Gamist examples and redefinition

[Gordon C. Landis]

>Of course some people like the current definition of
>Gamist, it allows them to look down on them as lesser
>creatures driven only by the need to WIN no matter
>what. It's a feel good definition for the other
>corners.

Not to pick on Brian (who's got great things to say about Gamism, as far as I'm concerned), but . . . NO ONE IS PICKING ON PLAYING STYLES HERE!  I for one am tired of fighting this battle, of having the issue raised again and again.  Historically, in other places, in other debates, it might be true that saying "gamism is about winning" is a way to disparage those who practice it.  I've certainly seen some of that in places like rpg.net.

But it doesn't happen here.  REALLY.  If someone says "gamism is about winning", it's because they think that's a good model.  That's all.  I have NEVER seen a playing style "looked down" upon here at the Forge - when someone comes close, someone else warns them off.

Can we set all that aside, please?  If there's a disagreement about a definition, it doesn't have to be about "you're elitist" or "you're insulting my play style".  It's just a disagreement - maybe it can be worked out, maybe not.  

There are no "lesser creatures" here.

Gordon C. Landis

[Logan]

Jack,

The latest version of the faq takes the first step toward addressing both RPG theory and GNS. It'll probably come out as 2 docs, but you're on the right track. The only thing I don't know is when you'll get to see it. That's up to Ron.

I agree that Simulationism should be at least 2 terms, maybe not for the same reasons Brian suggests.

I think these models are a pretty good effort, but on reflection, I think it would have been better if GNS had not been born from the rgfa model. I suppose it would have been one thing if the rgfa discussion had completely ended, but it didn't. It's still going on, and I think the built-in assumptions about what the terms mean are (and probably always were) a problem.

I don't have anything else to say about any of this until the next draft is posted. Even then, I think it'd work a whole lot better if you engaged Ron directly in these discussions.

Logan

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I suppose, Logan.  But I still think that including "winning" in the definition excludes some playing styles that would otherwise fit neatly in the gamist category.

Like the golfer working on his swing on the driving range.  I suppose you could say that he "wins" if he manages to hit the ball further but I think any form of winning is a non-issue to the golfer at that time.  His real goal is to improve his skill.  Increasing skill could be seen as a "winning" condition as well, I suppose, but it seem more natural to simply see this as being about the player's skill and worry less about winning being a game goal.

This is also true in Brian's example of the chess player in teacher mode.  In this case, winning the game proper is also a non-issue.  I suppose you could see it as the teachers winning condition is to teach the rules to the other player and it's the student's goal to learn the game.  But it is about the skill of the players again.  One trying to pass on his knowledge of the game, the other trying to learn it.

Winning is a given and most games with such a concrete goal state them directly.  People do like to win, as you say.  This can be taken as a given to the point that we need not include in in the definition of gamist IMO.

Besides, in the role-playing context, many people immediately think of the "munchkin" style of playing which is usually defined as winning at all costs including the other players' enjoyment of the game.  Such may be true of munchkins but is not true of gamist players.

If taking winning as a given in the definition eliminates this particular misunderstanding of the model, I think it will be benefical.

I suppose it would have been better if GNS had not come from the rgfa model.  The use of similar terms causes much confusion.  I also believe the terms themselves cause confusion, but that may just be me.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-08-07 09:18, Brian Gleichman wrote:
Perhaps not intentionally (and I only put the perhaps in because I can't read people's minds). But as a matter of result, defining Gamism as nothing but the desire to win is doing exactly that.

Brian - I consider myself split down the middle between Narrativism and Gamism. I enjoy both equally. And I see Gamism as role-playing where the purpose is to win, whether that be over the environment, over the GM, or over the other players. So how does that work out, that two of the Forge's few Gamists disagree so vehemently?

Brian - I please implore you to drop this defensive style of writing you've adopted here. If you disagree with something - which you obviously do in this case - please state your case. Please disagree, then explain your side of the issue. In this post, where you merely state that defining Gamism as having winning as the goal picks on Gamists, and don't explain how that picks on Gamists, and don't explain what Gamists really do - well, you give us absolutely no information, and you don't contribute to the conversation at all.

And that's a shame, because I think that behind your defensive shell, you may well be an intelligent and thoughtful - as well as thought-provoking - person.

