Gamism: Exploration and Competition

[Emily Care]

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.

That's pretty darn broad.  I think that's your tongue in your cheek I see, but to go with it...

In every case (GNS and beyond) there's a player "profit",  the question is what's that made of? In sim play, it's verisimitude to a given referent, in nar its crafting a satisfying narrative or exploring a given theme.  

So what is it in gamism? Not what is gamism, but where's the juice that it gives ya coming from? What makes it desirable and what are the conditions one is trying to bring into being by engaging in it? A feeling of victory? Creation and resolution of tension through fulfillment of external goals?  One view is that the victory conditions of a game function the same as any other goal, but they are explicit and set by (usually) an agent external to the participant trying for that brass ring.  They are clear and explicit and you as a player are "protagonized" by the matched opposition of the gm, other players, the system what have you.

--Emily Care

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Emily,

From my current draft of the Gamist essay:

What's meant by Step On Up? Gamist play, socially speaking, demands performance with risk, conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social, real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem. The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key - it's analogous to committing to the sincerity of The Dream for Simulationist play. This is the whole core of the essay, that such a commitment is fun and perfectly viable for role-playing, just as it's viable for nearly any other sphere of human activity.

What's meant by Challenge? For the characters, it's a problem or conflict-of-interest in the game-world; it can be as fabulous, elaborate, and thematic as any other sort of role-playing. Challenge does not differ from plain old Situation in any qualitative or theoretical way, for any mode of role-playing - it only gets a new name because of the necessary attention it must receive in Gamist play.

[bold + italic emphasis is inserted here as a direct answer to your question, Emily.]

To re-emphasize, as no replies so far seem to have addressed my previous post, the concept of competition comes in as two independent "dials" at these two, conceptually-separate levels.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

Hey Ron,

Since you asked . . . ;) . . . I didn't respond to your post, because it seemed to stand on its own. This Gamism essay is gonna be something,
I anticipate.

The only thought your post sparked in me is that - given the nature of the split you outline - it might be more theoretically correct to identify the two levels as [A] meta-game conflict (external, social conflict between the players) and in-game conflict (exploratory conflict between elements of the imagined reality).

This is mostly what you already have, but it seems wrong to limit type competition to charaver vs. character. And your jargon is, as per standard, obfuscatory! ;)

I will leave the exchange with Mike where it is now; he's gone so far past me that I'm not even sure we're still talking about the same thing.

So, anyway, we've established that characters are not the only manifestation of credibility for competitive play. Let's add a new dimension to the discussion here . . . are there any existing gamist games in which the traditional character as engine of competition is not use? What other forms can credibility be given in order to facilitate competition?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Nathan,

You're confounding "competition" with adversity. I'm stating as clearly as I can that Step On Up does not necessarily include conflict of interest among players, and that Challenge does not necessarily include conflict of interest among characters.

Gamist role-playing requires Step On Up; esteem/performance is on the line, to whatever emotional degree the people bring to it.

When Step On Up is operative as the creative agenda, then Situation becomes Challenge (this is mainly terminological, although not entirely).

You've got Gamism now. So far, all the players are cooperating and all the characters are cooperating. Yes, the characters are in danger in some way; that's fine - it's Challenge.

Now! The following is totally optional (in terms of play and/or design). Put a little red dial onto each of the above paragraphs. 1 = hardly any conflict-of-interest at work at all; 10 = massive and intense conflict of interest, such that success requires crashing failure for someone else.

As the dial in the Step On Up category gets spun to increase, the people at the table start to eye one another dangerously (which does not necessarily mean ill-will).

As the dial in the Challenge category gets spun to increase, the characters start to eye one another dangerously and post warding spells on themselves.

See how those are independent? Put a lot of competition in Step On Up but not into Challenge, and you have people busting butt to (for instance) level up faster than one another as their characters cooperate strategically to stay alive. Or, reverse it: put a lot of competition into Challenge but not into Step On Up, and you have the players gleefully cooperating to have the characters backstab one another.

Oh, and watch who you're calling obfuscatory, good buddy. I spent the last six months to a year working this stuff out, and you've taken, what, a couple minutes to think about it?

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Hi Ron,

Just wanted to say I totally dig the 2 dials and it makes a lot of sense to me.  

See how those are independent? Put a lot of competition in Step On Up but not into Challenge, and you have people busting butt to (for instance) level up faster than one another as their characters cooperate strategically to stay alive. Or, reverse it: put a lot of competition into Challenge but not into Step On Up, and you have the players gleefully cooperating to have the characters backstab one another.

