TROS & GNS: NS? NG!

I don't think that the sorcery system is gamist at all. The rules are very easy to mangle and abuse from a gamist perspective, allowing you to kill people off with little resistance or destroy the entire world. Furthermore, the very vague descriptions of what the different vagaries can do create a hole in the negotiation aspect of spell design that must be filled by a group's social contract. This also makes gamism rather problematic because the rules aren't really defined in a quantitative fashion.

Ron Edwards' essay included in the sorcery section really brings out what that part of the game is about. The only limiter to sorcery, really, are spiritual attributes. It's not about "can you do it" it is about "why will you do it". I think that sorcery, more than any other part of the game, is very heavily weighted toward narrative to the point of G and S not really being relevant. The sorcerer is given the potential of nearly unlimited power. The question is, what does that really buy him?