games don't give much concern at all to "good role playing" (no more so than gamist games, and probably less so than simulationist exploration of character). Narrativism says that the address of premise is more important than the exploration of the five elements of exploration (one of which is character) and more important than player personal glory. You can play narrativism in pawn stance. It's just uncommon.

I think you've got a lot of interesting ideas in your post about game design; but you're getting them all confused by trying to relate them to Edwards' Theory terminology in ways that aren't valid.

See if you can explain what it is you're trying to say without using the words "narrativist/m", "simulationist/m", or "gamist/m". I think you'll find that you've got something good here that really doesn't have anything to do one way or another with Ron's theories. In the end, we'll probably all say, yes, that's good, and helps us understand games in interesting ways, as it addresses techniques; but it has very little to do with creative agenda.

--M. J. Young

[Amadeus]

First off:

MJ Young Said:

To start, let me say that your ideas for a theory of role playing are very interesting, and have a lot of potential; however, you seem to be badly misunderstanding and/or misusing creative agenda terminology, and you would probably be a lot better off (particularly around here where there are so many of us that have very refined definitions of those terms) dropping them completely from your discussion. They're only interfering with your ability to communicate your ideas, because almost every time you use one of the agenda names my reaction, at least, is that this is incorrect. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Yeah its mostly misusing.  I think you are right and I should try to make all my ideas independant into their own system.  Good call.  In that note, I dont think ill post my blurb on mechanics/ etc until i do this.  On the other hand, I'm here now so I'm going to keep on my same path and at least answer your post.

Although many gamist games are very heavy on mechanics, many are very light on mechanics; further, there is another well-supported myth that heavy mechanics means simulationism. You can have mechanics-heavy narrativism, although it's rare. Your assertion that mechanics rules are specifically connected to gamism is mistaken both because mechanics-heavy games can be connected to narrativism or simulationism, and because gamist games can be extremely rules light.

Well, just because there are examples outside of the norm is not to say they aren't connected.  Now they may not be connected with a *huge* coorelation (although I do think its fairly big) , but to say gamism is completely independant of game mechanics seems incorrect.  But maybe my approach of connecting it so highly is also incorrect.  It seems the connection is most likely somewher ein the middle.

Fudge is usually played highly gamist, from what I've observed. Rolemaster is, I think, usually labeled simulationist.

Really is it? (to fudge) I never knew.  From what I've actually seen, the fudgelist is a mix of pretty hardcore sims, nars and then gamists and from what I've seen in play it goes towards nars.  I guess you learn everyday.  

cruciel said:

GNS is about an instance of play, say a session or more. You seem to be talking about lowercase gns (as we say around these parts) - which is to say little bits of play that might be gam-ish in overall Nar play. At the GNS level these little bits are irrelevant, because you're looking for an overall pattern; and you can't have more than one overall pattern.

Why analyze an instance of play instead of atomic moments (little gns)? Because the greater your number of data points the smaller your statistical deviation. You aren't so much identifying a GNS priority as you are assuming it. People are complicated things, trying to keep track of every little priority shift is like trying to catch a bumblebee with a spoon.

What seems to help people with this, is that if play is 10% Gam and 90% Nar we call it Nar, because Nar dominates the flow of the game it can be said that Nar is of most interest to the player. Basically, you're abstracting out tiny shifts in player mood to get a general impression of play. I think the whole percentage angle is an incorrect simplification, but like I said, it seems to help some people.

Thanks, I'll think this over.

Gam and Nar are in direct conflict; theme and challenge are not compatible. To use a conventional example, a level playing field is important for a game, whereas a story is hindered by the concept of game balance. I can't think of a story where everyone was equal. Drama requires you to dig a character deeper into a conflict, whereas with challenge the point is to dig yourself out. I'm actually having trouble explaining this because it seems so obvious that I can't think of anything to say.

Yes I see this, but thats only if you try to put both on the same level.  You can still have a great story AND a secondary gamist challenge in there.  

You say balance gets in the way of story, and this is true.  But this doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive.  I think if you only secondarily pay attention to gamism, the conflict isnt that high.  You can still have a good story where the characters are only *somewhat* balanced.  Say... XGL for example.  

