Gamism is not competition.

[contracycle]

something else or 3) Your behaviors are not consistent with Gamism but are also not consistent with any of the other defintions within the GNS model.

Even more distressingly: A questionaire issued by thre Forge and posted on RPG-CREATE to determine axis preferences shows you to be a gamist, which you identify with, but when you encounter the Forges definition of gamism, you don't sympathise with it.

You ommitted a fourth option: The Observed behaviour has been misinterpreted by the observers, and mischaracterised.  That is what I am arguing for - saying "we observed it" is dodging rather than addressing the issue, unless you're going to insist that your perspicacity precluedes all potential error.


[ This Message was edited by: contracycle on 2001-12-03 04:57 ]

[contracycle]

So, I think Carthage should be destroyed and could somebody

ROFLMAO!!

[contracycle]

That is, from an objective point of view the player in question exhibits gamist behavior.  However, the player claims that he is not in competition.

At which point you have arrogantly presumed that the fault must lie with the player and not the definitions; instead of looking at what the player is doing you are instead attempting to interpret and reify their behaviour AS competition, that holy cow which cannot be slaughtered.  This is how we end up going in circles; this approach is just patronising.  And is most certainly NOT scientific to IMPOSE your conclusion on the data.

In this case, I'm affraid that I, personally, would have to get into specific behaviors.  If such a person existed I would have to go over specific decisions and actions that the person has taken and then identify the source of competition.

opinion, is a behavior consistent with gamism.  This player is either competing with the scenario in that he enjoys building the most effective character to overcome the challenges presented before him.  Or if he's not really

... and theres the ritual confusion of any proactive decisionmaking with "competition".

into the 'effectiveness' in play part then he is essencially competing with himself in an effort to find new and creative rule combinations.

You cannot compete with yourself unless you are suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder.

[contracycle]

Other Matters"), but are there really any other overarching goals?  I ask in genuine curiosity, because whenever I

Having thought about ths over the weekend I cam up with the following perception:

Simulationism is about the experience.
Narrativism is about the feeling, emotional depth.
Gamism is about DOING.

As my favourite Marx quote has it, "Philosophers have hitherto merely interpreted history; the point is to change it."

Thus I feel that the gamist primarily seeks action-reaction, the dynamism of world that not necessarily simulates this or any other reality, nor necessarily enagages the player emotionally to any depth, but does provide the opportunity to act, via character abilities, and provides subjects for action, such as problems to be solved, foes to be overcome, or mountains to be climbed.

I believe that what has been erroneously described as competition should be seen in terms of resistance to the characters wishes.  The quantity of the resistance varies according to technique and strategy, but by the nature of the world, ambition as and desired outcomes shift as possibilities become probabilities. [this is primarily why I don't like the idea of the objectively measure of success; concealing or switching your goals is a valid strategy]  As far as the player is concerned, the joy of it arises from the troubleshooting, the problem solving, the strategic analysis.  Although at times the problem you are solving MAY be competitive, that is a secondary issue to the fact that you are DOING in the world, that your actions produce results, that the world is dynamic at least partly
because of your actions and presence.

In the context of rules, the Gamist interpretation has been seen as fairness, but I don't think thats accurate either.  The gamist asks for consistency of rules, not necessarily because they want a "level playing field" but because they need to understand the feedback mechanisms at work and hence how to read the inputs they are recieving not from the world but from the mechanics.  Inconsistent application of rules results in the inability to plan, which fustrates the gamist much more than any concern over fair play or otherwise.  Thus, I feel, I gamist is not worried about a GM's latitude to modify or ignore rules particularly, which might be seen as "unfair", but IS worried about the extent to which this undermines the structure on which they are basing their decisions.  Their capacity rationally and reasonably analyse cause and predict effect has been diminished; whether or not this is "fair", has some competitive aspect, is entirely beside the point.

I think this highlights the close traditional relationship between Gamist and Simulationist.  Strictly realistic rules sets give both gamists and sims their goodies for different reasons; the sim becuase the world is consistent and they can beleive in it, "experience" it, live in it in much the same why one visualises the world of a book; the gamist gets a world which, mediated through a rules set, behaves in a reasonably predictable way and thus permits them the freedom to act dynamically and impose changes on the world, conscious of what the risks and dangers are.  Whether the world is ACTUALLY realistic, or consistenly simulated, is not primarily a gamist concern if the mechanics and GM rulings are consistent.

