Thoughts for the Gamism essay

[Matt Wilson]

I don't know how far along the essay is, but I've been thinking about the categories in general and how they're so big as to be impractical for me in use.

I like the subcategories, like "exploration of character." It stands to reason - and maybe I've overlooked them - that there are subcategories of N and G gaming. I recognize bits in gamist play that I do and don't like, I'm just not sure how to describe them.

So if you say, "XYZ is a gamist game," I have no idea whether I'd like it.

Has anyone given thought to subcats of Gamism? Are they slated for entry in the upcoming article?

[jburneko]

Hello Matt,

Ron has stated that the other two categories are just as varied as Simulationism.  Simulationism is easier to break down because it forsakes metagame priorities and is litterally just "about" the elements that define what role-playing IS.

Part of the break down for Narrativism is source of Premise.  Ron has talked about Character-Premise and Setting-Premise.

For Gamism the break down comes in basically defining the arena of play, what's at stake, who's competing against whom and a goal.  These are in no way a rigerous definition but rather things to consider.

For D&D, the break down is.

Arena: The current "dungeon" (which can by anything from ruins to a forest, to a town to a whole country)

Stakes: The character's lives.

Who's Competing:  The Players, vs. The Scenario Designer as refereed by the GM.

Goal: Usually, some "quest item."

Ron a LONG time ago mentioned an arena for Gamism that is totally neglected: Romance.  I do not like Gamist D&D play, but I'd play a Gamist Romance game in a heart beat.  I've off and on been trying to develop this idea, but alas, I have no head for Gamist facilitating mechanics.  I've just got a title: Suitor: The Role-Playing Game of Seduction and Stature.

So yeah, there are sub categories.  They just aren't as easilly enumerated.

Jesse

[Paul Czege]

Jesse,

Ron a LONG time ago mentioned an arena for Gamism that is totally neglected: Romance. I do not like Gamist D&D play, but I'd play a Gamist Romance game in a heart beat. I've off and on been trying to develop this idea, but alas, I have no head for Gamist facilitating mechanics. I've just got a title: Suitor: The Role-Playing Game of Seduction and Stature.

Yeah...this is totally the lost arena of Gamism. And I've long harbored an interest in it as well. Last year at GenCon I even bought the French-language Tombeurs card game by Editions du Yeti (at the West End Games booth), because it's Gamism in the arena of romance (with very fun artwork).

Frustratingly, West End hasn't released a translation of the rules. I thought I'd be able to puzzle them out with a good French dictionary, but I was very sadly mistaken.

Paul

[JMendes]

Hey, all, :)

Ron a LONG time ago mentioned an arena for Gamism that is totally neglected: Romance.

Hmm... The RPG James Bond (of which an important fact was that it had on its character sheet, of all things, a multiplication table), had quite elaborate and quite gamist seduction mechanics. Lots of fun, too, as players ended up vying for the Bond girl... :)

Cheers,

J.

[Cadriel]

Gamist...romance...

Wow.  Just...wow.  I want to see someone do it, and I'm half tempted to do it myself.

Think shoujo manga...mmm...

-Wayne

[Mike Holmes]

For D&D, the break down is.

Arena: The current "dungeon" (which can by anything from ruins to a forest, to a town to a whole country)

Stakes: The character's lives.

Who's Competing:  The Players, vs. The Scenario Designer as refereed by the GM.

Goal: Usually, some "quest item."

Consider a design like Rune which is practically identical to D&D with just a couple small, yet absolutely crucial differences.

Stakes: winning or losing as a player

Who's competing: The Players vs each other, alternating as scenario designer.

There's huge possibilities for different categories.

Mike