Gamism: Exploration and Competition

[Paganini]

Some reference threads:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6269
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6330

By GNS definition, all role-playing is Exploration; that is, creation of a fictional reality via communal imagination. Given this, it makes sense to me to go one step further and treat the imagined reality as a game state defined by the individual inputs from each participant in the collective.

From the definition of Gamism: "[Gamism is] competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions . . . [Exploring the 5 elements is] an arena for the competition."

That last bit is important. It emphasizes that the discussion must be kept in the context of Exploration. In Gamism, the imagined reality is an arena for competition.

So, competition. What is it? How can it exist in the context of the imagined reality as an arena for competition?

Competition: Endeavoring to gain what another is simultaneously endeavoring to gain; or attempting to cause what another is simultaneously attempting to prevent.

This implies Limited Currency - Obviously, the definition requires that there exist something to be gained. That thing to be gained must be limited, otherwise there is no conflict over distribution.

What do we have that can immediately fill this requirement in the scope of the shared imagination? "Lumpley Principle" Credibility! The lumply principle is that all role-playing rules distribute credibility. (This particularly means that all currency, game and meta-game, are incarnations of credibility empowerment / limitation. Example: D&D Healing potions are game currency that gives a player credibility to influence the life / death status of characters living in the imagined reality. Example: Universalis Coins are meta-game currency that gives a player credibility to establish anything he wants, subject to Challenge by another player, who also has credibility represented by Coins.)

Now, this works, but it's not enough for Gamism. Universalis, obviously, has competition for credibility; if we stopped here Universalis would be Gamist. Gamism also needs victory / loss conditions.

The open-ended nature of role-playing is such that "win / loss" isn't really a binary condition the way it is in traditional games. In traditional games, "winning" and "losing" are end-of-game signals; but an RPG is of potentially infinite duration, subject to the attention span of the participants. The fictional reality will exist as long as we have an interest in imagining it, regardless of whether or not we're doing well or poorly by some specific set of defined standards.

A "victory" condition in an RPG is more like a "doing well" flag, while a "loss" condition is more of a "sucks to be you" flag.

In terms of Currency manipulation, though, win / loss conditions behave the same in RPGs as they do in any other game. A "victory condition" is a goal to be achieved via manipulation / accumulation of currency, while a "loss condition" is something similarly to be avoided.

So, my pocket definition of Gamism is: Gaining credibility with which to complete conflicted goals in the context of the imagined reality.

(Comparing this with the starting point, it doesn't really appear that we've come that far . . . more like we've moved in a circle. Maybe for everyone else this post is a no brainer, but for me it's a big loop of understanding.)

Now, a slight tangent on plot (meaning linear plot, tree plot, and the like, not the "sequence of caused events" sort of plot that arises naturally from play). Unrealized plot (i.e., never imagined during play) is worthless. Assume an example case: The PCs are "Batman" characters; PC death is a loss condition. Plot in this case is a very dangerous thing. If the PCs die, the plot only exists in the mind of the GM. In a game where there's a good chance that PC's will die, plot can only safely exist as state-defining color (meta-plot or NPC protagonists, basically), demoting the PCs to "Robin" style characters. If you want Gamism, though, I think this is OK. The plot is part of the color of the imagined reality. Your character exists as your projection into the imagined reality, a manifestation of your credibility. It's not meant to be a protagonist, it's meant to be a strategic tool.

I made this sort of mistake in a SQUEAM game a while back. Trying to kill the characters, and trying to make sure they survive so the plot can be imagined are not compatible goals.

This is as far as I've gone along this line of thought. I'd like to actually follow this through and design a lean mean gaming machine, but it's probably wise to do that in another thread.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hey, Nathan.

I think what you have hear is just one of many possible forms of Gamism. The competition can be between the players, between the players and the GM, or the players and the system.

Just as an example, I'm still fooling around with a dungeon card game. It's a solitaire game so there is no other player to compete against. But the game is stictly gamist, if it can be called such. The competition is between the player and the Contraption I have made out of the rules for playing the cards.

[Paganini]

Hey Jack,

I think what you have here is just one of many possible forms of Gamism. The competition can be between the players, between the players and the GM, or the players and the system.