My main point is that minor conflict you will get will be worth making that gamist or two in your game happy (assuming they are there.)  After all gamists are people too ;-).  The tradeoff for a slightly worse story is worth it to make most gamers happy, leaving only one person (in this case the diehard sim) out in the cold.

Uh oh. I think I see an assumption that a good GM can make any group work. That basically means the GM controls the agenda of the group, which in turn means you are in fact only supporting one player's agenda - that of the GM (I suppose that's coherent then - nothing to conflict with). The GM sure does have more responsibility than the rest of the players, but his agenda isn't more important. I dare say it's less important. I'm personally very wary of solutions that shift power from the players to the GM. I like to let everybody play.

Well, thats not the real assumption, alot lies on the players too.  However from a game design aspect you have to ignore the fact that there are bad gms and bad players.  If you are playing with one of these, you are playing in a bad game, and you are wasting your time.   Thats just the way it is. A bad gm can ruin the perfectly designed game and so can bad players - both equally well.

Anyways, I'm going to go ahead and work on making this stuff sensible. I'll let everybody know when I think im close =-P

Thanks for your input everyone, very helpful.

[contracycle]

cruciel wrote:

Gam and Nar are in direct conflict; theme and challenge are not compatible. To use a conventional example, a level playing field is important for a game, whereas a story is hindered by the concept of game balance. I can't think of a story where everyone was equal. Drama requires you to dig a character deeper into a conflict, whereas with challenge the point is to dig yourself out. I'm actually having trouble explaining this because it seems so obvious that I can't think of anything to say.

To this I say "nonsense".  Games can be constructed with decidedly un-level playing fields in which the goals of players are not symmetrical at all.  In fact I would say that the concept of a level playing field in conventional RPG is tenuous at best, seeing as the GM is invested with so much power by comparison with players.   Actual level playing field games that execute with in an RPG have not yet been touched on at all, and possibly won't ever; but the elevel playing field is only relevant in the realm of competitive play, itself only a subset of gamist play.

Anyway, I fully support Amadeus attempt to approach potential subordinate modes.  I do think it is true that a player has a particular preference, but I also think that preferences occur in strong combination in individuals.  If play is 90% Nar and 10% Gam, that is no excuse for failing to address the 10% Gam.  It may well be a lower priority, it may well be expendable, but it can still be investigated and it can still be used in play.

--

I have to say I think this proposal, the elimination of Gam, either will not work at all, or will make a game that is Not Fun.  A gamist criticism of the starting position:

The Egg Hunt is a behavior I would classify as gamist. It's rooting through the game text for the most effectiveness per cost, largest damaging weapon, individual abilities that stack together, flaws in logic of the game's design, or whatever. Looking for exploitations, commonly by intentionally misconstruing the wording of the text. I've never found the behavior very impressive even from a gamist standpoint. How clever do you really have to be to search for the biggest number; what obstacle have you overcome?

would be: "So you want to cripple character effectiveness so that you can assert more GM power over the game world and drag us through your auteur-created story willy nilly.  Thanks but no thanks."

There's too much conflated into this 'egg hunt' scenario.  Absolutely, searching for the biggest numbers is Smart, becuase you need to understand the range of possibility and effectiveness to plan usefully.  If there is a clearly optimal choice, it is Stupid not to take it - that is a failure of system.

Looking for "exploitations" though slides us into the realm of cheating - and I do not accept it is legitimate to presume gamism implies the prevalence of cheats.  I reject the claim that abnalysing a system to understand it and making intelkliugent choices of those available can be reasonably conflated with deliberate misinterpretations or manipulation - these are NOT the same behaviour in my view.

To return to your starCraft analogy, if what you want to do is just build buildings, why did you fire up starcraft at all?  there are plenty of other games which do not feature the problem you describe.  If what you want to do is build buildings, what you need is a game that rewards the building of buildings... Pharaoh, say.  Eliminating the game will not achieve your goals at all in my view, and worse, will eliminate a major plankn of protagonism and character expression.

[Jason Lee]

cruciel wrote:

Gam and Nar are in direct conflict; theme and challenge are not compatible. To use a conventional example, a level playing field is important for a game, whereas a story is hindered by the concept of game balance. I can't think of a story where everyone was equal. Drama requires you to dig a character deeper into a conflict, whereas with challenge the point is to dig yourself out. I'm actually having trouble explaining this because it seems so obvious that I can't think of anything to say.

