Gamism and Narrativism

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Walt,

I've never supported the business about making others laugh as a Gamist approach. My claim all along is that humor is a secondary element of whatever Creative Agenda is under way, and that it can augment or overtake any of them. So I think that's a red-herring issue.

I also don't grasp how to apply your point about strategy & guts in other, non-role-playing activities. Sure it applies to other activities. And its application to role-playing is very similar. When it applies, and when it's the key variable for the social-status thing, then that's Gamist play.

That is so clear, and so straightforward, that I can only guess that people are still trying to ratchet other things they want or don't want to be Gamist into the conversation. I'm pretty sure you're not guilty of that, though, so color me confused.

Best,
Ron

[Ian Charvill]

Ron,

You've also indicated that if you remove the personal strategy and guts element and have the social esteem competition independent of the imagined elements of play then you still have Gamism, albeit of the hardcore variety.  It's inevitable for people to move from there to seeing the social esteem competition as the sine qua none of Gamism and the personal strategy and guts as being an optional extra.

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Ron,

I'm pretty sure I'm the one who's confused. My question (and it's not rhetorical, it's real curiosity) is:

1. Gamist play is rewarded with increased social esteem based on assessing one another's strategy and guts.

2. ____ play is rewarded with increased social esteem based on assessing one another's play.

What behaviors relevant to role playing are included in #2 but excluded in #1? In other words, what error occurs as a result of overlooking the "strategy and guts" stipulation as you've warned us not to do?

And, as an entirely separate question, am I correct in telling Gareth that it's valid to add a parenthetical "(or one's own)" after "one another's" in  definition #1?

- Walt

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Ian, I think you're confounding the social esteem issue per se with competition for social esteem. In my essay, I try to make it clear that competition is based on a very specific, identifiable phenomenon: when the "pool" of esteem relies on conflict of interest (if one goes up, someone or everyone else has to go down). This is not definitional for Gamist play; it is merely a very powerful auxiliary/optional engine which may be added to it, often in a positive way.

Step On Up = social esteem is at stake based on personal strategy and guts

- it may or may not include conflict of interest and therefore competition for that esteem
- it must concern the "strategy and guts" being demonstrated by the real people

Hard Core Gamism doesn't deviate from these standards. It is indeed about (a) social esteem based on (b) personal strategy and guts, but (c) removes the relevance of the Exploration except as a shuttlecock to be fought over among egos. It's a modification of Gamist play that does not require changing the definition. And how can it not be about strategy and guts? It's about nothing but! It concerns my (the person's) strategy and guts relative to the rules-set and to one another's egos in terms of social dominance (bullying, spurious logic, etc). Same issues + absent to minimal Exploration + willingness to harm another's social standing = Hard Core Gamism. I don't see how it causes the "strategy and guts" element to disappear at all - emphatically to the contrary, in fact.

Walt, let's see ...

1. Gamist play is rewarded with increased social esteem based on assessing one another's strategy and guts.

2. ____ play is rewarded with increased social esteem based on assessing one another's play.

What behaviors relevant to role playing are included in #2 but excluded in #1? In other words, what error occurs as a result of overlooking the "strategy and guts" stipulation as you've warned us not to do?

My fill-in-the-blank word is: "All." That's fundamental to the concept of Social Contract.

I do think that Gamist and Narrativist play are more overt and (maybe) more self-revealing than Simulationist play, in this regard. But that is a separate issue.

I think the error should be clear from there. Removing the "strategy and guts" part of the Gamism definition is a clear example of synechdoche, wrongly implying that the other forms of play do not include social esteem issues at the Social Contract level. I consider it a particularly absurd instance of synechdoche.

And, as an entirely separate question, am I correct in telling Gareth that it's valid to add a parenthetical "(or one's own)" after "one another's" in definition #1?

I think you are correct, but I also think that such "self-evaluated" Gamism is probably characteristic of incoherent play (at the group level). In other words, if your pals can't appreciate you, you must please yourself. Such behavior tends ultimately to become self-indulgent and uncritical, and in many cases results in the Birth of a Prick problem that I describe in the essay.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

As far as social-esteem and Gamism, I don't know if I can add much more after Pete said:

And where comes this idea that gamist play involves some zero sum game of competing for social esteem? It's all about the group approval (which, as you rightly say, is a necessary component for all CA) for display of tactical skill & risk taking. Now, that's grabbing for social esteem, but not necessarily competing for it in terms of "beating the other players."

