This post, and my presence on this forum is largely a result of Mads Jakobsen's
'Gamism is not competition' thread, and it's spill-over to RPG.net (where I heard about it).

Firstly I'd like to say that I'm not here to denigrate GNS as a theory. I've found it quite helpful in understanding what I want out of games. However I have to say I've found it a little lacking, not to say unsympathetic in it's appreciation of the Gamist angle. Secondly I'm not particularly interested in further discussing the semantics of 'competition'.
I'm also aware that it isn't news that those who might categorise themselves as Gamists are commonly the strongest detractors of GNS principally for its perceived distortions. I'm also aware that these detractors are regarded here as somewhat quixotic in their attacks on GNS, if not actually deluded.

Personally, my problem is with the treatment of Gamist goals. A lot of what I have to say may come over as blindingly obvious, but as George Orwell once said "To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle."

One of my principal problems with GNS is the treatment of 'winning'.

E.g.

"Concrete examples #1: Simulationism over-riding Gamism:-

Any text which states that role-playing is not about winning; correspondingly, chastising a player who advocates a character action perceived as "just trying to win." [This example assumes that the text/game does not state story-creation as an alternative goal.] "

This seems to me to infer that 'Gamist' games are all about winning. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "it's not about the winning it's about the taking part" concerning sport or any other competitive activity. Perhaps you disregarded it as a meaningless platitude, I don't know.
It's only natural, after all to want to 'win'. But is that the whole point of rpgs for Gamists? Is the game a failure if the participants fail to achieve the victory conditions prescribed? Should the Gamist game facilitate the achievement of player goals?
Certainly such goals should be possible, if not probable. Where's the fun in playing a game where there is no uncertainty in the outcome? But is it all about ego and glory? An affirmative answer to this question is an understandable reason for turning one's back on Gamism.

So where's the fun? How does a Gamist get his or her kicks when they aren't winning all the time? Well look out - I've another platitude for you. "All that can be asked is that you do your best". Sometimes your best isn't enough to guarantee success. Accepting this is an integral part in becoming a good player.
The boundaries prescribed in the rules and setting exist not as impediments to be subverted or conquered, but as a necessary framework without which no meaningful progress is attainable.
The goal then, for the Gamist is not winning, but excellence. They may engineer their characters to be maximally efficient. They may even engineer their characters to be unusually incompetent, thus increasing the challenge and hence the satisfaction of any successes.
Gamists expect to be challenged, any fudging diminishes the experience for them. This is where Gamists part company with Narrativists most obviously.
Gamism does not represent therefore an immature form of gaming, although it is almost certainly the form one encounters first in games (non-rpgs most obviously). Perhaps most importantly I believe an rpg does not have to transcend Gamism in order to tell satisfying stories.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the excellent post, and welcome to the Forge.

I have some points to make that might disperse some of the argument.

1) The quoted section about Gamism over-riding Simulationism is specifically not presented as representative of all Gamism. The text states this, regarding each of the examples in that section, across GNS. Each example is referring an isolated instance of one of the modes of play, which happens to be appropriate for the point at hand (over-rides).

Therefore your inference that I equate all successful Gamism with winning is not supported. In fact, I think the essay is pretty good at stating that "success" (ie fun) is just as nuanced and multifaceted as it is for either of the other modes of play.

[I have noticed that nearly all the objections to my discussion of Gamism are focused on inferences - what the reader considers "may" or "must" be tacitly included. Very few of them actually deal with a stated case as written.]

2) I'd like to address the judgment issue, or the inference that Gamism "must be" some lower or immature form of role-playing. I can't say it any clearer than the essay itself - that none of the modes of play are to be taken as superior or "more developed" than any of the others. That concept is written out as one of the designated misunderstandings.

If there is any other portion of the text that contradicts this statement, then it needs to be corrected. Please let me know if you think you've found any text like that.

3) I have yet to see any instances of a reasoned counter-example to my description. The one person who has tried it, Brian Gleichman, provided a self-description that corresponded beautifully to a form of Simulationism. That does not constitute a counter-example, but a confusion on his part.

By contrast, many of Gareth's (contracycle's) points about the nature of competition have been relevant and thought-provoking, and as I said before, will probably factor strongly into a revision. This is a slow process, just as it was for Simulationism throughout the past year.

In conclusion
So why is the Forge not full of Gamists-as-I-see-them embracing the definition to themselves and confirming my notions? I suggest two reasons, both speculative.

a)Confirmed Gamists represent the healthiest, happiest role-players out there, in terms of reaching their goals through the activity itself. They are probably busy actually playing, rather than seeking insight or conversation on the internet.

b) People who play according to the description of Gamism in the essay have put up with a phenomenal amount of crap from other role-players, over the decades. They are vilified as power-gamers, as immature, as mean, as non-cooperative, as dice freaks, and more. I speculate that teh non-confirmed, or closeted Gamist-oriented people are gun-shy about discussing role-playing, preferring to practice a more covert form of role-playing satisfaction, much as many Narrativist-oriented players had to do in the middle-late 1980s.