I tried to use the word "participants," as opposed to "players" and "GMs." Competition among the participants includes both GM vs. player competition, and player vs. player competition.

I don't, however, believe that compeitition can ever exist between players and system. Systems don't really have goals or agendas, and can't make strategic decisions. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Just as an example, I'm still fooling around with a dungeon card game. It's a solitaire game so there is no other player to compete against. But the game is stictly gamist, if it can be called such. The competition is between the player and the Contraption I have made out of the rules for playing the cards.

Well, I have to reserve judgement until I hear more about the Contraption. But in general, I usually use the definitions from Greg Costikyan's web site for this sort of thing, as they make a lot of sense to me. Strictly, solitaire "games" are pastimes rather than games. Solitaires are mathematical puzzles to be solved; the complexity of the puzzle puts up a sort of passive defense, but the simultaneous activity required for competition is not present.

So, my thought is that compeitition requires two people, and Gamism requires compeitition. Gamism can't exist with only a single person - even when participation is delayed as in the case of, frex, T&T solo adventures.  (Like, if you ever do City of Terrors, you get a pretty strong feeling that Mike Stackpole is personally trying to off you. ;)

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I tried to use the word "participants," as opposed to "players" and "GMs." Competition among the participants includes both GM vs. player competition, and player vs. player competition.

Perhaps, but certain games may have only one or the other but not always both. The distinction may not be useful for our discussion here.

I don't, however, believe that compeitition can ever exist between players and system. Systems don't really have goals or agendas, and can't make strategic decisions. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this.

I disagree, and I think you do too, but I'll go into this below

So, my thought is that compeitition requires two people, and Gamism requires compeitition. Gamism can't exist with only a single person - even when participation is delayed as in the case of, frex, T&T solo adventures.  (Like, if you ever do City of Terrors, you get a pretty strong feeling that Mike Stackpole is personally trying to off you. ;

That sounds like a great idea for a t-shirt. "Mike Stackpole is trying to kill me." or whatever game designer you like. :)

But this quote here seems to contridict your opinion above that there can be no competition between player and system. There can be and you see it more as delayed competition between the system's designer and the player.

I don't want to talk too much about a game I may never get to press, but:
With the card game I mentioned, I suppose the player is in competition with me as the game's designer. It works sort of like the old text adventures with treasures found and monsters killed equaling a certain number of point. The deck has X amount of points in it and the competition is to see how close to getting all of the possible points available in the deck when playing. Furthermore, I see the decks as being customizable, so player are also in delayed competition with whoever built the deck

[clehrich]

I'd have to agree that you can compete with a system, or at least a module.  If the GM is seen as simply a referee, in essence a somewhat flexible computer with no independent judgment, then the players can compete to "break" the module.

Now if this were a deliberate construction, you could imagine a tournament working this way.  Every team has the same starting powers, abilities, and equipment.  The GM is intended to be an impartial moderator, and is overseen by another judge throughout the game, ensuring that impartiality is respected.  Everything in the game has a strict point-value: HP are worth X, x.p. worth Y, money, treasure, etc. worth Z.

The object is for your team to get out with the maximum points.

Now in this example, you do have competition, team against team, but they don't play in the same arena; that is, the competition is not head-to-head.

But you could extend the example to provide "pure" competition against a module.  Once you've run it with a number of teams, you have a kind of gradation available: get out with 1000 points is brilliant, with 750 is strong, with 500 is okay, with 250 or fewer is sucky, and so forth.

You're not really competing against the game designer as such, because he's just set up a tactical or whatever situation for you to tackle.  You're not really competing against the GM, because he's supposed to be totally impartial.  You're not really competing against other players, because competition within the team is self-destructive, and competition among teams is simply an abstraction; they're not actually there.  So you compete against the module -- who else?

I thought this was the point of hard-core AD&D2E (hard-core meaning obeying every single rule to the letter, with the sole exception that all players can memorize the entire system if they like; sort of like Mike in KOTDT).  And this isn't the same as computer gaming, either: computer games sometimes try to reach this as a goal, but they can't take into account every creative idea a player might have, so there are things you just can't do in a computer game.  In AD&D2E, however, you can do pretty much anything, and there are generally rules available, or that can readily be extrapolated, to cover possibilities.