To this I say "nonsense".  Games can be constructed with decidedly un-level playing fields in which the goals of players are not symmetrical at all.  In fact I would say that the concept of a level playing field in conventional RPG is tenuous at best, seeing as the GM is invested with so much power by comparison with players.   Actual level playing field games that execute with in an RPG have not yet been touched on at all, and possibly won't ever; but the elevel playing field is only relevant in the realm of competitive play, itself only a subset of gamist play.

Believe it or not I agree with you.  The game balance thing was just an example of how Gam might conflict with Nar, not a universal statement about how Gam and Nar games have to work.

As for the uneven distribution of power to the GM...  If you're making an allusion to Illusionism (that's fun to say), I've always wondered what could possibly appeal to a Gam player in an Illusionist game.  I mean really, what's the point if the GM is allowed to fudge?  Of course, I have the same thing to say about Nar.

I have to say I think this proposal, the elimination of Gam, either will not work at all, or will make a game that is Not Fun.  A gamist criticism of the starting position:

If you want to shoot for absolutes, I'd say it wouldn't work at all.  

The Egg Hunt is a behavior I would classify as gamist. It's rooting through the game text for the most effectiveness per cost, largest damaging weapon, individual abilities that stack together, flaws in logic of the game's design, or whatever. Looking for exploitations, commonly by intentionally misconstruing the wording of the text. I've never found the behavior very impressive even from a gamist standpoint. How clever do you really have to be to search for the biggest number; what obstacle have you overcome?

would be: "So you want to cripple character effectiveness so that you can assert more GM power over the game world and drag us through your auteur-created story willy nilly.  Thanks but no thanks."

If you cut out "assert more GM power over the game world and drag" I'm fine with that interpretation.  If the Gam interpretation boils down to "This doesn't look like any fun at all", then mission accomplished.

There's too much conflated into this 'egg hunt' scenario.  Absolutely, searching for the biggest numbers is Smart, becuase you need to understand the range of possibility and effectiveness to plan usefully.  If there is a clearly optimal choice, it is Stupid not to take it - that is a failure of system.

Looking for "exploitations" though slides us into the realm of cheating - and I do not accept it is legitimate to presume gamism implies the prevalence of cheats.  I reject the claim that abnalysing a system to understand it and making intelkliugent choices of those available can be reasonably conflated with deliberate misinterpretations or manipulation - these are NOT the same behaviour in my view.

I consider the Egg Hunt to be a substyle of min-maxing.  I suppose it's worth it to make the distinction between regular min-maxing and the Egg Hunt version, which is sort of like cheating.  There's the spirit and the letter of the law, the Egg Hunt is ignoring the spirit.

To return to your starCraft analogy, if what you want to do is just build buildings, why did you fire up starcraft at all?  there are plenty of other games which do not feature the problem you describe.  If what you want to do is build buildings, what you need is a game that rewards the building of buildings... Pharaoh, say.  Eliminating the game will not achieve your goals at all in my view, and worse, will eliminate a major plankn of protagonism and character expression.

Again, that's sort of the point.  How do I make something other than StarCraft?  So I can play it instead.

Let me reveal my master plan for a second.  Figuring out how to fail to support Gamism is as much about supporting Gam as Nar.

[Jason Lee]

Gam and Nar are in direct conflict; theme and challenge are not compatible. To use a conventional example, a level playing field is important for a game, whereas a story is hindered by the concept of game balance. I can't think of a story where everyone was equal. Drama requires you to dig a character deeper into a conflict, whereas with challenge the point is to dig yourself out. I'm actually having trouble explaining this because it seems so obvious that I can't think of anything to say.

Yes I see this, but thats only if you try to put both on the same level.  You can still have a great story AND a secondary gamist challenge in there.  

You say balance gets in the way of story, and this is true.  But this doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive.  I think if you only secondarily pay attention to gamism, the conflict isnt that high.  You can still have a good story where the characters are only *somewhat* balanced.  Say... XGL for example.  

