Gamism in/out of game - Was RE: The Class Issue

[simon_hibbs]

The character's explicitly functional role among the other characters, relative to the metagame goals of play, whether explicit or implicit. If it's a combat-squad game, then we have the gunner, the techie, the brute, etc. If it's a social-intrigue game, we have the scheming skunk, the idealist-organizer, etc.

Why would people assume these roles? The most probable reason is that there will be situations in which such a division of 'classes' will allow the characters to be more effective. This would appear to be a mostly Gamist concern, where the players try to beat a situation/scenario. It could also be used to give diversity to Simulation of Situation.

I came across this snip in the Class discussion thread from a while back, and it's prompted me to ask about somethign that's niggled me about GNS for a bit.

While it's true that in an RPG the players may choose their characters based on what makes an effective team for achieving their goals WRT the game, this agnores the fact that these choices are also made in-character within the game world. To take the specific example given, in the real world a military special ops team may have a gunner, techie, etc for real-world reasons.

This leads to a higher level point, to some extent in-world activities can be viewed as game playing. Politics is 'The Great Game'. We often call roleplaying games adventure games, and another word for scenario is adventure, but these are real world terms adapted for roleplaying. Many soldiers joined up because they are looking for 'adventure'.

Gamism can very much be an in-world, character view aspect of a game apart from being a metagame view. Look at the famous sword duel in The Princess Bride for an example, the characters in the story clearly appreciate the gamist aspects of their situation.


Simon Hibbs

[jdagna]

It seems to be taking GNS really out of context to try and say that real people (or characters pereceived as real people) would use GNS in real life to describe what they do.  GNS is all about different styles and priorities in play.

Sure, an element of Gamism has to do with inter-player competition, but to say that a competitive person is living a Gamist life is going too far.  For that matter, who would you live a Simulationist or Narrativist life?  I guess I can see using your life to explore part of the world, but using your life to develop a story with a theme?

I guess you could argue that some people do see real life as a game, but I think that's going a bit far.

In addition, choosing a party with a good mix of skills and abilities is not necessarily a Gamist action.  Simulationists might explore the interaction of the character types or use the different types to more effectively explore other aspects.  Narrativists can use the character types to make the story more interesting or believable and might even involve the theme.  For example, a group might play to delve into a theme along the lines of "only with cooperation of many different people can goals be achieved."

In terms of making the group composition an in-game factor, that is someting I've used in past campaigns.  I had the characters hired for a quest, with the group being the people selected out of the interview process.  Since the employer wanted a competent group with many skills, that's why the players had a variety of career classes and specialties.  Still, that's not necessarily Gamist.

[Jeremy Cole]

I think the distinction between a player simulating his character's game and the player playing the game comes down to the player's knowledge of the ruleset.

If you perform a duellist manoeuvre because you know it will collect more bonus dice, its gamist.  If you perform a manoeuvre because 'your character would', as he knows this is the most effective attack at this time, that's simulationist.

I know the distinction is pretty vague, but this is really the exception that proves GNS.  No game ever really simulates real combat, and there are always moves and tactics that 'shouldn't' work, but do.  If one player exploits this, trying to win, another may have his simulationist world crash in around him.  An experienced party may takes poles to set off traps in the dungeon.  A gamist party may take poles of exactly 10', as that is the maximum allowable range of any trap allowed in this level of dungeon.

Jeremy

[simon_hibbs]

It seems to be taking GNS really out of context to try and say that real people (or characters pereceived as real people) would use GNS in real life to describe what they do.  GNS is all about different styles and priorities in play.

I'm not suggestign real people use GNS, I'm saying that this particular example of labeling a player choice as gamist was also simulationist, as the characters might make the same choice for the same reasons.

Sure, an element of Gamism has to do with inter-player competition, but to say that a competitive person is living a Gamist life is going too far.  For that matter, who would you live a Simulationist or Narrativist life?  I guess I can see using your life to explore part of the world, but using your life to develop a story with a theme?.

Journalists do it all the time. It's what travellogues are all about.


Simon Hibbs

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Simon,

I think you're confusing "playing in-character" or even Actor Stance with being Simulationist.

Also, your argument regarding travellogues (which also applies to bibliographies) actually reinforces Walt's point rather than refuting it. In my view, "reality" based writings are written as and read as fiction.
They use real experience as raw material, but as finished prose, they have undergone massive revision and editing to reinforce a theme from author to reader.

In other words, lives are not stories. Stories about lives are stories, not lives.

Best,
Ron

[FuzionReactor]

The more I see you guys talk about gamism, the more I'm thinking that, outside of say board games or card games, that gamism is a glorified way of saying "min-maxing".

A gamist cares nothing for getting tinto any sort of role; he just wants to win, however that can be defined. That's not a "role-playing game", it's just another shoot 'em up or fighting game. Whoever considers why her little three inch tall Mortal Kombat fighter is in this tournament? Nobody, only how quickly the combos move or how powerful the special attacks are. That's my thoughts on gamism.