Social-esteem is not a zero sum game.  Everybody can win, therefore it isn't a competition.  Beauty.

How's about an example?

In my group we've got some Gamism in places.  We've got one player that I'd characterize as very Gamist.  He knows it, he likes it, and he's very non-competitive.  Cooperation among characters/players is his deal, and he doesn't try to hog the spotlight.  If you have a character that is better suited to a task than his, his character will ask yours to do it.  When you do it, his character will say "Thanks" or "Good job", and the player might say "That was neat" or "I like that character".  And he seems rather annoyed if you don't do the same.

He's probably the player who is best about acknowledging the abilities and accomplishments of characters other than his.  Of course, he totally doesn't get why you'd want to torture your characters, have them freak out in a crisis, kill their family, or do anything similar.

Anyway, I'm drifting.  The point is, this player is Gamist, non-competitive, and very much about social-esteem rewards.

(However, the second-most Gamist in the group is very competitive.  Very much "I will outsmart you and be angry if I don't".  Again social-esteem, but this time it is competitive.  However, not the point, competitive player examples are easy to come up with.)

*****

As for the difference between Gam and Nar...

Yeah, Gam and Nar are both meta-game agendas about conflict.  I seem to remember Ron calling them 'kissing cousins' at some point.  For some reason that metaphor stuck with me.  They are so very alike, yet mixing the two is only legal in Arkansas.

The thing that always makes this point for me is player control mechanics (drama points or something).  Anything that allows you alter resolution allows you to express your agenda.  But drama points are typically a limited resource, meaning expending them reflects a personal investment in the situation.  The player must assess a loss of personal resources (and control of the game) against how important it is to get what he wants at an exact moment.  This suits both Gam and Nar, the only difference is in how they are used.

Ok, I guess all I've said in this section so far is, "I agree with Ben."

Though both about risk and cost (what is the resolution of this conflict worth) and personal investment, the difference lies in what kind of risks and costs are valued.

What is the risk?
Is the risk something with emotional value to the character (value of life, a loved one, etc), or a pre-established loss condition (dying, the village burning down, etc)?

What is the cost?
Is the cost a moral boundary, or is the cost effectiveness (loss of resources, dying, etc)?

The difference here is so fuzzy, because they can appear congruent (I think my Gamism examples are crappy, btw), but there is a fundamental difference in dramatic flow (for want of a better term).  As the risks and costs are evaluated by the players against the standards of their agenda, they intertwine into a web of Situation.  Though Gam and Nar are both building a web, the pattern is different.

I'm struggling to get a across what probably just boils down to "A creative agenda is simply a compilation of Techniques."

EDIT:  Cross post with Ron, who also covered the 'zero sum social-esteem' thing.

[DannyK]

The only thing I'm really competitive about when I play RPG's is my groovy ideas: when I come up with a new idea or concept in the setting, and people jump on it and start riffing on it, I feel very gratified.  Obviously, this works best in games where I have some directorial powers and make up cool stuff.  

As far as being effective in combat, making people laugh... I can do those things, but they're not a big deal.  I like it when people want to play with my toys.  

So that's clearly a form of metagame reward, but it doesn't seem to fit the GNS breakdown very well.

[pete_darby]

Speaking as a quack GNS consultant (hey Ron, can I charge people for that yet?)... sounds to me like DannyK is grooving on sim to me. Coming up with new stuff to explore, and getting well deserved kudos from other folks exploring them.

[M. J. Young]

I?m struggling to get a across what probably just boils down to "A creative agenda is simply a compilation of Techniques."

Or perhaps, a creative agendum is the principle upon which the selection of techniques is based?

--M. J. Young

[Ian Charvill]

Ron

I think the source for my confusion here, and I think in earlier discussions with Ralph, is that your position here is contradictory to the venn diagram.

* if the strategy and guts does not have to refer to the the rules of the game because gamism can be expressed purely as social bullying
* AND if the strategy and guts do not have to relate to the imaginary events of play or the ruleset.

Then this contradicts the Venn Diagram.

[Social Contract[Exploration[Creative Agenda---->[Techniques[Ephemera]]]]]

For the above to be true about Gamism the Creative Agenda box would need to sit between Social Contract and Explaration.