I have a sense I'm missing Paganini's point, and am contributing to thread-hijack.  Am I?

[Paganini]

I don't want to talk too much about a game I may never get to press, but:
With the card game I mentioned, I suppose the player is in competition with me as the game's designer. It works sort of like the old text adventures with treasures found and monsters killed equaling a certain number of point. The deck has X amount of points in it and the competition is to see how close to getting all of the possible points available in the deck when playing. Furthermore, I see the decks as being customizable, so player are also in delayed competition with whoever built the deck

Jack, that makes total sense. I was thinking of solitaire in the senes of the "patience" family of card games, Tetris, peg-jumping games, and so on.

Clheric,

I have a sense I'm missing Paganini's point, and am contributing to thread-hijack. Am I?

Well, not really. I didn't really have a point beyond the obvious content of my first post. The idea was to spark discussion . . . am I right? Why not? If I am, what does it mean? So, carry on. :)

But you could extend the example to provide "pure" competition against a module. Once you've run it with a number of teams, you have a kind of gradation available: get out with 1000 points is brilliant, with 750 is strong, with 500 is okay, with 250 or fewer is sucky, and so forth.

You're not really competing against the game designer as such, because he's just set up a tactical or whatever situation for you to tackle. You're not really competing against the GM, because he's supposed to be totally impartial. You're not really competing against other players, because competition within the team is self-destructive, and competition among teams is simply an abstraction; they're not actually there. So you compete against the module -- who else?

Well, see, what you've described here with the points and all is what I'd call a pastime. Mechanically, it's almost exactly like Tetris. You're kind of saying that the module is the de facto competitor, since nothing else can be found to be competed with. I'm saying, "you can't compete against the module, so there must not actually be any competition going on at all!"

It seems telling that in your tournament example you have another layer of administration to make sure that the GM referees impartially. If the GM has no stake, why is this necessary? If the GM has no stake, then he's impartial by definition, no extera layer is required. If the GM has something to gain, then competition exists, and impartiality is an oxymoron.

In a game like AD&D I think that the players *are* competeing with the GM in the specific situation you describe. A module, insofar as it's mechanical, is a definition of the GM's credibility, right? Take as an example, say, a random encounter table. That random encounter table limits the GM's credibility... it says "these are the monsters that can appear in the dungeon." I think of modules as counterparts to characters. The character is the manifestation of the player's credibility; the module is the manifestation of the GM's credibility. When a designer writes a module, he's creating a tool for the GM to use to defeat the players (kill the characters, or whatever). This is where the need for balance comes from - both the GM and the players have to have an even chance of succss at the start of the game. One-sided competition isn't really competition at all.

Now, as Jack pointed out, that doesn't have to be the case . . . the GM could just be overseeing competition among the players, but that's a whole different arena. ;)

[M. J. Young]

Pinball is a game, whether you play against another player or just against the machine.

Solitaire (the card game) is a game, and can be played competitively as Double Solitaire or singly against the lay of the cards.

Role playing games are games even when the referee is on your side and you're just trying to find a way to beat the scenario within the confines of the rules.

Craps is a game, even if you play by yourself.

Those old text-based CRPGs are games, even though you can't play against someone else in any practical way--you're just trying to "beat the game", whether it's Hitchhiker's Guide or DiscWorld or more recently Final Fantasy or Chronotrigger.

In fact, computer, console, video, and arcade game players always talk about "beating the game". What can that mean other than that the player is up against the system?

Colin Dexter's fictional detective Chief Inspector Endeavor "Pagan" Morse does the crossword puzzle in The (London) Times every day. Your definition would say that was a puzzle; Morse regarded it as a competition between the crossword setter and himself, and thus a game.

Greg is wrong. You can have competition against the game, against the creator, against the system, even against the odds. You don't necessarily have to have another person involved in any direct way for it to be competitive or a game.

Sorry, Nathan. Gamism is bigger than that, I think.

--M. J. Young

[Paganini]

M.J.,

I need more. All you've done is contradict, not support. A big part of my first post is that Greg is correct - pinball is *not* a game, patience is not a game, Tetris is not a game. We're talking definitions here. You have to convince me that Greg's are wrong, and yours are better.