I'd have to push Rune as a great example of the first case and Paranoia as a great example of the second case.  In Rune, the characters are cooperating, but the players are vying for the most points, while in Paranoia, the characters are out to kill each other, but the players are gleefully working to create maximum mayhem.

Chris

[Paganini]

Ron,

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that risk is fundamental to Gamism, rather than opposition. The important thing is that the players have something to lose. It doesn't matter who's taking it from them. Is that right?

I'm probably getting ahead of myself here, but this makes me think, isn't there more to Gamism than just "not losing" in a risky situation? Doesn't there need to be something to gain as well?

Either way, though, I think my original thought about credibility still works. Whatever the players stand to lose or gain, if you look close enough it's actually some form of credibility. If you change the way that credibility is represented in the game, then you can have a many diverse styles of Gamist play.

Oh, and watch who you're calling obfuscatory, good buddy. I spent the last six months to a year working this stuff out, and you've taken, what, a couple minutes to think about it?

Hey, I didn't mean to diss your ideas; you're correct, I haven't had time to fully grokk them yet. I'm just saying, the terms you've chosen (Step On Up, Challenge, etc.) do not, as usual, help me understand what you're getting at.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Nathan,

I'm probably getting ahead of myself here, but this makes me think, isn't there more to Gamism than just "not losing" in a risky situation? Doesn't there need to be something to gain as well? [/qiuote]

Yes, or rather, it's an up-or-down situation. If you handle the moment-of-crisis well, your esteem/etc goes up; if you don't, it drops a tad. Again, all of this can be either humorous or at least not especially traumatic. Think of playing Trvial Pursuit - it's not that you're a dick or a dweeb if you miss a question ... but something's on the line, a bit anyway.

And of course, a tangible element can be brought in as well, which is what Gamist design is often about.

Either way, though, I think my original thought about credibility still works. Whatever the players stand to lose or gain, if you look close enough it's actually some form of credibility. If you change the way that credibility is represented in the game, then you can have a many diverse styles of Gamist play.

I agree! Your credibility point was strong enough that I decided to bring all this essay stuff in (instead saying "just wait") - I knew you'd added something worth saying to the mix. To my way of thinking, your term credibility refers to the shared, social aspect of "what's at stake."

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

If you handle the moment-of-crisis well, your esteem/etc goes up; if you don't, it drops a tad.

This includes, of course, self-esteem, right? So playing a solo RPG, or doing something that other players don't notice can still result in gain or loss of self-esteem, and still counts. Right?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mike,

Yes, although that's moving more into the internal zone and thus out of GNS proper. GNS exists specifically as lines or perhaps spheres of communication among people.

As far as solo role-playing is concerned, I suggest that a fabricated social environment exists in the user's head, which at least substitutes for an actual interpersonal one - he sees himself as interacting with the "game" which is to say the game author, who shares and appreciates his rising/falling instances of play.

I suggest that the more successful solo adventures are those which, above and beyond their quality as challenges, promote and clarify that internal, cognitive, perceived shared environment between author and user. In most of the T&T solos, the text offers social commentary on your success or failure, rather than merely telling you what happens.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

This includes, of course, self-esteem, right? So playing a solo RPG, or doing something that other players don't notice can still result in gain or loss of self-esteem, and still counts. Right?

Seems that way to me. Someone brought up CRPGs like Diablo not to long ago, where this would apply strongly. There's no overt competition like I was talking about previously, but there's a lot "on the line" to gain or lose in terms of player satisfaction. "Cool, I nailed the Butcher and I'm only level 2!" "Crap! That wussy burning dead just made me use 4 healing potions! I just wasted 200 GP!"

I agree! Your credibility point was strong enough that I decided to bring all this essay stuff in (instead saying "just wait") - I knew you'd added something worth saying to the mix. To my way of thinking, your term credibility refers to the shared, social aspect of "what's at stake."

Heh, cool. Now I feel all warm and fuzzy. ;)

[Emily Care]

I agree! Your credibility point was strong enough that I decided to bring all this essay stuff in (instead saying "just wait") - I knew you'd added something worth saying to the mix. To my way of thinking, your term credibility refers to the shared, social aspect of "what's at stake."

Heh, cool. Now I feel all warm and fuzzy. ;)

As you should, good points and good thread.