Mark, again, thanks for the excellent post that actually allowed me to state my case. All comments are welcome.

Best,
Ron

I'm going to indulge in a little emotional outburst here -"thank you Mark, Thank you Mark, Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!" I can't tell you how much I appreciate your approach in this post to the issues you see around Gamism. I'm on the same page with most everything you said. Gamism is NOT an "immature" form, and it's not all about winning. Two aspects to explore in detail that I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on.

First - Gamism vs. Simulationism. Your quote from the essay and the reference in Ron's post to the Brian Gleichman-Gamist-Simulationist issue brought this to my mind . . . Let's see, here's the claim - the excellence/challenge attributes of Gamism you point to are important differentiators from a form of Simulation. When a Gamist is (I'll use your example, but there are many similar situations) choosing to play an "unusually incompetent" character, they do it for the reasons you cite - it increases the challenge, and thus increases the satisfaction they get when "succesfully" playing that character. Or perhaps they have other reasons for choosing the "incompetence", but it is their Gamist acceptence/craving for challenge that allows them to enjoy playing the character even though he/she is incompetent.

A Simulationist, on the other hand, might play an incompetent "to see what effect it has on the Setting", or "to see if the simulation can handle that kind of thing". This is why (I think) in the past, some Forge discussions have stressed the importance of "knowing you did well" (which was occasionally mis-stated/mis-understood to be "winning") as the key indicator of Gamism - you're an incompetent for the challenge, not for the fascinating intellectual excercise or to see the interesting consequences.

It's a subtle point, and that's why I mention it here for your (or anyone else's) thoughts.

Now, point 2 - "transcend[ing] Gamism in order to tell satisfying stories". This is where I came in to the Forge, basically - here I thought I was all about story even when I was Gaming/Simulating, and these folks are saying I'm NOT about story unless I'm Narrativing.

They're not saying that. I refer you to Chapter Two of the GNS essy, the part that begins with "Most generally, there are (1) forms of Simulationist play with a strong Situation focus, which provide a story for the participants to imagine being in; and (2) forms of Gamist play in which dramatic outcomes are the stakes of competition, which produces story as a side-effect of that competition."

A Gamist CAN have a very high desire that their play produce a "good" story, and Gamism CAN end up telling satisfying stories (just like, oh, a Narrativist can have a desire for a deep, meaty feel to the setting). It's just that the focus during play is on the game elements, and when there's a "showdown" between a choice that would enhance the story and one that is consistent with the game . . . the game wins. A Gamist who desires a satisfying story tries to avoid such confrontations, and there're lots of ways to manage that - e.g., keep the story "about" things that are managed well in the Gamist context - but there WILL (in my experience) be moments when that breaks down.

I also have found that it often takes a LOT of Gamist play (6-8 hours) to generate a relatively small amount of Story. Now, if you're a dedicated Gamist, that doesn't matter - a story that compromised on the game elements would not get the job done for you. I think there are a number of people like this in my current play group, and that makes my recent attempts to sway things in a Narrativist direction a bit annoying to them. I'm not sure I've got room in my life for 8+ hours of RP every weekend though, so . . .

But that's a seperate subject. What I'd be interested in on point 2 (from you, or, again, anyone out there) is an opinion about how much (and what kind) of story you get in your Gamism, and what happens when something that'd be good for the story ("man, that blow MUST have knocked him over the railing - time for him to confront his fear of heights!") conflicts with what works well in the game("Nope, sorry, he made his Balance roll and has moved into the room - no falling over the railing today"). Is your experience consistent with what GNS seems (to me) to be saying?

Thanks again for the post,

Gordon

Edited to correct the line "A Simulationist, on the other hand, might play an incompetent . . ." from "just to see what it's like", or "just to see how it turns out"." - a form of description SPECIFICALY derided in the essay. Oh, I have sinned, and my Cult membership will soon be stripped :smile:

[ This Message was edited by: Gordon C. Landis on 2001-12-12 03:04 ]

Hello,

Quickie point: I wanted to distinguish the phrase "Narrativism transcending Gamism" from the phrase "Narrativism overriding Gamism." The first implies improvement or transformation to a more developed form of play, and is not in my essay. The second places the two modes on equal footing and is in my essay. As I hope to have shown, any mode can override any other mode.

Others? Thoughts?

Best,
Ron

I was thinking about a game I was in a while back: it was a points based game, I was a moderately low-point character but was built to be very combat capable. In one scene my character took on about 6 people at once and won.

I wouldn't have been satisfied building and playing that character (with that scene in mind) in say FUDGE or The Window--it took careful design, tactics, (and a little luck) to make the scene an accomplishment. In a points-free/rules-light (or drama driven) system the *framework* for making that character wouldn't have existed so the design and tactical elements wouldn't have existed. Having my character 'perform' (in the sports-car sense, not the actor sense) was gratifying. While the fight was tangential to the plot (the resuolution of the adventure had nothing to do with combat) I would say that the scene was speaking directly to my 'inner gamist.'