My main point is that minor conflict you will get will be worth making that gamist or two in your game happy (assuming they are there.)  After all gamists are people too ;-).  The tradeoff for a slightly worse story is worth it to make most gamers happy, leaving only one person (in this case the diehard sim) out in the cold.

Funny thing about compromises, they don't make anyone happy.  

To step out of theory and into actual play for second, I play in a bit of a mixed group.  In my experience things work better when we play to compatibilities rather than try to compromise on incompatibilities.  Often, there just isn't a compromise that can be made - two wants may be in direct conflict.  So we normally just pick someone, say "Sorry you can't both get what you want", and move on (in instances where we pull out to group negotiation or when tweaking the system).

[contracycle]

Believe it or not I agree with you.  The game balance thing was just an example of how Gam might conflict with Nar, not a universal statement about how Gam and Nar games have to work.

And my point was that the level playing field is an artificial and irrelevant hypothetical.  As I understand the orthodox position on the conflict between Gam and Nar, it is that the fun of Gam can override that of Nar.

As for the uneven distribution of power to the GM...  If you're making an allusion to Illusionism (that's fun to say), I've always wondered what could possibly appeal to a Gam player in an Illusionist game.  I mean really, what's the point if the GM is allowed to fudge?

Its quite simple really - as often mentioned, one of the antecedants fo RPG is Free Kriegspeil.  This is indeed driven primairly from a Sim interest, but it demonstrates that players can cede total executive authority to a referee based on that referess competence and the presumption of neutrality.  Similarly, Matrix games are virtually rule-less but this does not compromise their ability to be enetertaining as games.  The GM's fudging is unimportant unles the GM is cast as an opponent.

If you cut out "assert more GM power over the game world and drag" I'm fine with that interpretation.  If the Gam interpretation boils down to "This doesn't look like any fun at all", then mission accomplished.

No, I don't think those terms can be omitted.  I am also suggesting that an RPG with a non-Fun gamist component will fail for Nar and Sim too.

I consider the Egg Hunt to be a substyle of min-maxing.  I suppose it's worth it to make the distinction between regular min-maxing and the Egg Hunt version, which is sort of like cheating.  There's the spirit and the letter of the law, the Egg Hunt is ignoring the spirit.

Fine, but if its ignoring the spirit of the law, its overriding the social contract.  Thats a severe problem not strictly related to Gamism, it seems to me.  Healthy, contractual Gamism should not exhibit this failurte, and thus the attempt to eliminate or minimise Gamism does not help in resolving the Egg Hunt problem.

Again, that's sort of the point.  How do I make something other than StarCraft?  So I can play it instead.

By relocating the gamist rewards (and methods) such they reinforce the behaviour you wish to encourage.  The victory condition for starcraft is the obliteration of the opponent; if you do not want to play that sort of game, you need to establish a victory condition about something else.  The example of Pharoah I mentioned is a good one because in it one major form of victory is the construction of huge monuments.  In order to achieve this, you will have to construct many smaller buildings - also, there is no real opponent in these games, in the sense of a player with opposed objectives.

[Jason Lee]

No, I don't think those terms can be omitted.  I am also suggesting that an RPG with a non-Fun gamist component will fail for Nar and Sim too.

By relocating the gamist rewards (and methods) such they reinforce the behaviour you wish to encourage.  The victory condition for starcraft is the obliteration of the opponent; if you do not want to play that sort of game, you need to establish a victory condition about something else.  The example of Pharoah I mentioned is a good one because in it one major form of victory is the construction of huge monuments.  In order to achieve this, you will have to construct many smaller buildings - also, there is no real opponent in these games, in the sense of a player with opposed objectives.

Let me see if I can boil this down.  Are you basically saying that any rewards system is Gamist in nature?

[Amadeus]

Gam and Nar are in direct conflict; theme and challenge are not compatible. To use a conventional example, a level playing field is important for a game, whereas a story is hindered by the concept of game balance. I can't think of a story where everyone was equal. Drama requires you to dig a character deeper into a conflict, whereas with challenge the point is to dig yourself out. I'm actually having trouble explaining this because it seems so obvious that I can't think of anything to say.

Yes I see this, but thats only if you try to put both on the same level.  You can still have a great story AND a secondary gamist challenge in there.  