Ron: Thank you for such a clear and prompt answer to my question.  Step on Up and Challenge (stakes in gamist play for player and character respectively) are now crystal clear.  These two aspects with the dials seem to clarify some of the issues that have been argued on recent threads.  Grok successful.

Ron et al: Now, in the interests of maintaining clarity of discourse: are we redefining "credibility" in terms specifically relating to gamism?  As far as I'm concerned that word is already firmly in use as: what the Lumpley Principle lends to outcomes of mechanic use, group concensual decision, gm whim etc. that makes it part of "what actually happens" in rpg.  That seemed to be how Nathan used it in the original post.  Please confirm or deny!

I'm wondering because of this:

To my way of thinking, your term credibility refers to the shared, social aspect of "what's at stake."

Thanks,
Em

edited to add:

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

There it is.  Cool.  Looking at the original post, Nathan is referring to credibility from LP.  So modify my question to: how exactly are we applying credibility with respect to Ron's definitions of player and character risked quantities (Step on Up and Challenge) in gamism?

[Emily Care]

I see that credibility is in the air, there is an excellent discussion of it here.

It may simply be that credibility is always the stake: it just gets gambled in gamism. No that's not right.

One's personal standing/self-esteem are at stake with Step on Up, and the character's life/standing/loved ones/what have you are at risk with Challenge.  Credibility is given a weight--which is the gain/loss of these things--in gamism that it may not be in the other styles.  

Gamism places an emphasis on the fact that credibilityalways needs to be apportioned somehow and takes advantage of the fact that we have attachment to whether our version of reality takes or not.  This is used to power the play style and makes it fun.

--EC

[Paganini]

Em,

I was most definitely using "credibility" in the Lumpley Principle "who decides what happens" way. Ron seems to be saying that, in addition to this sort of credibility, also at stake is some form of "peer prestiege." You lose this prestiege if you're outdone, you gain it when you outdo. Kind of like your good buddy gloating after his 3 army country just defended successfully against a 12 army invasion in RISK.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Check me on this, but does it seem reasonable to identify the Lumpley Principle version of "credibility" with the basic social process of reinforcement during play (a Social Contract issue)?

If so, then the GNS breakdown would go like this:

- Gamism: reinforcing both the uber-cooperative and locally-possibly-competitive standards for what is at risk, and concerning what (in-play)

- Narrativism: reinforcing player authority over character protagonism (in the group-appreciative sense which Paul likes to talk about), which translates absolutely directly to producing Theme out of Premise

- Simulationism: reinforcing the internal causality of the in-game events, again, as communicated among the group for shared appreciative purposes

I can see all manner of ways in which the credibility is established - from simple positive social reinforcement (in our game of My Life with Master last night, everyone spontaneously clapped and cheered at each Epilogue), to various secondary creative acts supporting play (e.g. the comics pages that used to emerge from our Champions games), to gestures of respect (such as habitual deference to a given player or GM regarding where the buck might stop in instances of shared narration).

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

I dunno Ron. I wasn't thinking of it as being quite that deep or precise. The Lumpley Principle just says that all RPG rules distribute or regulate the right to determine what happens in the fictional reality right?

The way I see it, Credibility necessary for Exploration to exist. We have no way of creating the shared reality unless we know which player's imagination is the currently "official" one.

In Gamism you've identified Step On Up as a having a real world social concern at stake for the players. My RISK analogy was on target, right? "Outdoing" your friends is an example of Step On Up?

So the stakes are a form of social prestiege, however small they may be. But my point wasn't about the overall stakes, my point was about how the battle is fought.

The imagined reality is the arena for the contest that decides the stakes, right? That means that the players win or lose by manipulating the imagined reality. But manipulating the imagined reality is all Lumpley Principle. That's what credibility is all about - deciding which player gets to manipulate the imagined reality, and how much he can do.

*That's* why I realized that Gamism doesn't have to depend on character, even though it traditionally does. Character is just one way to give a player credibility.

In your T&T game, for example, you said that one of the victory conditions for the GM is to kill the characters. The players, obviously, want their characters to live. This whole thing is just one big load of Lumpley Principle Credibility. You're trying to get the credibility to establish that the characters in the shared reality are dead. The players are trying to get the credibility to keep them alive. Weapons, Items, Spells, Money, Monsters, Traps, Characters, and so on are all just expressions of Credibility as far as Gamism is concerned.