Topic: Gamism in action
Started by: Clinton R. Nixon
Started on: 12/12/2001
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 12/12/2001 at 4:30pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Gamism in action
On another thread, Mark Blaxland wrote:
This seems to me to infer that 'Gamist' games are all about winning. ... 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?
As one of the few self-identified Gamist-lovin' guys on the Forge, I loved this post. I also thought I should respond.
I think the "ego and glory" part is what gets Gamism denigrated too often. It's usually not from others here, but from people who read the GNS essay, infer something unsaid about competition = power-gamer, and get angry.
So - switching topics for a quick moment - a couple of months ago, Zak Arntson and I sat down together to write a real Gamist RPG. We wanted to take everything we'd learned here and apply it to the spirit of competition. We put it down after a while because Real Life(tm) intruded, but I started again on it yesterday, and got inspired while writing our main mechanic.
I happen to think it's a perfect example of Gamism in action, and competition equalling not "beating everyone else," but sheer fun at trying to be the best.
Here's the basic run-down:
The game uses Sorcerer-style dice pools, with each person involved in a moment of conflict resolution rolling their dice pool and comparing them. The person with the highest singular die wins, and all dice that are higher than the loser's highest die are 'successes.' Make sense?
Ok, so what happens is that the winner gets to declare a number of facts about the outcome of the conflict equal to the number of successes he had. The loser has to use these facts to narrate the outcome.
An example:
Player: I'm going to try and bash down this door here. I've got... 8 dice to do so.
GM: Ok. It's just a standard wooden door, so that's Medium difficulty - 6 dice.
Player rolls: 4, 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19
GM rolls: 7, 8, 8, 10, 11, 12
The player gets 4 successes (shown in bold).
Player: Sweet. Ok, four facts:
- I knock down the door with my shoulder.
- The room on the other side is large - about 50 x 50 feet.
- It also is full of Orks.
- When I hit the door, it slammed into one of the Orks on the other side.
GM: Good. Ok, here's what happened. You ran into the door with your shoulder, sending it flying with a crunch as it slammed into a burly Ork guard, knocking him to the ground. (You're now on top of him, with a door in between you.) The well-lit room reeks of smoke and burnt meat: it looks like some sort of kitchen/mess hall. 30 Orks all look up from their plates at once, with a resounding "Hrm?"
------
If the player had lost the roll, the GM would have successes, obviously. In that case, he would give facts. If the GM had 2 successes, for example, he might say:
GM: Ok, 2 successes. Hrm.
- You don't knock down the door.
- You do, however, bounce right off it into Joss, the party thief, landing on top of him.
Player: Ok. So I run at the door with all my might, slamming into it, but it doesn't budge. I fall back, landing on Joss, who I hear a muffled "Argh!" from. The sound must have alerted someone on the other side of the door, though, as it swings open and I see an angry looking Ork stare in at us.
-------------
The goals we were trying to achieve with this resolution mechanic are quite Gamist, I believe. It's used to quickly resolve conflict, but uses a tremendous amount of Fortune, and then makes the actual resolution of the conflict into a word-game played by the participant, each trying to say phrases that put them at the best advantage (or make them laugh the most, or whatever). It does not in any way support story, as it ends up being more random than coherent.
_________________
Clinton R. Nixon
Heartburn Games
indie-rpgs.com webmaster
www.acid-reflex.com
[ This Message was edited by: Clinton R Nixon on 2001-12-12 14:44 ]
On 12/12/2001 at 8:02pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Gamism in action
Hi Clinton,
I think you're onto something here, but as I see it, it's still kind of an indeterminate embryo that could either be Gamist or Narrativist, as determined by on-site use.
Well, that could be an OK thing. The proponents of "multipe GNS goal design" would be happy with it. I tend to go with the "focus eliminates confusion" outlook (very stern constipated samurai look accompaniment), so I'm thinkin' something like ...
A reward system. What's the reward, anyway, for participants? I mean concretely. Whatever it is, it ought to be generated/achieved by cleverer or more effective outcomes of scenes and rolls, no matter whether you succeeded or failed at the task.
Best,
Ron
On 12/12/2001 at 8:08pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Gamism in action
The reward system's in place. It's not tied into every task, though, just combat success.
Basically, though, the point is to use the word-game part of resolution to get either (a) in trouble, and get a chance to fight, where you gain experience points, or (b) treasure, where you get, well, treasure.
I have a feeling that I'm going to portray this all wrong, so I'm going to just have to show you the game text in the end. The word game is an integral part of getting rewards, though, as you get the opportunity to put your character in a situation where he can gain experience. If I fail breaking down the door, as above, but make sure and mention that an ork comes through the door in my description, well, that's an ork I get to kill.
I realize that I might not be very tightly focused yet. I am used to playing more Narrativist game systems, and wanted to tie some of the things I've learned from them, such as multiple stances, and more player control, into making a Gamist game. We'll see how it works in the end.
-Clinton