I think that someone's defintion--I don't remember who--"demonstrating player skill" should be considered for the re-write. I felt that I'd accomplished something with the character and the combat.

-Marco

Hi Marco,

Another excellent post, and thanks.

Part One
My problem with the "demonstrating player skill" issue is that it applies across many modes of play. It might not apply to all of them; Turku play insists on entirely internal priorities, hence "demonstrating" is questionable. But I think that just about any other kind of role-playing is or may be concerned with that same thing.

Part Two
Your example is an excellent one ... but it's kind of tricky to identify it as Gamism, necessarily. That is, based on what you said, I agree that it probably was, but let's look at just what was satisfying about it.

1) Your own performance/effort/acumen. That's what you were referring to, and I agree, that's a valid and important aspect of role-playing, a lot of the time.

2) Performance in reference to what? A tactical challenge. There it is, to my thinking. Not just a "challenge," which is universal to role-playing successfully (having fun), but a tactical challenge. It had to have been presented in such a way that you, personally, thought, "Hm, I'm gonna have to bust butt and/or get lucky to deal with this."

I'd like to distinguish, by the way, between a tactical challenge and a fight scene. The latter is a very broad category and can propose or resolve tons and tons of different role-playing goals. The former is a very interesting thing - the PERSON, the actual human being, is being challenged in the imaginary situation's and system's tactical terms.

Example A: A fight scene such as you described sounds Gamist to me (or a form of Gamism), because that precise form of challenge seems to have been the case. I stand by my argument that such a challenge cannot occur without another human being involved in some competitive way. Please note that "some competitive way" may include referee status; that is a broader concept than "opponent."

Example B: The final fight scene in many Illusionist games (Simulationism + Situation emphasis), as Jesse has stated very clearly, is usually pre-planned in terms of set-piece and outcome. The illusionism comes in by the group essentially pretending that it is not (this pretense may be very enjoyable; I'm not knocking it).

Example C: A conflict-resolving fight scene in many Narrativist games is more like (A) in some ways, as the real-people players' judgment and decisions are "on the line," so to speak; but it is also more like (B) in some ways, as the concerns of the imaginary characters, and maintaining their integrity as story elements, is still a big priority.

[If you read the three examples carefully you will see that I am not claiming to represent ALL of Gamism, ALL of Simulationism, or ALL of Narrativism in them.]

One last thing - the role of system. I think that your comments about the necessary aspects of the game itself, necessary to that form of enjoyment, are important. But I also think that they, too, apply to many different styles and modes of play beyond Gamism. (As I've had to say many times, Narrativist play often benefits from highly structured systems rather than free-form or Drama-based ones.)

Best,
Ron

Great post eveyone, especially Gordon. I think that despite jargon or semantic differences in definitio an important thing to remember that Gamism is still fairly easily identified. Even if the criteria is as vague as "I knows it when I sees it." And once identified, this allows analysis to occur, which is the benefit of GNS.

$.02

Mike

On 2001-12-12 10:25, Ron Edwards wrote:
Hi Marco,

Another excellent post, and thanks.

Part One
My problem with the "demonstrating player skill" issue is that it applies across many modes of play. It might not apply to all of them;

Part Two
1) Your own performance/effort/acumen. That's what you were referring to, and I agree, that's a valid and important aspect of role-playing, a lot of the time.

snip: tatical challenge vs. fight scene -- I agree completely.

Example A: A fight scene such as you described sounds Gamist to me (or a form of Gamism), because that precise form of challenge seems to have been the case. I stand by my argument that such a challenge cannot occur without another human being involved in some competitive way. Please note that "some competitive way" may include referee status; that is a broader concept than "opponent."

(Snip: Sim-Ill.)

Example C: A conflict-resolving fight scene in many Narrativist games is more like (A) in some ways, as the real-people players' judgment and decisions are "on the line," so to speak; but it is also more like (B) in some ways, as the concerns of the imaginary characters, and maintaining their integrity as story elements, is still a big priority.

One last thing - the role of system. I think that your comments about the necessary aspects of the game itself, necessary to that form of enjoyment, are important. But I also think that they, too, apply to many different styles and modes of play beyond Gamism. (As I've had to say many times, Narrativist play often benefits from highly structured systems rather than free-form or Drama-based ones.)

Best,
Ron

On 2001-12-12 11:44, Marco wrote:

'Highly-structured' here is very vague. Can you give me an example of a Gamist or Sim game where the combat mechanics are _beneficial_ to Narrativist play? I suggest that in those games when/if a Nar/Sim player finds themselves enjoying the combat for the pure tactical joy they are simply indulging the Gam part of their RPG spectrum.

Hi Clinton!

