Gamist->Sim Conversion

[Jaik]

Reading through the Primal Gamist thread prompted this idea to me:

Many new players come to RPGs as gamists (think 10-13-year old boys playing D&D.  Yes, this stacks the deck.  Bear with me).

Many of these players will move to more-or-less Sim play over time, with emphasis on OC/OOC knowledge and 'playing your character'  (I believe Ron references this beaten-into-Sim behavior in several essays.)

Is it possible that rather than changing a player's actual creative agenda from Gamism to Simulationism, the surrounding gaming culture defines Sim priorities as 'win conditions,' thus integrating them into a Gamist framework, perhaps even elevating them above traditional Gamist concerns such as character power or wealth?  

Thus, sticking to IC knowledge only (for example) becomes a point of pride and elevates the player above those who don't.  This competition might help to explain some of the extreme reactions to 'munchkins' and 'hack-and-slashers' from 'more advanced' players.

(In looking this over, the ending might come off as dismissive or demeaning to Simulationist players or those seeking greater depth to their games.  I certainly don't mean any disrespect or harm.)

[Edited to correct the name of the thread referenced]

[montag]

Great idea, sounds excellent!
Allow me to cast the first stone ;)
Isn't it the case, that the "conditioning" to Sim, the "defines Sim priorities as 'win conditions,' stuff happens at the social contract level? In other words, are we talking about Gamism here, or are we simply relabeling peer preasure or using the label Gamism for the fact that social groups will define their own norms?

[Jaik]

I guess I'm suggesting that peer pressure (how could I forget peer pressure?) alters a Gamist player's end goals.  "No, no, no" says the group, "the point isn't to show that you can kill all the monsters, the POINT is to play your character.  See, THAT's what you're supposed to be doing."

"Oh," says the budding Gamist.  "So what's important is to play a character properly, keep the wall between IC knowledge and OOC knowledge, and really try to get away from this combat stuff.  ANYONE can kill stuff, it takes skill to play a character properly."

I think it's still Gamism, but the benchmarks for success have been redefined.  Maybe it explains why so many have the idea that less combat = superior game.  It's not so much that they enjoy a game without combat (though many people do), but that having one shows how 'advanced' they are, how far removed from munchkinhood.

About Social Contract, isn't a defined Contract just formalized and negotiated form of peer pressure?

[talysman]

this won't work, for two reasons.

first, Gamism isn't about winning, it's about challenge and Step On Up (social esteem). making Sim priorities into "win conditions" for a group of mixed Sim and Gamist players doesn't alter the creative agendas of either faction; the Gamists still want to puff out their chests, the Sim players still want to emphasis character and world over player esteem.

second (and feeding into the first point,) Gamist playstyles already range from low to high Sim in their supporting mode. there are Gamist players who earn their esteem from their peers by creating highly detailed components in the game world. that's not the problem. the problem is that purist Sim players don't like the Step On Up, while the Gamists insist on it.  so, Gamists who like a good deal of supporting Sim can play well with Simulationists who don't mind a little Step On Up from the other players; it's the extremes of both creative agendas who can't stand playing together.

making Sim priorities into the "win conditions" thus won't work -- and, more to the point, *haven't* worked. coherent Sim games already tend to reward Sim behavior, but that hasn't solved the social conflicts between purist for Sim players and high-end Gamist players.

the ideal solution really is still openness and honesty about what each player is looking for in the game, combined with the courage to say "no, I like these people, but I don't want to play this way" when confronted with a conflicting playstyle.

[ethan_greer]

But can a player who prefers Gamism play peacefully with a Sim group by treating Sim goals as his or her "win conditions?" I think the answer is, "yes."

[M. J. Young]

I think it's a difficult issue to parse; everyone seems to be close, and everyone seems to be missing part of it.

I think there is a strain of gamism in which maintaining character integrity is part of the win condition requirements. You could think of it as winning at Mille Bornes without playing any 200 cards (for which there is a bonus, for those who don't recall the game): there are the rules, but there are also the special conditions that make for a better victory. Thus if you can kill the dragon, that's good, but if you can kill the dragon without ever stepping out of what people expect your character to do, that's great.

That strain of gamism is not simulationism. It might be compatible with a certain strain of simulationism--it would be difficult, for example, to distinguish the player who is using his character to win the game for his own satisfaction while doing so within the bounds of character integrity, from the player who for his own satisfaction is trying to perfectly play a character who will do whatever it takes to win--the two are tremendously congruent in the kinds of decisions they will make, yet are fundamentally distinct in their motivations. Note that if the character loses, the one will be very disappointed that he could not win without breaking character, and the other very pleased that he could avoid breaking character right up to the end.

Sure, there are times and situations in which congruence occurs, and this could be one of them; that doesn't mean that you don't have conflicting agenda, or that conflicting agenda won't lead to diverging play--the gamist is more likely to break character than to lose, and the simulationist more likely to lose than to break character, and each would say that the other "played wrong" in that situation.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

I think this is analogous to a number of 'sportsmanship' issues in sports, pro and amateur.  If you were playing tennis, and the opponents hits the ball just in, but in such a place that looks out from their side of the court that the ball was out, then it would be appropriately sporting to volunteer the information, even if it costs you the point.

This as opposed to Gamesmanship, 'the art of winning without actually cheating', in which the player makes it their business to bend/manipulate the rules in the pursuit of victory:
http://www.carosi.freeserve.co.uk/corshamreferee/gamesman.htm

Anyway, I think that because we are all playing to have fun, good sportsmanship is mostly normal.  Theres little or nothing to be gained from breaking or bending the IC perspective even if OOC information offers an opportunity, and potentially quite a lot to be lost by identifiable gamesmanship.