GNS- Questioning Gamist

[lumpley]

So maybe in Simulationism, the So What is: "...and isn't that COOL?"

(I think Ron meant that Narrativism can't chuck "what happens," not "so what."  With which I for one strongly agree.)

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Vincent's right - substitute "what happens" into the sentence about what Narrativism can't chuck.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

The core of the question here seems to have been expressed

What do traditional roleplaying games offer to the Gamist over these other forms?

Bridge, Pinochle, Chess, and Poker are all highly competitive traditional games.

My parents play Bridge.

My wife plays Pinochle.

My best friend plays chess.

Not one of them plays poker, and they rarely if ever play the other mentioned games.

Gamism is about providing a challenge, and each of these games do so. However, they each provide a challenge slightly differently.

What role playing games do in the gamist world, I think, is provide extremely complex challenges that have incredibly open possible solutions. Those solutions often involve social concepts, but just as often involve tactical ones. It is not very common to bluff in Pinochle, less so in Bridge, even less so in Chess--but it is a critical strategy in Poker, despite being essentially a social skill. RPGs let you use many different types of strategies, mix and match them in innovative ways, and so overcome obstacles in ways that far outstrip the possibilities in other games.

I remember a game of Star Frontiers years ago. Bob and I were playing, Jan was running the game. We'd just taken over a planet-side space pirate outpost, which gave us 1) possession of a jetcopter and 2) information on the location of the pirate base. But there were five characters (we each played two, and we had an NPC with us), and we had two security robots we'd just captured and reprogrammed, plus a wealth of equipment, and the jetcopter seats six with a 500KG additional cargo load. We were supposed to leave stuff behind.

Without a word of discussion, Bob and I started this elaborate ruse. We used the pirates' communications system, contacted the main base, and told them that the planet's natives had attacked and been repelled, but that several members of the team (whose names we were able to get from the computer) had been severely injured, and a lot of equipment was damaged. They immediately dispatched a rescue team in a jetcopter, which they landed in our hanger. We ambushed them--and now had two jetcopters.

The referee never saw it coming. We'd beaten the game on this point, finding a solution to the problem that allowed us to take everything with us instead of having to find the solution in what we would leave behind.

I suppose if you've seen Star Trek II, part of the idea is in there. They have the Kobiashi Marou test, the "unwinnable situation". Kirk, we are told, is the only cadet who ever found a solution. His solution, it turned out, was to reprogram the simulation itself--for which he received a commendation for original thinking. RPGs let you do that, in a way. They let you get outside the box and solve problems not by working within the structures so much as in finding ways to rebuild them. In chess, why can't the knight charge across the board and kill all the pawns in one stroke? In an RPG, that's an option. In Pinochle, why can't the Jack overcome the King when he's not looking? In Bridge, why can't you hold back a card and give up this move so you can use it on the next? Sure, RPGs have rules; but they have rules designed, in the main, to create possibilities, not to impose strictures.

Gamist wargaming is about doing the best you can within the limitations imposed. Gamist RPGing is about figuring out how to get outside the limitations and beat the system by discovering things no one expected you could do.

It's an entirely different mental challenge, and one that allows each player to use his own unique strengths in whatever innovative ways he can find.

--M. J. Young

[Valamir]

2. The added element in Simulationist play is what you might call the "enthusiasm" factor, or perhaps, shared joy in "the dream." It is, if you will, Exploration in its most social and focused form.

Yeah.  Think of it as Ex squared

[Mike Holmes]

I thnk more appropriately Ex', or Exploration Prime. Thus Sim is Soc + Ex' wheras Gamism is Soc + Ex + G' and Hybrid Sim/Gam is Soc + Ex' + G', or perhaps effectively Soc + Ex +G.

I like symbolic logic. Perhaps we should be using Union symbols instead of the addition operator?  :-)

Mike

[greyorm]

Who wins for Gamist

Time for me to step up on the Gamist Advocacy platform and state clearly and forcefully: Gamism is not about winning. Period.

Gamism is about prioritizing system concerns.*

Gamism ignores Exploration of stuff and dismisses the events of the story as unimportant when the time to choose what to do comes down.
A very simplistic example is: In that moment of choice, the Narrativist will ask "How do I address the theme?" the Simulationist will ask "What would happen here?" and the Gamist asks "What do I roll?"

However, this does not mean if you are trying to figure out how to optimize your chances with number-crunching from your sheet you are Gamist. The decision to number-crunch can be made for any of the above reasons.*

Gamism involves the use of system strategically against or with other players and the GM as top priority. This is why Donjon and Orx are Gamist: the primary concern is not on exploration or narrative, though those elements exist. The primary concern of the game is at the "metagame" level.

*Yes, these are apparently contradictory.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Just workin' on the Gamism essay. You're going to be surprised, Raven.

Best,

[talysman]

Who wins for Gamist

Time for me to step up on the Gamist Advocacy platform and state clearly and forcefully: Gamism is not about winning. Period.

Gamism is about prioritizing system concerns.*

Gamism ignores Exploration of stuff and dismisses the events of the story as unimportant when the time to choose what to do comes down.
A very simplistic example is: In that moment of choice, the Narrativist will ask "How do I address the theme?" the Simulationist will ask "What would happen here?" and the Gamist asks "What do I roll?"

However, this does not mean if you are trying to figure out how to optimize your chances with number-crunching from your sheet you are Gamist. The decision to number-crunch can be made for any of the above reasons.*

Gamism involves the use of system strategically against or with other players and the GM as top priority. This is why Donjon and Orx are Gamist: the primary concern is not on exploration or narrative, though those elements exist. The primary concern of the game is at the "metagame" level.

*Yes, these are apparently contradictory.

hmmm. Raven, I wonder what you would call my Court of 9 Chamber game, then. true, I consider it Gamist, although there are some GNS issues I'm going to raise in a separate thread once I've put up the entire playtest pdf. but there's some question whether it meets the criteria you describe.

if you squint one eye, it seems to be prioritizing strategic use of system, which you identify as Gamist. Co9C seems to be all about matching enough numbers, either by yourself or with assists from partners, to overcome opposition by opponents.

but if you squint the other eye, you see that you are matching motifs to bring them into a growing group fiction -- not a story, per se, but more like a series of vignettes with intertwining threads that weave the themes of ambition, madness, genius and symbolism into a story of artists driven by their egos and obsessions.

which would you label it as?

[greyorm]

Ron, you know, I knew you were going to say that. I look forward to any enlightenment the essay on Gamism brings forth!

John, that all depends on how the group plays, isn't it?
I would call the core game a facilitator of Gamist play, but there's structure there that would allow Narrativist play if a group was so inclined. Essentially, however, it's all about how the dice hit the table and how you can use your resources to achieve some goal.

[JMendes]

Hullo, :)

Who wins for Gamist

Time for me to step up on the Gamist Advocacy platform and state clearly and forcefully: Gamism is not about winning. Period.

Erm... my turn. Either I completely misread the whole GNS thing, (and considering I'm a fairly clever guy, after all this time, I no longer consider this a valid alternative), or, you may be laboring in error.

Perhaps 'winning' is not the right term for it, but as I see it, gamism is most definitely about 'overcoming the obstacle', whether it's a puzzle or riddle to be solved, or an opponent to beat down, or simply a character to improve. Seems to me, metagme comes into play because the focus is on the challenge to the player, rather than the challenge to the character, whatever that might be.

The 'what do I roll' question seems to me to be a lot closer to Sim-System.

My point-oh-two...

Cheers,

J.