I completely agree--aboslutely. *I* was refering to combat (specifically how my gamist itch is sometimes scratched by detailed combat systems). I acknowledge that *system* complexity is GNS-neutral (that seems obvious) but complex player-tactical combat seems N-negative G-positive to me (is that notation clear enough?)

-Marco

On 2001-12-12 11:44, Marco wrote:

Part One
My problem with the "demonstrating player skill" issue is that it applies across many modes of play. It might not apply to all of them;

Okay--I can accept this--but if your primary goal in a scene is to demonstrate player skill (even if only to yourself) aren't you in a gamist *mode* then? I agree: most RPG'ers enjoy a good tense combat--it's exciting (and appropriate to many games). That includes generally Nar and Sim players--but isn't a combat where the outcome revolves on your skill/luck a gamist pleasure?

Agreed. Adding the 'yardsticks of play' isn't bad--although I think there might be a better term out there somewhere since I'd suggest that most 'gamism' isn't about *points* but about excelling in some in-game sense (like beating up six guys with a mid-point character).

"Demonstrating player skill at handling events in the game" maybe?

-M.

I think that what Ron was saying is that one can "demonstrate player skill" at something like portraying his character well, or at forwarding the plot in a judicious manner. These would be examples of non-Gamist displays of skill.

Gamist demonstrations of skill are those that focus on measuring up to the yardsticks of play. Defeating a tactical challenge, for example, or gaining experience points. This is why Ron objects to the general usage of simpe phrases like "overcomming challenges" or "demonstrating skill". It depends on the kind of challenges, and the intended outcome of the skill use.

Gamist demonstrations of skill are those that focus on measuring up to the yardsticks of play. Defeating a

I've taken some time to articulate further input to this thread because I'm still on quite a steep learning curve as to the application of GNS to actual play. Even though I have a fairly strong idea of the definitions in mind, recognition of a particular stance as implicitly G, N or S is still something I'm grappling with. Particularly in attempting to avoid "synecdoche" as identified by Ron in his essay.

Thesis: Conflict of interest is a central tenet of GNS theory. One element will necessarily prevail over the other two in specific instances, depending on the priority these elements enjoy in the minds of the players. Ergo, players that share the same priorities are likely to be more harmonious than those that exhibit divergent or undefined priorities. Also groups that prioritise a specific aspect of GNS are best served by games that accord with their goals.

It seems clear that G, N and S elements are evident in all rpgs to a greater or lesser extent. It is a question of emphasis and focus. The principal application of GNS theory as described by Ron is to act as a means of diagnosis of gaming dysfunction, based upon the possible divergent goals of the players.
By gaming dysfunction I mean anything that significantly disrupts or reduces the enjoyment of the players. Now there are plenty of instances in which different game modes can conflict. Whether or not they are reconcilable without undermining the integrity of the game is a moot point.

If you have story oriented goals for instance, it is quite possible to reconcile Gamism and Narrativism through reward mechanisms focusing upon this aspect of the game. As I understand gaming - most players derive satisfaction from games by pursuing and fulfilling certain objectives. Gamism is identifiable in my eyes through particular attentiveness to the objectives of the game. Nebulous objectives such as "having fun" are generally eschewed in favour of games that have more explicit criteria for measuring success.

This is at the core of my appreciation of Gamism. Gamist approaches to rpgs tend to focus on the explicit goals of the game as defined in reward systems etc. In certain instances of Gamist influenced decision making then, it would appear that Gamism is likely to conflict with the implicit goals of the game (particularly as understood by Narrativism and Simulationism)
In the example of Simulationism overriding Gamism I quoted in my original post this appears to be the case - although no direct reference to actual play is illustrated I can think of a number of instances it would apply to. For example:-
The group has just finished an adventure. All bar one of the PCs have gone up a level. This last PC (lets call him Bob) is only a few exp short of his level. According to the rules the PCs need to train in town before their skills can actually go up. Soon the PCs will leave town to go adventuring once more. This leaves Bob's player in an unfortunate position. Only through overcoming in game challenges can PC's gain exp. Bob's player decides to seek out challenges in town in order to accrue the required amount of exp to level up. Bob wanders the streets at night in an effort to get mugged. If this doesn't work Bob tries to provoke fights with people in bars. There is probably no "in character" reason to do this, although such reasons may be provided if Bob's player is pressed on the subject. This behaviour also has the effect of slowing down the progression of the story as no plot advancing activity is undertaken or intended. Hence Bob's player may come under fire from the other players for selfishly pursuing his "Gamist goals" at the expense of everyone else's fun.
So who is to blame in the above example? Arguably Bob is to blame for wasting time. Arguably the game is at fault for encouraging PCs to perform tasks that are detrimental to the game's implicit goals. Arguably the GM of the game is at fault for not recognising the shortcomings of the rules and applying them inflexibly. Arguably even the other players are at fault for not cutting Bob's player some slack if an out of character argument develops as a consequence of Bobs actions.
The point I'm trying to make with the above example is that when games break down it is usually as a consequence of one or more players not taking the desires or requirements of others into consideration. The game can be at fault to, but you can take them or leave them. Getting into an argument with AD&D 1st edition DMG is unlikely to prove fruitful for either party. Although beating another player over the head with one might prove briefly therapeutic.
I've run out of time if not things to say. Congratulations if you made it this far

or arguably, the players would be at fault for castigating Bob for his "gamism" when in fact his selfishness is much more the issue. Queue rant about gamism = perjorative.

the demonstration of skill? If it's an end unto itself, if the whole (or great majority) of the player reward/enjoyment comes from facing the challenge as a challenge, a) it's Gamism, and b) there must be SOME standard by which it is judged, weighed and interpretted.