So say I, anyway.  Gamism arises from humanities desire and nature to change the world, to act as a dynamic being against the resistance the world implicitly presents, to impose self-perceived order on chaos.

[jburneko]

On 2001-12-03 04:50, contracycle wrote:

You ommitted a fourth option: The Observed behaviour has been misinterpreted by the observers, and mischaracterised.  

Contra, you're absolutely right.  I apologize.  So let's break it down even further back in the process than I went.

1) We observe a set of behaviors that we think go together and can be generally attributed to a fairly consistent style of play.  We call this style of play Gamism because the behaviors tend to focus on the "game" aspects of the session as opposed to the "simulation" or "narrative" aspects.

2) We attempt to find a unifying theme among these behaviors because that unifying theme is how we are going to define "Gamism."  Ron and others have concluded that that element is competition.

This is what you and Mads are objecting to you.  Your claim is that the unifying theme is not competition but something else.  I think we all agree on the kinds of behaviors we call Gamism.  And I think we all agree that the reason we call it gamism is because there seems to be a focus on the "game like elements" of play.  Is this a safe assumption or does your objection go back even futher than step 1?

Assuming we agree on part 1, let's look at part 2.

As Clinton pointed out this is the definition we are using for Compete:

"to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective"

This definition comes from a standard Merriam-Webster Collegate dictionary.  If you do not accept this as the defintion of compete then we have nothing to talk about.  Please take up your complaint with Merriam-Webster.  I don't think anyone here is going to accept a different definition of compete other than that put forth by a standard dictionary.

If on the other hand you DO accept this defintion of compete then the question becomes:

Is Gamist behavior characterised by the element of striving consciously or unconsciously for an objective?

My answer: Yes.

Let's look at some examples.  I'll even use the ones from your own post:

...such as problems to be solved, foes to be overcome, or mountains to be climbed.

...the joy of it arises from the troubleshooting, the problem solving, the strategic analysis.

ALL of the above contain the element of striving consciously or unconsciously for an objective: A solution to a problem is sought, a foe is to be defeated, a peak is to be reached, a problem's source is to be located, a solution is to be discovered, and an objective plan is to be formulated.  To strive consciously of unconsciously for an objective is the defintion of competition.  Therefore the above are all unified by the element of competition.

Where is the problem?

Jesse

[Mads Jakobsen]

"the opportunity to act, via character abilities"

"I believe that what has been erroneously described as competition should be seen in terms of resistance to the characters wishes."

"The gamist asks for consistency of rules, not necessarily because they want a "level playing field" but because they need to understand the feedback mechanisms at work "

Great stuff! Great!

"You cannot compete with yourself unless you are suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder."

Um, Well, you can, but the Pope don't like it, and you may go blind.

MJ

[Marco]

On 2001-12-03 15:43, jburneko wrote:

Where is the problem?

Jesse

I'm not *real* partial to the debate but I think it's *clear* that the problem isn't definition--it's connotation--and therefore messrs. Merriam and Webster have nothing to do with the discussion.

Competition connotates competitors.

Now, you can argue that. In mountain climbing a clever turn of the phrase might be that "The mountain has won" if the climber fails. But if you were building a boat model would you use competiton as your primary word choice? If I said "you boat builders and stamp collectors--over there to the Competitive Corner" would that fit for you. Most of us see role-playing GAMES as the most cooperative form of gaming imaginable. I can see how someone idetified with being gamist might take issue with the competitive conotations implied.

Is 'competiton' wrong? No, I don't think so. But if there's a better term, why resist using it? Surely if most gamist play *isn't* about competing with other players (or indeed any human) there's got to be a clearer word choice.

-Marco

[Gordon C. Landis]

First of all, I want to express many, many thanks to contracycle and Mads for sticking with this discussion - you can't clarify things unless those for whom they are unclear are engaged.

I intend to find sometime soon to put together a message or three of my latest thoughts, including the results of several conversations with Gamist folks in and around my own group.  Quick answer to the "can you convince a Gamist . . .?" question is Yes, you can - but only one at a time.