The definition of competition I used came from Dictionary.com, with a slight addition, and no alteration. It's not a jargon definition I pulled out of my hat . . . normal, everyday style competition requires active, simultaneous opposition to exist. Is competition something different in RPGs? If so, why?

BTW, in case you missed it, I already allowed that delayed competition can exist between a designer and a player, which does, strangely enough, make crossword puzzles games, even though no one I've ever met actually considers them so.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I'm saying, "you can't compete against the module, so there must not actually be any competition going on at all!"

Actually, there is someone who you could compete against: Yourself.

Tell you what, I've been playing the Space Cadet pinball game that came with WinXP a lot lately. I am competeing against the guy who programmed it, but I am also competing with myself to see if I can "do better" than the last time.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Actually, the new Gamism essay is currently being reviewed by a number of readers. It speaks to a lot of the concerns in this thread. I hope to have laid the whole "competing against whom" issue to rest forever.

So bear in mind that I'm thinkin' and writing, and anything that crops up in this thread that opens up a difficult or new area to think about will be considered.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Actually, there is someone who you could compete against: Yourself.

This is essential, IMO, in any definition of gamism.  Half the time the point of serious competition is to set up as ideal a mirror as possible, and then see what would happen if you could seriously compete against yourself.  How would this work in group play, do you suppose?

[Mike Holmes]

Nathan this hasbeen done to death elsewhere. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, arguing the definition of Game is beyond pointless.

First, from your own source, dictionary.com there are no less than seven different definitions that it comes up with. Definition number one:

An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

So, don't tell me that the "common definition" of game doesn't include the ideas of passtimes. It's useless to argue about that definition in terms of RPGs. Because, further, even if we determine that there are RPGs that aren't by some definition games, that doesn't mean anything at all in the context of Gamism.


The more important point is that what we term Gamism does not specifically refer only to the sorts of competition that you want to define as competition. The examples that everyone is giving of competing against the module, or the system, or the designer, whatever, are all part of what we call Gamism.

So, yes, when you're in a tournament, and you're competing to win, it's Gamist. I don't really care what you're up against, there's something that's challenging you. Some might see it as the GM*, some might see it as the module, some might see it as the system, and likely to some extent it's the combination of all these things in differing measures at sifferent times.

Your theory about tournament judges is totally off, too. They can be, and usually are, effectively just the computers by which these events are run. Non-deterministic, to be sure, but as impartial as humans can be. And to that extent I never felt like I was competing against the GM in the many, many tournament games I've played, but rather I always felt that I was competing against the module itself (and that was the yardstick by which you were compared to the other parties participating).

Actually to be truthful, later in my tournament carreer, I would try to stop the games from being Gamist, and suggest a move to Simulationism, as I felt that was much more fun. Before the judge would arrive, I'd say, "OK, we can do this the standard competitive way, and try to win, or we can actually 'role-play', and have fun. Which do you all want to do?" Little did I know that I was just trying to avoid GNS incompatibility that I'd seen come up in other tournament games. Nothing less fun that half the party trying to win, and the other half trying to "play their characters" (Sim). :-)

Any time the decision is made based on something like, "how can I as a player do better," as opposed to, "what would happen in-game," or, "what's best for the story," sorts of techniques, it's a Gamist decision. That's not hard, is it?

Mike

[Paganini]

Mike, you've misunderstood me a bit. I realize that debating the definition of game is a dangerous thing, so for that reason I was using a specific industry definition that I find useful.

However.

I wasn't citing Dictionary.com as a reference for "game," but as a reference for "competition." The GNS definition of Gamism requires competition. Sure, the colloquial use of the word "game" includes pastimes... but pastimes are not Gamist, unless they include competition. According to dictionary.com, competition requires simultaneous activity by an opposing agent. This means that, unless you redefine competition, pastimes aren't Gamist. (It also means, I just realized, that there's a hole in my idea about "delayed competition." Gotta revise that...) So, you say:

The more important point is that what we term Gamism does not specifically refer only to the sorts of competition that you want to define as competition. The examples that everyone is giving of competing against the module, or the system, or the designer, whatever, are all part of what we call Gamism.