On 2001-12-13 06:03, contracycle wrote:
I disagree vehemently;

as I have argued before, just like life, ANY game has an implicit reward system. You would not be TRYING, striving, struggling to achieve something if it were going to happen anyway. If the way the world was going was already tending to produce your desired outcome, you have no need to intervene, to act. By necessity, ANY act for which dice are rolled is some form of struggle to achieve outcome A as opposed outcome B. These "yardsticks" are self-originated, self-imposed, and self-measured IMO.

An external measurement as regards success, beyond the decisions of dice and referee, are not necessary IMO and only serve to further distort the point. It seems to me to me important only as a rationalisation of the competition straw-man than an actual description of the behaviour.

Ultimately, most games have one very explicit, very public, and very final yardstick: character death. I don't think any others are particularly relevant.

Mark,

The not-so-hypothetical game system that you describe (D&D) is a Gamist system. It should be no surprise that Bob used it in the manner that you describe him using it. He's a Gamist using a Gmaist system as it encourages him to do so. The problem in this case would be in the other players expecting him to do otherwise. The only case in which they would be justified in doing so that I can see is if Bob and the rest of the group had agreed before play to drift from the system's Gamist design to using it for Simulationism or Narrativism. In which case Bob is going back on his word.

Otherwise, Bob is doing nothing particularly wrong, with the possible exception of the selfishness that Gareth mentioned; he could decide to be more selfless with the group's time, but the system doesn't reward it in any way.

The point is that in a well designed Simulationist or Narrativist system the rules should explicitly support those styles of play. In such a system the Gamist has little to work with in terms of the explicit goals of the rules (though he may still take on non-rules based challenges just as easily). The point of the System Matters essay is that the explicit goals of a system are very important in facilitating any of the three styles of play.

Mike

That's where the biggest problem comes in as I see it. There is no easy way available to shorthand the Gamist goal. So the terms that I use end up being constantly offensive to individuals like yourself. If you could find a shorter way of stting the case that was satisfactory to yourself (and presumably other Gamists) I'd be glad to use it.

The measure of a good game in my eyes is how well the game's explicit rules support its implicit goals. Implicit goals are often very broad:

- Having fun
- Being creative

Because having fun and being creative are not easily quantifiable goals it is unusual to find them explicitly supported in the rules.
It is the tendency of the gamist to focus on explicit goals.

Mike Holmes wrote:
The point is that in a well designed Simulationist or Narrativist system the rules should explicitly support those styles of play. In such a system the Gamist has little to work with in terms of the explicit goals of the rules.

Hi,

Someone suggested to me that the terms I might be looking for for expressing what I liked about my gamist interlude (and perhaps gamism in general) is an 'obejective demonstration of skill'--that is I demonstrate player skill against objective measures (player skill in creating a good story or simulating a genre is comparatively subjective).

I realize that nothing in gaming (and perhaps in reality) is truly objective in a lot of given senses--but I think that as a starting point this is pretty good. Contra?

I guess I'm officially in the 'know it when I see it' camp for now though--although I think "competition" is a fairly poor word-choice from people who use routinely worlds well enough to (IMHO) make a better one.

-Marco

On 2001-12-13 13:28, Mark Blaxland wrote:
The measure of a good game in my eyes is how well the game's explicit rules support its implicit goals. Implicit goals are often very broad:

- Having fun
- Being creative

Because having fun and being creative are not easily quantifiable goals it is unusual to find them explicitly supported in the rules.

It is the tendency of the gamist to focus on explicit goals.

Mike Holmes wrote:
The point is that in a well designed Simulationist or Narrativist system the rules should explicitly support those styles of play. In such a system the Gamist has little to work with in terms of the explicit goals of the rules.

I concur with your first point and disagree with your second - If a game explicitly supports certain goals in the rules then these goals will be identified and pursued by the Gamist. That's the whole point.

If the game has NO explicit rules supporting goals, only implicit ones then you make Gamism impossible. What puzzles me is the question why anyone should want to do that in the first place, if they did not think Gamism was somehow dysfunctional.

I concur with your first point and disagree with your second - If a game explicitly supports certain goals in the rules then these goals will be identified and pursued by the Gamist. That's the whole point. If the game has NO explicit rules supporting goals, only implicit ones then you make Gamism impossible. What puzzles me is the question why anyone should want to do that in the first place, if they did not think Gamism was somehow dysfunctional.

