Primal Gamism

[sirogit]

Sorry if I come across bitter or sarcastic about the subject of conversation but I absolutely hate pop psychology pap:

All social interactions can and have shown to include competetion + Roleplaying is a social interaction = All forms of roleplaying can include competetion.

Is just as meaningfull as:

All social interactions can and have shown to include dick jokes + Roleplaying is a social interaction = All forms of roleplaying can include dick jokes.

What I mean is, the fact that competition is a constant part of the social human expiereince doesn't really mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean that all social interaction is viewed as a game by all people, or that looking at life in the context of "who wins" is the only possible functional outlook. It just means that social interaction contains a whole lot of different things, one of those just happening to be competition

You're confusing trying to do something well with attempting to out-do the people around you as an objective.

[BPetroff93]

I think an important issue here is that GNS is not about clasifying bahavior but rather motivation.  To say that all human social interaction includes some measure of competition is one thing, yet to say that all social interaction is motivated by competition is something else all together.

[M. J. Young]

My thesis is not that human behavior is potentially Step On Up, but that human behavior is Step On Up.  Step On Up never gets put "on hold" in any human behavior. At least, I haven't been able to come up with a case where it does. Of course, I'm open to discussion on the topic.

I feel a bit silly remembering this; it was an article I read in Jurisprudence (and I got an American Jurisprudence Award for Jurisprudence).

The author wanted to distinguish two models of society, which he called The Ladder and The Web.

The Ladder he defined as a pecking-order based model of society, in which all participants were in competition with each other to be on the highest wrung they could reach, and so be above anyone below them. The Web, by contrast, was a model of mutual support, in which the participants considered each other equals and worked together to raise everyone to an equal place in the social order.

The author argued that the ladder model was a masculinist model, the web was feminist.

I feel silly remembering it in this discussion, because in my response I tore this guy apart. I slammed him for his failure to perceive that women were frequently more competitive with each other than men were, sometimes more viciously so (as the old Irving Berlin song says, "Lord help the mister who comes between me and my sister, and Lord help the sister who comes between me and my man"). I also accused him of intellectual dishonesty, as he had essentially restated a socialist model of society and labeled it "feminist" because then if you rejected it you could easily be labeled misogynistic and your opinion ignored.

So I disagreed with him.

However, he did make a solid point that not all social interaction is based on competition. Not even all male social interaction is so based--I don't compete with my kids, for example (unless I'm a real--well, I don't, anyway, and few fathers really do).

So consider that an argument that "step on up" is not always a significant motivating factor in human interaction.

Regarding synecdo[c]he: Primal Gamism exists in parallel with any other motivation, rather than in lieu of.

I will agree that everyone plays for social rewards. This isn't the same thing as gamism, though.

I suppose it's a bit like the trouble I have with Freud. He suggests that everyone does everything they do because of the desire to have sex (yes, and oversimplification). Eventually that has to be stretched so far from anything recognizably like what it says that you start to wonder how that's relevant. I think I eat because I'm hungry. I don't think of it as trying to survive--I'll eat when I'm suicidal, because I don't like being hungry even if I have no desire to live. I certainly don't think of it as wanting to survive because I have this drive to reproduce.

So yes, I like it when my friends approve what I'm doing, and in that sense I'm competing for social rewards. On the other hand, that is so often so far removed from any sense of what I'm doing that it doesn't seem relevant. What social rewards do I reap when I drop twenty dollars in the Salvation Army bucket when no one is looking? Sure, it's one of those basic human needs--but only one of them, and I'm sure that in Maslow's heirarchy there are a lot of others on both sides of it.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

I say again: if we reworded the central claim of Gamism to 'challenge' instead of 'competition' these problems would arise less frequently.  Challenge is much more focussed, 'competition' has a huge quantity of ideological baggage.

[Jason Lee]

If you are talking about people generally always seeking social rewards, though not necessarily through competition, and GNS being criteria for those rewards, then I'm inclined to agree.  With the proviso that the motivation may be primarily a creative one that is reinforced socially.

I like that. If I'm reading you right, that is what I'm talking about. Only worded better. The only question, and it's a minor one, is about "not necessarily through competition." An argument could be made that people compete for social rewards, but I think it's mainly a semantic argument and therefore eminently ignorable.