_________________
Clinton R. Nixon
indie-rpgs.com webmaster
http://www.acid-reflex.com">www.acid-reflex.com

[ This Message was edited by: Clinton R Nixon on 2001-08-07 11:39 ]

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-08-07 11:26, Brian Gleichman wrote:
Since my definition includes the total sum of your concept of gamism and far more besides, you're a minority trying to enforce a one true view on people who don't share it.

This is getting off-topic, so I'm going to drop it after this, but - as has been iterated many times before here: no one is trying to enforce a view on any one. I see how you're getting that viewpoint, but realize this: GNS is a model that some people like and use. Many of those people congregate here to share views on it. If you don't agree with it - no big problem. It's one way of looking at RPGs, and not the only one. My definition of Gamism works for me in that I enjoy games with mechanics that enforce a win/lose situation, like Pantheon and Rune. If that doesn't work for you - righty-o.

[Logan]

Let's say Gamism is not about winning. Banish that thought. It's about skill. Skill, skill, skill. Nothing but skill. It's about demonstrating skill, gaining skill, and improving skill.  Fine.

Then why does a person want skill?

Look at Chess. People learn to play, and they want to improve. Why do they want to improve? Skilled players want skilled opponents. Why do they want skilled opponents? Why would anyone want to play against Big Blue?

Look at golf. Why does a golfer want to learn to hit a hole-in-1?

Look at RPGs. Why do players want to reach the point where their characters can slay dragons?

Some of you say it's not about winning. Fine. I believe you. But tell me. If it's not about winning, meeting victory conditions, gaining rewards, or finding out how well you can do (which is to say, finding out how close you are to winning), then why bother? What's the point? Why do it at all?

What do you say? Is it for the same reason people climb mountains? People climb mountains, because they get the idea that they can do it, that they can beat the mountain and demonstrate their prowess by reaching the mountain's peak.

That can't be right. I must be mistaken, because, you know what? Those people who climb mountains meet their own victory conditions. They do it by climbing the mountain and returning to tell the tale. They climb to overcome the challenge, to beat the mountain, to win. If their skill is not great enough, they either get to try again, they get injured, or they die. And if the mountain is too easy, many of them go find a bigger, more dangerous mountain for next time. That entails winning and losing, so that must be wrong. Someone please tell me the right answer.

I'll agree with you, but someone needs to tell me, how should I write it up? What role does winning play? Where does it fit in the model? Since winning is obviously not the answer, why do players, especially Gamist players, want to have and improve their skills as players? Be convincing, because your well-reasoned answers might become part of the faq.

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-08-07 14:21 ]

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-08-07 16:44, Brian Gleichman wrote:
For you see, the term WIN is interpreted by the reader instantly and in his own view. And we get the common view of D&D slash and hacker as the Gamists.

Brian - you and only you interpret the word 'win' this way.

I win in a Gamist RPG when I am able to convince the Queen of Someplace to fall into my arms via my superb seduction abilities.

I win in a Gamist RPG when the government is overthrown through my character's unique oratory and organizational skills.

I win in a Gamist RPG when my character lives through a rip-roaring battle against the elements.

I win in a Gamist RPG when, yes, I manage to slash my razor-sharp sword through a horde of marauding goblins.

I also win in a Gamist RPG when I manage to push the story towards thematic cliches (Pantheon being the game I'm talking about.)

Yes, Brian, you're right. Gamism is about skill. And skill is about using that skill to accomplish the goals of the player, no matter what they be.

And accomplishing something is, in the English language, winning.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-08-07 20:16, Brian Gleichman wrote:
Except that in my games, winning is other things.

Having a character die after running him for 20 years.

Failing to save a friend in the middle of a battle.

Losing a major fight that causes a war to continue for another year in game time.

Finding out that small and fast just isn't good enough sometimes.

Are these things winning? You're a little unclear as to whether they're winning, or just accomplishing something (or not accomplishing something.) Are these good points in your game? If so - well, that's something we can work with. Please explain. I'm certain Logan and I aren't trying to miss any sign - you're just hard to follow when you continue to be vague.

I'll not address the ruder parts of your post - you've a private message about that. People - do not take Brian's last post as an example of how to act on the Forge. It's unacceptable, as we all - including Brian - know.

[joshua neff]

Brian--

You said:

Except that in my games, winning is other things.

& then you said:

This were applications of skill and the results thereof. And you would have me believe that they are covered under the english word "Winning"?