On 2001-12-13 10:58, contracycle wrote:
or arguably, the players would be at fault for castigating Bob for his "gamism" when in fact his selfishness is much more the issue. Queue rant about gamism = perjorative.

Mark,

If actual Gamism is besmirched by the definition of Gamism, that is not it's intent. You came up with the example, and what we find fault with is not the player's pursuit of Gamism, but with selfishness. A fault that can ocur in all three styles and has nothing to do with Gamism.

But playing "In-Character" is probably a simulationist or possibly narrativist means to an end. That's not to say that Gamists cannot, or do not play "In-Character". Simply that it is not required for Gamist play.

That's what I've been trying to get through to you. Even though you may not like the idea of what we refer to as Pawn mode (making decisions on player motivations and player motiovations only), it is recognized as a legitimate form of Gamist play. Few players like this taken to extremes, but if a group all decided to play this way, they there is no dysfunction.

What you describe is simple violation of social contract. You assume that "sensible gamers" would decide before the game that playing IC is a must. If they did, then the player violating that Social Contract (usually made informally) is guilty of breaking the contract. But if no such clause in the contract exists, or the contract explicitly allows Pawn mode, then the player is playing correctly, completely within his rights.


disclaimer: Once again, this would only be indicative of a small (possibly insignificant) subset of the totality of Gamist players, and does not come close to characterizing the majority of Gamists (nor is this post intended to imply such).

Mike

If a game has a goal of telling good stories, and that is made explicit in the rules (it can be and is in some games) and a player identifies and pursues this goal, they are being a Narrativist. By definition.

Mike Holmes wrote:
[Pawn mode] is recognized as a legitimate form of Gamist play. Few players like this taken to extremes, but if a group all decided to play this way, they there is no dysfunction.

Hello,

For those who are interested, these two threads provide some background on some of the participants in this discussion.

The first thread about big essay is here, and the one about Gamism that it spawned is here.

Best,
Ron

(had to edit in some verbs!)

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-12-13 15:31 ]

Mark,

One might note that, in fact, alignments are a very Gamist method of enforcing character motivation. Can't kill baby kobolds because we gotta stay good, and gotta stay good because otherwise we lose our Paladin abilities, right? Thus the character (Peldrick of Glon) may want to kill the baby kobolds a lot (their parents ate his wife) but the player (Mark) wants to still be able to use his character's Paladin abilities. So if he decides to go with his alignment, he is playing Gamist (Pawn stance), not Simulationist(kills the kobolds because he's sure his character is enraged) or Narrativist(kills the kobolds because it makes for a good plot twist). Note that all three style players could legitamately not kill the kobolds, as it could lead toa good story, or be "realistic". But the difference is that the system only supports the Gamist decision, and penalizes certain Simulationist or Narrativist ones.

GNS is all about how players make decisions, and why.

Mike

Great thread, everyone - at least, I think so. I'm going to cherry-pick some quotes that I think help make my thoughts clear - please, if you think my taking 'em out of context misrepresents them, just let me know - I'm NOT trying to use selective quoting in an evil manner here.

Gareth (contra) quoted my "the demonstration of skill? If it's an end unto itself, if the whole (or great majority) of the player reward/enjoyment comes from facing the challenge as a challenge, a) it's Gamism, and b) there must be SOME standard by which it is judged, weighed and interpretted.", and asked "Why?"

Mike's statements in this area all make sense to me . . . yes, the standard I refer to can be entirely internal ("self-originated, self-imposed, and self-measured"). Sorry I was unclear. My point in saying that there must be some standard is that there must be some way to make the determination that you did well in the challenge. That can certainly be internal, though the behavior of doing so will have external manifestations. But Gareth goes on to say:

"I think the whole yardstick thing is a red herring; the game stats ARE the yardsticks already, to the extent a gamist needs any. After you've rolled your character in AD&D, and you know that you have a strength 14 and Bob has a strength 16 - you have your yardsticks. You know the relationship, understand the "balance of power" in this regard."

I think this is an important point - the internal goals ARE given by external factors from the game, just not neccessarily by the "yardstick" measuring (e.g.) "victory". A player knows he's done well when his mid-strength fighter defeats 6 opponents - he knows he's done well even if he loses but takes 5 opponents down with him. He knows this not because (e.g.) of the extra experience points he gets from the encounter, but because he understands the content of the game rules in the context of a . . . I'd say "field upon which to compete", but how about "in the context of information against and/or with which the "success" of their actions can be judged?" Man, that's a long, awkward way to avoid saying "compete". Sigh. Like Mike, I'm convinved that MY understanding of competition is not wide-spread enough to make it a good word to use (unless sufficient qualifications can be added, but given the "bad press", even that probably isn't enough). But as far as I can tell, we're still in search of a good replacement.