[deadpanbob]

The more I see you guys talk about gamism, the more I'm thinking that, outside of say board games or card games, that gamism is a glorified way of saying "min-maxing".

A gamist cares nothing for getting tinto any sort of role; he just wants to win, however that can be defined. That's not a "role-playing game", it's just another shoot 'em up or fighting game. Whoever considers why her little three inch tall Mortal Kombat fighter is in this tournament? Nobody, only how quickly the combos move or how powerful the special attacks are. That's my thoughts on gamism.

FR,

Even if that's true, that gamisim=min/maxing, it doesn't invalidate it as a style of play.  Some people like to play RPG's in this manner, and it doesn't make them any better or worse than any other player.

You may not like that style of play.  You may not want to play with people who feel/play that way, but its certainly a valid way to play.

Cheers,

Jason

[contracycle]

A gamist cares nothing for getting tinto any sort of role; he just wants to win, however that can be defined. That's not a "role-playing game", it's just another shoot 'em up or fighting game.

Just to note that I certainly don't see it that way.  I think gamism is about the doing, not about the winning.  But often games conflate the two - doing the deed and winning the game are the same thing.  But they don't have to be.

[Zak Arntson]

The more I see you guys talk about gamism, the more I'm thinking that, outside of say board games or card games, that gamism is a glorified way of saying "min-maxing".

Remember that Gamism is shorthand for "making your in-game choices based on winning." Whatever "winning" may be. In some games, it could be fast-talking your way to President of the US. In others, it's killing monsters & grabbing treasure.

Some games, like Hogshead's Pantheon, have a purely Gamist rulesset but a non-traditional method of play. In a nutshell (if you haven't read/played the game), play goes around the table with people providing sentences. What happens is you all tell a story. The goal is to hit more genre points than any other player. This is far removed from min-maxing.

There are also fine games out there which combine two -isms. So just because a game has elements of Gamism doesn't mean it's purely min-maxing.

Of course, there are min-maxing games out there. d20 D&D is real Gamist, and awesomely so.

[M. J. Young]

A gamist cares nothing for getting tinto any sort of role; he just wants to win, however that can be defined. That's not a "role-playing game", it's just another shoot 'em up or fighting game. Whoever considers why her little three inch tall Mortal Kombat fighter is in this tournament? Nobody, only how quickly the combos move or how powerful the special attacks are. That's my thoughts on gamism.

I think you've drawn the box too narrowly; there are solidly gamist types of play in which the role matters quite significantly.

To start by analogy, there are video games out there in which you can begin with any of several stock characters and play what is in essence the same game.  The question then becomes, can I beat this game if I play within this set of limitations?  That is, if I'm playing the girl who is given more guns and ammo during the game, can I still win as well as when I'm playing the guy who can kill a lot of these things with his fists?

I have a strong gamist streak; I've got five sons who, in the main, are more gamist than I (particularly when it comes to playing video games?). We don't even play games in which we can do significant min/maxing--no point-based character generation at all.  The question, from a gamist standpoint, is whether I can be effective in overcoming these obstacles and garnering the rewards while staying within the parameters of the definition of the character I'm playing.

Just yesterday my two eldest mentioned the Game Shark. (If anyone does not know, this is a device which connects to your video game and permits you in essence to change the rules.) A computer game designer on an RPG list I frequent had recently commented that it was a strange commentary on their industry that people would rather play the game "broken" by the use of cheat codes and such than play it as written, and I mentioned this. Ryan said that a few years back he always used such codes, doing such things as giving his character invulnerability or providing unlimited ammo, and that there was an enjoyment in "beating the game" by changing the rules (which, it occurs to me, is how Captain Kirk beat the Kobiashi Maroo [sp?] in Star Trek II).  But now he never does it, because the challenge is to beat the game on its own terms.

The role still matters very much in gamist terms, as a statement of the limitations within which the player must work.  They are in that sense part of the rules of the game, the conditions which must be met to avoid being disqualified.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

I knew  a guy who claimed that a hack a game wasn't secure from was "fair" (He taught me how to hexedit cash values in Silver Swords or whatever it was).  There are people who play games that way, or who get a kick out of playing in manner that is deliberately offensive.  But the former might well be a kind of exploration - I'm reminded of a friend who liked to turn the fuel resrictions off of flight sims and just wander around the sky.  Although he used to turn the ammo limits of as well and blow things up so he was not your typical MS FlightSim player.  Anyway, I don't think theres much goal oriented play here.

As a last note, sometimes games are very unrewarding if you keep getting negative outcomes; you never get to learn from positive experience, you never get a reward.  So sometimes cheating, or a rules-shielded beginner mode, are needed for the game to "teach itself" to the player.