Cool!

Yeah, it might be a semantic argument.  When I think of competition I think of one person gaining at the expense of another.  In social situations it can be possible for everybody to profit, or at least not lose anything significant.  So wording it like 'seeking acknowledgement at some risk that you won't get it' works for me, whereas the word competition comes with that baggage contracycle mentioned.  (All the better if you don't have that baggage.)

[C. Edwards]

I highly suggest a read of Robert Wright's Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. It's a look at human culture and history through a lense of Game Theory. It seems highly relevant to the topic at hand, and it's a good read regardless.

-Chris

[Jaik]

When I read the first post, something clicked for me.  Definitions for Sim play have always been pretty hazy to me (I should re-read Ron's essay), but the provided definition is clear and concise.  I like it.  The basic structure of the argument seems really solid.

But.

The proposition seems to assume a coherent group of players all sharing the same basic CA.  If everyone is a Sim player to a great degree, then natural competitive urges could encourage you to Sim more/better.  But what if you are the odd one out in your group?

(Broad generalizations ahead, please be gentle with me)
I've seen a lot of posts here from people who realize that they prefer Narr play but have a Gam/Sim group.  For a long time, they've been trying to do Narr things or try techniques out of synch with a Gamist CA, which is what they're surrounded with.  They don't riff off of what the rest of the group does.  Generally, their pursuit of their goals leave them at a huge disadvantage in meeting the goals of the rest of the group.  (I have a touch of this.  I've tried to make interesting characters in D&D to accompany the party of raving killers.  I die a lot.  This is not conducive to acquiring social prestige, except along the lines of 'Hey, remember the time Aaron's character didn't even survive their introduction to the party?')

Does behavior like this, where the player puts their own CA ahead of the group CA and therefore loses prestige in the group, trump the theory that all play is Gamist?

[ethan_greer]

The proposition seems to assume a coherent group of players all sharing the same basic CA. If everyone is a Sim player to a great degree, then natural competitive urges could encourage you to Sim more/better.

Yep.

But what if you are the odd one out in your group?

Disfunction, unless you're willing to put your personal preferences aside, and go for the pats on the back that can be had for playing to the group-at-large's CA. I've done this myself to great satisfaction with a Gamist D&D group I've been involved with.

(Broad generalizations ahead, please be gentle with me)
I've seen a lot of posts here from people who realize that they prefer Narr play but have a Gam/Sim group.  For a long time, they've been trying to do Narr things or try techniques out of synch with a Gamist CA, which is what they're surrounded with.  They don't riff off of what the rest of the group does.  Generally, their pursuit of their goals leave them at a huge disadvantage in meeting the goals of the rest of the group.  (I have a touch of this.  I've tried to make interesting characters in D&D to accompany the party of raving killers.  I die a lot.  This is not conducive to acquiring social prestige, except along the lines of 'Hey, remember the time Aaron's character didn't even survive their introduction to the party?')

Does behavior like this, where the player puts their own CA ahead of the group CA and therefore loses prestige in the group, trump the theory that all play is Gamist?

Well, yes and no. First of all, when I said all play was Gamist, that was a very poor choice of words on my part. Using the GNS term clouds the issue that I wanted to talk about. It would be better to say that all play is at least partially, if not wholly, motivated by the desire for social rewards.

To put forth a few broad generalizations of my own (in addition to the ones I've put forth already): I think a potential reason to push one's own prefferred CA on one's group is largely about ego, i.e. "My way is better, and I could prove it to you, if only you would see the light." Not saying this about you, Aaron, but refferring to some of the posts you talk about; I've seen them too. The point is, if you take that approach, the social challenges are huge. Whereas, if you take the approach of embracing the group's CA, the social rewards are tangible, and the enjoyment that can be gotten from coherent play is significant.

[ethan_greer]

So consider that an argument that "step on up" is not always a significant motivating factor in human interaction.

Consider it considered.  Good points; thanks!

I will agree that everyone plays for social rewards. This isn't the same thing as gamism, though.

I agree. Again, we're dealing with my poor word choice. I need to go back in time and edit that first post... :)