But there's another quick issue I feel the need to raise, regarding "You cannot compete with yourself unless you are suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder."  Appologies if this comes out a little cranky, as I'm really tired of discussing the language, but . . . look, this statement is the same "sin" that The Forge in general has been accused of re: Gamism - assuming that your version of what it (Gamism or competition) is, is OF COURSE  the right one.  I think I compete with myself all the time, I get great enjoyment out of it in more than just the RPG domain, and am frankly tired of having the very possibility that my understanding of competition is valid be ignored.  You've got a different understanding - fine, I can see why that would be and agree that we need to clearly distinguish the meaning in this context from those valid issues.  Let's build from there, and stop insisting that ANY particular definition of the word is right.

Additional posts, including analogies to the Olympics, "spirit of competition", and actual encounters with live, practicing (GASP!) Gamists, to follow as soon as I find the time.

Gordon

[jburneko]

This is getting really nit picky but I'm doing this only to be fair to Contra and Mads.  Since I'm playing heavy duty definitions I decided to double check my work and I'm willing to concede a point based on the following.  I checked the definition of competition in the same dictionary from which I got the defintion of compete/competing.  It read:

"the act or process of competing as active demand by two or more organisms or kinds of organisms for some environmental resource in short supply."

So, I'm willing to concede that if we're being as precise about definition as I am being then, yes, it requires two or more living entities in order for their to be a competition.  By definition it is impossible to be in competition with yourself or an inanimate object such as a mountain.

HOWEVER, I would like to point out the phrase, "...competing *AS* active..." in other words, it is possible to compete without being in competition.  So, to be technically 100% semanticaly correct:  I can compete with myself.  I can compete with a mountain.  I can not be in competition with myself nor in competition with a mountain.

So, I'm willing to concede that Gamism is not about competition but I still stand by the fact that gamism is about competing in some manner be it via competition or some other means.

Ron's current statement:

Gamist Premises focus on competition about overt metagame goals.

My revised statement based on REALLY precise use of terms:

"Gamist Premises focus on competing about overt metagame goals."

I don't expect Ron to revise his essay.  What it is, is what it is but if we can at least agree on this then at least the next time someone complains we can point this out.

Unless of course Ron or anyone else feels that Gamism is about COMPETITION in this nitty gritty sense then feel free to say so.  And of course people are still free to disagree that gamism is even about COMPETING.  Although at THAT point I think Marco is right on the money in that this really about conotation.

Jesse

[Gordon C. Landis]

Some good stuff from Jesse and Gareth there - others too.  I think I'll abandon my previous plans.  My analogies about how the realtionship between common Gamism and "bad-competition" is like the realtionship between the Olympic ideals and the fact that the Russian judge always gave the best scores to Soviet athletes . . . will remain undeveloped.  I will mention . . . did you know that an obsolete definition of the word "rival" is "A companion or an associate in a particular activity"?  Every RPGr is a rival in that sense.  

But I digress.  I think everyone is MOSTLY violently agreeing about what Gamism is, with a few issues still outstanding. A lot of the argument is about picking the right words to describe the "feel" of Gamism, and rather than defend the current words, I think I'll just just try to discuss the topic in (mostly) other ways.

To start with an issue NOT (IMO) outstanding . . . both Mads and Gareth have mentioned it to be a mistake to attribute fairness (or equality, or level playing field, and etc.) as required components of a Gamist RPG.  I agree - I think the line "his job is to fascilitate fair competition" (in re: the Gamist GM) describes but one possible role, and "fair" can be defined however the particular group likes (which could be Gareth's "need to understand the feedback mechanisms").  Any required association between "competition" and "fairness" I would deem to be mistaken.  IMO, a "traditional" fair approach is at best one possible way to operate consistently with Gamist desires, and in no way required, much less fundamental.  Gareth's point about it also being a possible component of meeting Simulationist needs is well taken, as is the fact that G and S will use that "fairness" for entirely different reasons, and quite conceivably for entirely different ends.

Now, the "challenge question": "Could somebody please demonstrate that a gamist player, who does not feel that he is competing as his primary RPG activity, is in fact competing as his primary RPG activity. And this is perhaps the most important part: demonstrate it in such a way that the gamist player is himself convinced?"

I did just that this weekend.  It took a while, and it involved getting him to understand that what he THOUGHT I meant by competition was not what I actually meant (since that's failed here, I'll not try repeating the attempt).  But the key for us was that he is correct - he is not competing-by-his-understanding as his primary RPG activity.   In my case, we were able to agree that competing-by-my-understanding is in fact where the big thril in RPGs was for him.  The challenge, a foe to overcome, a problem to be solved, the thrill of seeing a strategy succede - or to be forced to change strategy, based on altered conditions, and know that you STILL managed to pull your fat out of the fire.  He could see that as competition-in-my-sense.