So which is it? Are your examples "winning" or not? If they are "winning", but not covered by the English word, which language would you prefer? If you want to make up your own definition of the word "winning", it seems a bit unreasonable to assume the rest of us will follow suit.

Personally, some of your examples, while they may have involved the application of skill (which I can't tell from just one sentence, so I have to take your word for it), didn't sound anything like "gamism" to me. They lacked that je ne sais quois, that flavor that says to me "gamist".
"Failing to save a friend in the middle of a battle" & "Losing a major fight that causes a war to continue for another year in game time" could just as easily be "narrativist" (through the application of player skill, a big dramatic push is made) as "gamist"--or they could be "simulationist". The examples themselves mean nothing to GNS. By the current definition of gamism in the FAQ (bumper sticker: "aiming to win"), I could easily see any & all of your examples of being examples of gamist behavior. I certainly don't see them excluded from gamism any more than I see them excluded from the other two Big Initials.
On the other hand, "the application of player skill" could easily be a definition of narrativism. I think one could make the case that player skill comes in handy when in author or director stance. Different skills, sure. But skills nonetheless.
If you're going to split hairs & say that the use of the word "win" is problematic because different people interpret "winning" differently, than how is "use of player skill" any different? What words do people NOT interpret differently? Language is a big ol' bugbear, no getting around it. & not everyone will be satisfied with the FAQ, regardless of the language. We can play "definitions" until the end of time, & there will still be some punter in the back throwing his hand up in the air & shouting "Wait! That's not what that word means to me!" To be honest, I have yet to see you satisfied with anyone's definition of "gamist" except your own. & I haven't seen anyone besides you complain about the standing definition. (Granted, this is but a miniscule corner of the multiverse. But then, the GNS model is only being seriously used in the same miniscule corner.)
As a democrat, an anarchist, & a dada beatnik poet-type, I'm a big believer that the minority should be listened to & not ignored. But if the minority refuses to budge an inch unless it gets its way--I find it difficult to believe the minority is willing to compromise or reach some sort of common ground at all. You & I have argued ("danced") a number of times, & I have yet to see you willing to accept a different viewpoint or explain your own. The best I've gotten from you is "You can't see my point of view, so obviously your blind" & then we agree to disagree.
So what do we do? Do we say "Okay, Brian, you can have your way--gamism is whatever you say it is, regardless of what anyone else says"? Do we say "Screw you, Brian--gamism is what we say it is" & then you pick up your toys & go home? Do we all continue to dance this little dance until we all fall down from exhaustion & agree to disgree?
I don't know.

& now I've run out of babble-steam.

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-08-07 21:18, Clinton R Nixon wrote:
People - do not take Brian's last post as an example of how to act on the Forge. It's unacceptable, as we all - including Brian - know.

And the same must be said of Logan's response, of course.  SIGH.  It's just this kind of thing I was urging people to avoid a while back.  That said . . .

Brian, I don't get it.  You're a smart guy.  Surely you must realize other people do not neccessarily attach the same meaning as you do to things.  "Winning" does not translate into D&D hack-and-slash for me, nor (I say with a little doubt, as like you I am not a mind reader) does it for any of the 7 people I've RP'd with in the last 6 months.  In all the situations you describe (losing a battle and etc.), I could easily call it a "win" if they occured in service of a desired "feel" (or design choice or whatever) to the game play.

By all means, warn about the bad associations that, for some people, come along with the term "win".  But don't insist that people here MUST have those associations - I don't, and I take others at their word that THEY don't.

I'm certainly not attached to "winning" (the word) as part of GNS Gamism, but a bunch of the concepts covered do need to be included/discussed in the Gamism description.  If GNS decides to use something else (rather than caveats/explanations of what they mean by "win"), that's cool by me.

But saying that "it's bad 'cause you're bad and you're trying to put down my gaming style as proven by your use of that word" (probably not the most accurate paraphrase, but certainly the feel I'M getting from you) . . . that ain't gonna persuade folks of nothin', it seems to me.

There.  Enough said.  There is (I think) a lot of good stuff about Gamist issues in this thread, but it's not exactly organized and is probably hopelessly damaged by this point.

Think I'll wait for Ron's elsewhere-promised "thoughts on Gamism" and leave this thread to quitely pass . . .

Gordon C. Landis