You say balance gets in the way of story, and this is true.  But this doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive.  I think if you only secondarily pay attention to gamism, the conflict isnt that high.  You can still have a good story where the characters are only *somewhat* balanced.  Say... XGL for example.  

My main point is that minor conflict you will get will be worth making that gamist or two in your game happy (assuming they are there.)  After all gamists are people too ;-).  The tradeoff for a slightly worse story is worth it to make most gamers happy, leaving only one person (in this case the diehard sim) out in the cold.

Funny thing about compromises, they don't make anyone happy.  

To step out of theory and into actual play for second, I play in a bit of a mixed group.  In my experience things work better when we play to compatibilities rather than try to compromise on incompatibilities.  Often, there just isn't a compromise that can be made - two wants may be in direct conflict.  So we normally just pick someone, say "Sorry you can't both get what you want", and move on (in instances where we pull out to group negotiation or when tweaking the system).

I'm not talking about a compromise I'm talking about allocating resources efficently. ( I know that sounds a helluva lot like compromise )

I also play in a mixed group.  That said, when we play a game, we satisfy to some degree everybodies gns.  I am predominately the gamer but as I said earlier I am also weird enough to have some nar in me too. We also have a full nar.  Now often times we aren't being fullfilled with the same parts of any given session, but over all we are fullfilled with the season and the game.

We may start out with some personal crisis or something that furthers the story which will lead into a challenge that will be resolved again to further the story etc.  Now these challenges are only now and then but they are enough to finish off any urges I have for gamism that are left unsatisfied by the nar heavy content.

Say we fight an illuminated vampire because hes important to the story for x reason. Now once the vampire is suitably bound, the nar comes in and starts interogating him in the style of his character to find out the next step of the story.   Sure,  hes not crazy about challenging combat or what not, but he doesn't find himself unhappy with the session over all or with even that section and I don't with the nar heavy.  He knows it necessary to get further in the story and so goes with it.  I like nar and so it satisfies me there, and I get my primary goal accomplished too  - a great experience for me.  He has a pretty good game, as do others in this same style.   Two things (nar and gam) aren't really that hard to allocate into the same game.  

Sure there is some minor uncomfortability for the nar for  all of what 15-30 minutes, but since hes so happy about the rest of the game, and the fact that its progressing the story anyways, its forgotten.  His primary goal is being filled up constantly through the nar heavy game- whats he care if now and then they need to deal with challenges.  And me, my secondary and primary goals are both being filled and so I'm happy as can be too.  The only person who would be having no fun at all would be a diehard sim. (if they exist?)

The point?  Its harder to add in this secondary aspect when its not in the system itself than when it is.  Compromises don't have to be made when they are made for you. When it isn't built in you end up having to make compromises and making people unhappy about the changes.  

Sure you stil have to make compromises about the game system changes etc, but they are alot less often and less serious.

[contracycle]

Let me see if I can boil this down.  Are you basically saying that any rewards system is Gamist in nature?

Not exactly, but I'm inclined to extremely broad perceptions of what constitutes a game, so some things I think of as games have no reward mechanism.

What I mean more precisely is that reward mechanisms are attempts to shape behaviour.  So, to produce a game that you want to play, you need to identify what sort  of behaviours in which you'd like to indulge and reward those - not eliminate a reward system.  I suggested that this would so hobble the game aspect that the subsequent 'game', comprising N&S, would not meaningfully be an RPG.

[Jason Lee]

It's been a bit since I started this thread.  I had to skim back through it, and it's slowly returning to me.  I've made an error I have to correct.  Sorry for the backtrack, but I noticed the me of today was contradicting the me of yesterday.

I have to rescind the following statement, it was untrue:

I consider the Egg Hunt to be a substyle of min-maxing. I suppose it's worth it to make the distinction between regular min-maxing and the Egg Hunt version, which is sort of like cheating. There's the spirit and the letter of the law, the Egg Hunt is ignoring the spirit.

Which means the following still deserves a response.

There's too much conflated into this 'egg hunt' scenario. Absolutely, searching for the biggest numbers is Smart, becuase you need to understand the range of possibility and effectiveness to plan usefully. If there is a clearly optimal choice, it is Stupid not to take it - that is a failure of system.