In that vein:

"An external measurement as regards success, beyond the decisions of dice and referee, are not necessary IMO and only serve to further distort the point. It seems to me to me important only as a rationalisation of the competition straw-man than an actual description of the behaviour."

I agree that *external measurement of success* isn't neccessary - but would still claim that some measurement is going on, and that that measurement is the very definition of Gamism. Other forms may involve measurement ("was it a good story/sim?" can be internally measured), but it is not the point of those forms, only a means to and end. In Gamism, it is the end. Since I see internal measurement (based on external factors) as an entirely valid form of competition, I have no need for an external straw-man . . . but I'm NOT trying to fight that battle, just being clear yet again that what I MEANT by competition is (I think) consistent with the "broad" understanding of Gamism, and not applicable (in my mind) only to power-gamers.

As far as this bit goes:

"Perhaps I misunderstood what you were getting at. But what I fear from a term like "yardsticks" is once again the perception of an externally measurable victory condition, by which the gamist is thought to judge their success. And the problem with this is that I think it will result in designers producing explicit and external yardsticks for measurement purposes, in the misguided belief (IMO) that gamists need such a measure. I don't find such terms offensive per se."

That's a VERY interesting point. Can external measurements be useful to Gamists? Certainly for some such measures, for some Gamists, they can be. Are they required? Certainly not. When are they a good idea, and when are they not? A fascinating question for Gamist design - Rune is FILLED with external measures, but I've not seen hordes of folks praising it for that reason . . . I guess for this discussion, I'd just say that MY understanding of Gamism wouldn't lead me to say "Gamist designs MUST have external yardsticks".

Moving on . . . (long post, I guess) - I'll use these quotes (from Mike and then Mark, I think) to harp on subtleties a bit more:

"No, no, no. If a game has a goal of telling good stories, and that is made explicit in the rules (it can be and is in some games) and a player identifies and pursues this goal, they are being a Narrativist. By definition."

But if the reward for the player is not the story itself, but is instead the joy of using the game rules and/or their personal skills to acheive/attempt success - that's Gamist. THEIR goal was to "do well", NOT to tell a good story.

and

"These objectives could be completely arbitrary: collecting treasure; killing monsters; staying alive; immortality through legendary or glorious acts... The possibilities are infinite and they are not intrinsically incompatible with the meta-game goal of creating good stories."

(I understand this quote to be saying, essentially, "it is possible to create good stories through Gamism". If I'm wrong on that, my response probably won't make sense.)

Intrinsically incompatibile? Not ALWAYS, no, but on occassion, yes. That's why (IMO), GNS in the strictest sense is said to be about decisions, not really people or systems. It is often possible to make a decision in game play that is consistent with both a good story (of particular types) and the thrill of "doing well" - but it is not ALWAYS possible to do so. When that conflict does happen, which do you pick? People who pick the thrill of doing well have made a Gamist choice. A system that encourages/supports making that decision in a way that leads to a good story gets called a Narrativist system. The Gamist in our first case is free to make a story-focused decision at some other time, and while the Narrativist system supports good story, it can't FORCE that decision.

Hopefully there's something clear and/or useful in all that . . . again, thanks to everyone.

Gordon

Mike,

I think you are being awfully inclusive in your alignment argument.

Ultimately, alignment is a contract among participants about "how I'm going to play this character." The terms of that contract are distressingly absent from any version of D&D, such that every group has to work it out. I see a punishment system for "breaking" alignment, but no guidelines or standards for applying that punishment. Thus we see justifications and applications of alignment that vary all over the map.

Therefore I do not see alignment as being necessarily an element of Gamist design.

To everyone, I believe this thread is starting to wander. Various extraneous issues have emerged and sprawled about, and I'd like everyone to look at the issue Mark raised and decide whether we've reached a point in which everyone has expressed themselves clearly (and been acknowledged as such). If so, then we can call it a day, and a useful one too, speaking as the essay-author and reviser guy; if not, then let's get those points dealt with instead of wandering.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote:
But the difference is that the [alignment] system only supports the Gamist decision, and penalizes certain Simulationist or Narrativist ones.

Yes, but the game does not provide the applause yardstick. The system in this case only supports Gamist play (though Ron may have a point). Sure the other players may support with applause, but that doesn't make Alignments Simulationist or whathaveyou.

And here we go again with the "not about winning". How many times do we have to agree with you before you'll accept that we really mean it? Yes, Gamism is not always about winning, that's just one of a jillion possible forms of Gamism. And we can debate it's commoness as well. But who really cares? A person playing to win is using Gamist technique. Just as is a person playing to overcome his character's class struggle to rise to nobility, or whatever challenge including peer recognition. It's just not trying to make a good story or trying to create verisimilitude. Those are Narrativism and Simulationism.

Do we still not agree somehow?

Mike

Do we still not agree somehow?