I'd like to make this another issue NOT outstanding - "bad-competition" is not what GNS means to be the foundational element of Gamism.  No one need spend more time attacking or defending that notion.  
Everything that Gareth and Mads have written about what Gamism is for them is entirely consistent with my understanding of "good-competition".  They have at their core a "striving for an objective" - and the reason a Gamist plays RPGs is to experience that striving.  For some Gamists, accomplishing the objective is a vital part of their enjoyment.  Others see that as too much focus on "winning", and are content merely to be participating in the DOING, seeing that their actions produce results and have consequences.  The key (for me) is that the enjoyment comes from the act of striving - the reward is to test yourself (through your character, with stylistic variations as to how directly/indirectly that realtionship is drawn) against an agreed-upon set of circumstances, in an agreed-upon manner, and DO WELL.

To use the model-builder analogy someone mentioned, a Gamist enjoys building the model because it's chance to DO WELL in an activity.  There could be a model-building competition, and then doing well becomes a question of winning the prize or not - howerver, I'd say that for all but the most "bad-competitive" Gamist (which isn't really "bad", in all cases), the thrill of playing occurs no matter whether they "win" or not.  If there is no contest, then the model builder will have to invent his or her own standards for doing well.  Some folks are comfortable calling that competing, others aren't.  But (and I think this is where the scoreboard issue comes in) without the standard, without a criteria by which at least the BUILDER can judge "success" . . . you can't get that thrill of accomplishment.

In a RPG, this means you can keep Gamists happy by providing opportunities for such a test.  Having a group understanding of how to do well, or building a variety of do-well mechanics into the game system, will enhance the Gamists' enjoyment.

And that is the best I can do at the moment - as always, hope it helps.  Again, thanks to everyone, especially Gareth and Mads.

Gordon

[Mads Jakobsen]

"In this case, I'm affraid that I, personally, would have to get into specific behaviors." +
"I did just that this weekend. It took a while.."

But of course you do not have that luxury here. You are writing to the wide-blue-yonder-net and you are not face to face with anybody. You must, quite theoretically, prove that gamism is competition, and in order to affect the gaming community in general, prove it to passing-by gamists who do not feel they compete.


"...Is this a safe assumption or does your objection go back even futher than step 1? "

The concept of gamism makes a lot of sense to me, on an instinctive level. But so does the flat earth. If we in 5 years time still haven found a good definition of gamism, I'm afraid the GNS model is in trouble.




Here is what I think is going on with this gamism is competition stuff:

In life you have heroes and villains, but they are actually facets of the same person – the villain is in fact a symbol of a side of the hero. Thus when he fights the villain he is competing with himself and visa-versa. Everything that happens has some significant connection to the basic conflict.

In fictional life, that is.

In real life there are no heroes, no villains and other people are not reflections of your inner struggles. Real life people actually have very few inner struggles – they rarely spend their days agonizing over whether to feign madness or kill their uncle. And stuff that happens is just stuff.

Gamism is a real life behavior.

Seeing gamism as a completion between significant characters, or an significant inner struggle, is to impose fictional logic an a real life activity. Narrative logic.

Time for a sports metaphor (Weee!). To the Home team supporters the weekend match against Otherby is "the Great Tale of the fight against the Others", they talk about the match and they watch it as a narrative event. The match lasts two hours. For a player on Home team the match is a real event. Sure it's a competition, but only for two hours. For the Home team player, Otherby is not the Enemy, he might even play for them next season. They are not Significant. What is significant is his career. That's what he spends 8760 hours a year working on. So, seen form the outside, with certain glasses, sports serves as fiction, but for the participants it is obviously not.

Am I competing successfully with your understanding? It sure sounds clever to me.

MJ

[Ron Edwards]

Well, upon reading and reflection, I have reached my conclusion about this thread.

First of all, Mads Jakobsen. You have tried hard to put the burden onto me (and others) of proving something that you have posed - a thought-question. However, this is not going to fly. The burden was and is on you, not on me or anyone else, to present a meaningful argument to support your postition. I asked for that a few posts ago. You have not provided it.

Until you do so, neither I nor anyone needs to pay attention to you. Your counter-call for a "proof" is a fine attempt to sidestep this responsibility, but it is not going to work.