Looking for "exploitations" though slides us into the realm of cheating - and I do not accept it is legitimate to presume gamism implies the prevalence of cheats. I reject the claim that abnalysing a system to understand it and making intelkliugent choices of those available can be reasonably conflated with deliberate misinterpretations or manipulation - these are NOT the same behaviour in my view.

If I'm now recalling correctly what I meant by Egg Hunt, yes, searching for the biggest numbers is Smart, and the Egg Hunt is encouraged by bad system with such obvious strategies.  So one way to eliminate the Egg Hunt is by removing those optimal choices.  For example, in the game Go all the pieces have the same size and function.  If there were pieces that took up multiple squares those pieces would obviously be better.  The Egg Hunt is looking for those pieces.

Egg Hunting may or may not involve perversion of rule text.  After all, if there is an obvious error in the text wouldn't it be Smart to take advantage of it?  This particular type is similar to wheedling, because it tends to involve convincing the other people (when someone says "The book doesn't say that!").  Again, wouldn't it me Smart to beguile your fellow players?

The Egg Hunt could be approached from many different angles.  Finding the best choice within the rules, by twisting the rules, by manipulating the people involved, by finding a better source book, or whatever.

So, I guess I see Egg Hunting that does and does not break the social contract.  All are (were) equal targets in this discussion.

I also seem to recall part of my original purpose was to figure out how to design for Egg Hunt-less Gamist play (choice are tactically different, but no choice is clearly "better").

[Amadeus]

So one way to eliminate the Egg Hunt is by removing those optimal choices.  For example, in the game Go all the pieces have the same size and function.  If there were pieces that took up multiple squares those pieces would obviously be better.  The Egg Hunt is looking for those pieces.

Well even in Go there are smarter opening moves than others and it would be *nonoptimal* and Stupid not to take these movies.  If you were to draw this analogy character creation would be the early game where you set up your positions and borders or what not.  Placing a peice ON the corner is a pretty dumb move, especially early game.  My point is that no matter how much you get rid of eggs to hunt, they will still be searched for.

I also seem to recall part of my original purpose was to figure out how to design for Egg Hunt-less Gamist play (choice are tactically different, but no choice is clearly "better").

I guess it boils down to being impossibly careful and having infinite foresight.  ;-)

However, usefully - ( ihope)
There is reward in egg hunting.  Get rid of it. The reward in egg hunting is that you have a stronger character to solve challanges.

To get rid of this reward this, it seems that your design is wants to be balanced but with different strategies all inherantly equal.  What I would do for this, is make a rock-paper-scissor sort of style of balance between three, four, or more different 'tactics'.  Defense might beat Quick might beat Offense might beat Defense.  Or whatever fits.  Of course don't make it flat rps, go ahead and add in a random factor.  Just make sure each area of the game is balanced in its own seperate area.  Don't let your skills affect combat significantly, or anything like that.  If you want a feign combat skill have a feign combat skill instead of using bluff.  

Other suggestions as earlier add this and help such as removing stacking, etc.  

Then find a way to satisfy the gamers.  I would suggest by taking the reward you just took away from having an uber character and putting it in solving challenges.  

I'm not sure if this was of any help, butI hope so.

[Jason Lee]

Let me see if I can boil this down.  Are you basically saying that any rewards system is Gamist in nature?

Not exactly, but I'm inclined to extremely broad perceptions of what constitutes a game, so some things I think of as games have no reward mechanism.

What I mean more precisely is that reward mechanisms are attempts to shape behaviour.  So, to produce a game that you want to play, you need to identify what sort  of behaviours in which you'd like to indulge and reward those - not eliminate a reward system.  I suggested that this would so hobble the game aspect that the subsequent 'game', comprising N&S, would not meaningfully be an RPG.

(emphasis mine)

Ok, I'll agree with you on the first part (plain text).  The question is, how does one make a rewards system that is not Gamist?

As for the second part (italics), I disagree.  I think playing for its own sake, without a rewards system, is perfectly valid.  Without a rewards system you wouldn't be supporting/encouraging a play style, but you also won't be interfering with one.  So from my perspective, a lack of rewards system is one way you could fail to support Gamism.  Though not the topic of this thread, a lack of rewards system might also be a method for failing to support Nar.