Let me try and sum up what I've seen in this thread. This is risky, as I might seem to be restating someone's thoughts to be consistent with my opinion, so please forgive me if I get something wrong - it just seems to me if it really is time to "move on", we might be well served if we wind down the thread gracefully. So here's my attempt:

Competition and winning have a very negative connotation for many RPGers (including, or perhaps especially, Gamists). Since what are widely considered very unpleasant forms of RPing have been labeled with these words, that's quite understandable.

What GNS is talking about with Gamism is NOT those unpleasant forms. While Gamism includes the possibility that those forms can be made fully-functional by acknowledging and agreeing to a flatly competitive/win-based structure, it is not meant to be limited to that.

Nor is it meant to be limited to taking advantage of obvious, in-game-rules indicators of "winning" (overcoming challenge, demonstrating skill, or whatever variation is eventually deemed the best description of the concept).

Those are the main points I see in Mark's initial post in this thread, and I think there is widespread agreement that what he says about Gamism there and what GNS says about Gamism are not actually in conflict.

Details - perhaps quite important ones - remain at least not FULLY resolved (an example - the internal vs. external nature of the manner in which Gamists measure their success), and might be best resolved in new, seperate threads (I intend to do just that with internal/external). Many interesting side issues were raised, including Story in Gamism, or Marks' last Addendem about how while GNS may be unnecessary for satisfied RPGers, it could still be useful for helping them try something different. They could also prove to be great material for threads of their own.

Well, that's my attempt,

Gordon

supports Narrativist goals. That is, if the system explicitly supports the co-authoring of Themes on a Litterary Premise, then the a player who pursues that goal is a Gamist? Am I reading you correctly?

Some thoughts one what constitutes a "good game" in the broader context.

Professional sports players usually shake hands before and/or after a match, principally to limit the rancour possible in any competitive endeavour. they say "good game" by which they meen a hard-played, interesting game, I believe. Possible this is the same as a highly competitive game; they hard to work hard to achieve their victory.

I used to play chess with my uncle as a kid, he being a regional champion and me being 14-16. He used to routinely thrash the hell out of me with only half the pieces I had. I had little realistic chance of winning, why did I play? For the experience, the practice, the joy of playing, of making decisions. Why did he play, seeing as I presentyed to meaningful challenge? Partly out of indulgence, partly out of boredom, partly I believe out of much the same joy of action, decision, control. I would measure my performance against his judgement as the manifest expert; even a loss could be a victory if it was a hard-fought loss above my level; "punching above my weight" as it were.

When I did Karate I greatly enjoyed kata. This is a semi-ritualised chain of movements against an imaginary opponent or group of opponents, the object being to oblige repition of certain movements so that they become virtually autonomic reflexes. I always found kata very interesting; I would enter an almost meditative state, very aware of my balance, my muscles, their movement in relation to one another. Kata is an endless pursuit of "the perfect punch"; you can never reach it but you can feel yourself getting closer and closer to that unnatainable ideal. You CAN do kata competitively, in that they are judged, but their function is essentially as a device for SELF-training.

I think that to the extent that there are concerns for gamists, boxes which designers need to check, I would say they are these:

The terms of the struggle must be known and understood mechanically; this is the parties may think clearly and strategise over their options.

There must be a legitimmate RISK; in cases where character death cannot serve as such a risk, something else must be elevated to a suitably significant plateau (say, social status in a game like En Garde or honour in L5R, arguably). This I am aiming at the system, design level.

The resolution of the struggle must be in the hands of the players; ideally they should be given the opportunity to propose their own strategy and tactics, to implement plans in a preparatory as well as reactionary manner.

So the necessary elements I can think of are: explicit terms of conlfict; valuable stakes; authoring the plan of action.

Any thoughts?

Excellent basic principles. I'd think that designers would do well to stick to these ideals. I like that we've gotten beyond the definition and into what makes for good Gamist play.

One small clarification:

The terms of the struggle must be known and understood mechanically; this is the parties may think clearly and strategise over their options.

Seems that we should change "known" and "understood" to be "knowable" and "understandable", IMHO. As you pointed out earlier, sometimnes part of the challenge is discerning how difficult the challenge is.

Hello,

I'm looking over Mark's last post, Gordon's last post, Gareth's (contra's) last two post, and Mike's' last post.

I agree. Totally.

The essay was written in the attempt to express these things.

Remember when Gareth suggested, just after the essay was posted, that I seem to start extreme and become more reasonable? And that he and I agreed that it was impossible to tell (from within) who was really becoming more reasonable, the speaker or the listener?

If I'm not mistaken, the two are now looking at one another, saying, "Well, why didn't you say that before?" and "But I did," and, "Then what are we arguing about," and "But that means that we're actually friends," and, "Then we better get going and stop Dr. Doom together!"

I love old Marvel Comics.

Best,
Ron

P.S. If you think I'm being revisionist, then in the interests of peace I will concede the possibility. Rest assured the essay will be revised (EVENTUALLY) with the contributors to this discussion given credit.