All right. Sounds like re-defining competition is exactly what you intend. If competition in the context of Gamism is something different from the dictionary definition, let's have it up front.

Any time the decision is made based on something like, "how can I as a player do better," as opposed to, "what would happen in-game," or, "what's best for the story," sorts of techniques, it's a Gamist decision. That's not hard, is it?

Well, in a way. I was going one deeper. It's easy to say that Gamism is the player trying to do better. But what defines "better?" On what scale is it measured? How is it arrived at? "Character" is the traditional yardstick for success - but it doesn't have to be that way. Gamism is about players trying to "do better" or "win" by skillfull manipulation of game currency, right? But game currency is just one way of regulating credibility. So in Gamism, what players are really doing is manipulating credibility. So there are a lot more ways to play Gamist than just manipulating a [/i]character - a character is only one way to represent credibility.[/i]

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Nathan, you wrote,

So there are a lot more ways to play Gamist than just manipulating a [/i]character - a character is only one way to represent credibility.[/i]

My response: absolutely correct.

As a preview, think of Gamist play as having two levels that represent (a) the Exploration, just as you discuss it above; and (b) the "meaning" or "point" of Exploration as an activity from the people's point of view. [Side note: Narrativism also has this kind of structure; this is why G and N play are different, on the face of it, from S play ... the (b) suddenly becomes the overriding priority, as opposed to "squaring" (a).]

I've even given a couple of names to these levels in Gamism, in my new essay: Challenge for (a), which is to say, adversity faced by the characters; and Step On Up for (b), which is to say, the social and self-evaluatory pressure faced by the people at the table.

These are pretty different things, but the essence of Gamist play is that Step On Up has to be there, and that Challenge "feeds" or provides the imaginative context for it.

One more point: think of competition (i.e. performance based on conflict of interest) as a dial within each of these levels. So there are two competition dials (Step On Up competition = conflict of interest among players/people; Challenge competition = conflict of interest among characters) - and they are independent of one another.

Explaining all of this with examples, so that it's not hideously abstract, is a big deal in the new essay.

You can also see, I hope, that the typical nail-biting frustration associated with discussing "competition" is largely removed from the picture, given this new construction of Gamism.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Christ Nathan, you really want to be semantic about this? Dictionary.com is about the worst way to solve these things. I brought up the definition because you said that if it wasn't competition by your definition then it wasn't a game. That made it a passtime.

By your logic, and working in reverse, then if passtimes are games, then competition must, therefore include the sorts of things described. So it's as valid of me to say that you're redefining Game as it is for you to say that I've redefined Competition.

I haven't, you see. By your beloved Dictionary.Com definition, the requirement is "competition requires simultaneous activity by an opposing agent". Now, if we look up agent, we see that this doesn't have to be a person. If we look up activity, we see that this doesn't have to mean movement, but merely existing in such a way as interaction causes change. Thus a module or system can be "a simulaneously acting agent."

Moreover, who cares about that bullshit. It makes sense to think about it thie way people have been descriing it. You want a more detailed description, but the fact is, as you've already noted, Gamism is a lot larger than what you're definition restricts it to. So why are you arguing the point?

You seem to think that there's some essential element of Gamism that we've not discovered yet, but it seems plain as day to me. What defines "better"? Doesn't matter. As long as the player has the criteria. The player says, "If I have my character jump now, he'll survive, and that's better", or "If I have the Assembly of Gnortois pass a law saying that it's illegal for Martians to enter their airspace, that'll get me a tactical victory over the Martians, " or whatever. Yes character is irrellevant. That's obvious as Gamism is all about player success (a point repeated endlessly).

Currency? Not automatically, and not neccessarily. Let's say that Bob decides to have his character die pointlessly just so that Bill's character will go down in flames, too. Thus Bob is ensuring that Bill is out of the game. If this was Bob's goal, then he "wins" by accomplising it.

You want a really broad definition of Gamism? It's making decisions to get anything out of a game for player profit so long as that thing is not Verisimilitude related, or Story related. That is it's not Sim or Nar.

Does that help?

Mike