[Social Contract[Creative Agenda---->[Exploration[Techniques[Ephemera]]]]]

(none of which I see as inherantly problematic - except insofar as it suggests Gamism exists entirely independently of roleplaying and thus suggests that for gamists rpgs exist merely as a venue, as a kind of soft play area)

[Ben Lehman]

Wow.

This thread exploded while I was out.

Okay.  I'm not going to try the misguided approach of responding to each post individually, but I'm going to respond to the general ideas.

1) If your thinking "I agree with Ron, Ben is is a dolt" or "I agree with Ben, Ron is a dolt," you're not reading my posts carefully enough, becuase I (seem to) agree with Ron.  It's just that he *way* he talks about things makes my skin crawl, and I'm trying to tell him (because he asked) why this is the case.

2) Regarding my background, no it isn't a mix of the Game and Sim with competition at the sim level -- the Gamist underlying was really just jocular minimaxing.  Really.  The social competition was totally sim-level, and by "not talking" I mean social expulsion and ridicule, not isolated tantrums (rather, a big group of people having a tantrum at once.)  And, yes, I know its dysfunctional.  I'm trying to explain why Gamism doesn't seem very competitive to me, not dis Sim.

3) Ian (latest post) I think you're on to something, but I don't think that a rule-less Gamism is necessarily about bullying at all.  Remember -- it's not zero sum.  Let me say that again: it's not zero sum.

What I think you're on to is that the competition knob is at the Social Contract level of the model, and that the Gamism switch is at the CA level, and thus the relationship between competition and Gamism is whispy at best.

4) Danny K:  Yes, that's competitive Sim.  Thanks for some evidence it's existence (I'd love to see an actual play post about this...)

5) Ron:  If, as you say by way of Walt, "All play is rewarded with increased social esteem based on assessing one another's play," why did you single out Gamism and the Gamist essay to talk about this?  In other words, I'm hip to your meaning, but I still can't fathom the presentation.

yrs--
--Ben

[pete_darby]

The way I see it, gamism grooves on using tactical expertise & risk taking to try to gain something... which could well be illustrated by a meta game reward, whether it's currency or just Oog (thanks, Great Ork Gods), or it could be a diagetic improvement in the situation of the character, it could be candy from the GM, but none of these have to be rpesent, becuase they're just place holders for the important thing, which is the acclaim of your peers.

Which, sure, is what we all want from all CA... but if gamism is tactics & risk to gain something, we ought to say what that something is. Sure, it's the same as the other CA, but it's what's being rewarded and approved that defines the CA, not what's being given. Look back at the list of stuff the Gamist can be getting for "good play": the same list can be used to reward Sim or Nar play. So the reward is less important that what's being rewarded.

I'm still slightly foxed as to what or who DannyK is competing with in his Sim invention... perhaps striving is a better term than competition: but then, striving is one of my favourite terms in all games analysis (any situation without striving is dull, dull, dull)

[contracycle]

but none of these have to be rpesent, becuase they're just place holders for the important thing, which is the acclaim of your peers.

Except that doesn't make sense for single player games.  Like Patience, say.

I'm still slightly foxed as to what or who DannyK is competing with in his Sim invention...

Another player as to which of them has the credibility to determine then content of the sim.

[pete_darby]

EDITED TO REMOVE UNNECESSARY SARCASM

Gareth, I'm talking about role-playing games as a creative, social past time, so I don't think Solitaire is relevant.

But you could do worse than searching on "solo adventure" for previous discussions on that sort of thing in RPG's.

[contracycle]

Gareth: I'm talking about role playing games... what are you talking about?

The same.  Because I do not experience a qualitatively different form of satisfaction in RPG than I do in any other game.  It seems to me entirely normal, as I have outlined above, for games to be played for the personal satisfaction of doing.

If its true that RPG-gamism is based on esteem, and yet non-RPG games like Patience are not, then RPG gamism must be radically different from the satisfaction the people gain from non-RPG games - in which case, Gamism is wholly the wrong term.

[pete_darby]

Ah well, agree to disagree time... RPG's are qualitively different to other games, and their rewards and methods are peculiar to them, to my mind.

The whole of the model being discussed here is predicated on RPG's being social, collaborative pasttimes. When folks are grooving entirely on the personal satisfaction of doing, they're missing a whole load of fun that's unique to RPG's.

Why call it gamism? Tactics & risk, the same as in other games, are being tested, but the rewards and methods are different.

And, please, where's the tactics & risk in Solitaire? Pitting your wits against a deck of cards? I'd barely even call Solitaire a game.