I have another issue with you. Some posts above, competition and cooperation were presented as a dichotomy, and I refuted that position. You apparently failed to understand this, referring to my statement as a non sequitur (ie that no one had posed the original claim). This indicates to me that you are not reading carefully or sensibly, either because you are unable or because you are unwilling. In either case, I conclude that entering into debate with you is not worth my time.

Second, Gordon, Jesse, et al - many thanks for your attempt to present explanations, but it is apparent that Mads is not interested. He only seeks to enter into wave-front debate, spinning off of the last post into the next wave. I strongly suggest, if you want to continue dialogue with him, to take it to private email.

Third, to Gareth - as usual I have read your material with an eye toward eventual changes in the GNS essay. I think the issue of contention is the one I referred to above: you are dichotomizing cooperation and competition, and I consider the one to be a subset of the other (in reference to role-playing). I think we might do well ourselves to take it to private email for a while.

TO ALL: this thread is over.

Best,
Ron

[Mads Jakobsen]

Well, let's finish it, then.

Ron: "Some posts above, competition and cooperation were presented as a dichotomy, and I refuted that position. "

Me: "Cooperating about competing? Obviously true for functional competitive gamist play. But as Tor kind of asked, is that all there is to gamist play?

Errr..."

For the record I'll make that clearer: Cooperating about competing? Obviously true for all games and sports and possibly war. Errr... that still does not make my happy about being called competing when I am in gamer mode.

Ron "The burden was and is on you"

Ah. But the original statement that got this tread started was form "GNS AND OTHER MATTERS OF ROLE-PLAYING THEORY": "...players vs. one another; players vs. GM; etc..."

I indeed cannot claim to have a coherent definition on what Gameism is, though this tread has given me a lot of new insight in the matter. Ron has claimed to have such a definition. A definition I find instinctly wrong. I had hoped that Ron would defend or explain his definition, but that was not to be, for some reason.

Ron :"In either case, I conclude that entering into debate with you is not worth my time."

Good thing you never seriously entered the debate then.


Since Ron has ordered everybody to stop debating with me, I would like to sign of with the issues that have been unaddressed in my view:

1) We all agreed towards the end that competition was not meant to mean munchkinness. That competition could be understood in different ways. Ron has however not agreed to this. When I called "...players vs. one another; players vs. GM; etc..." rubbish he got kind of chilly (please note Rubbish can be understood in different ways, good-rubbish is not bad-rubbish). "...players vs. one another; players vs. GM; etc..." means munchkin as far as I can tell... which lead me to the next issue...

2) I find the description of gamism in Rons essay to be annoying. No proof. No arguments. This is what I feel. Brian Gleichman is known to feel the same way. How many roleplayers share our view? Who knows. I claim that it is unacceptable to have a text that is supposed to be a bridge of understanding between 3 parties, which is an annoying to one of  these parties (and a party I have already argued have a image problem by default). To quote myself from the second post "He will not recognize himself in the above descriptions of gamism.".

3) I have put forth the idea that the view of gamism as competition is a narrativist-mind mistake. No one has answered this. This indicates to me that you are not reading carefully or sensibly, either because you are unable or because you are unwilling. In either case, I conclude that entering into debate with you is not worth my time. Nahhh, just kidding.

4) Is the gamist GM always competing, or is he sometime a part of the furniture? Not all that important, maybe. Maybe not.


Since I am being cast as the villain, narrativist style, it seems proper to allow someone else to sum up the positive sides, what we have agreed on.

MJ  

[Gordon C. Landis]

MJ finishes his post with a call for a reply - I sent one to his email (in case someone - like me - just couldn't bear to see that request left open).

This thread has helped me to develop my personal understanding of Gamism, but it has become very frustrating.  Waiting for the next rev of "GNS AND OTHER MATTERS OF ROLE-PLAYING THEORY" doesn't seem like a bad idea, even (especially?) if it takes a while . . .

Gordon  

[greyorm]

Brian Gleichman is known to feel the same way.

[assumes sagely, Zen-master pose]
Ahhh, but Brian Gleichman is an idiot.
[unassume pose]

Sorry, never could stand the guy; if you want to know why I feel that way, send $3.50 to...
...er, no, wait, just message me...

...though you *can send me money if you want.  Truckloads if you're so inclined (and wealthy).