OK, Ron says Gamist is the least understood branch of the GNS model, an odd comment since it's the branch most people seem to think they understand completely. This probably illustrates just how misunderstood Gamism really is.

To try and understand it better, let's thow out some theories and concrete examples of gamism so we can get a better handle on it.

Personally, I have little idea of gamism outside of anything directly decended from wargames. To-hit modifiers. Position orientated combat, and so on.

In fact, I'm having trouble seeing the game outside of the combat situation.

I see the typical session as long boring stretches of "role-playing" between the "Battle of the Week" which is the real raison d'etre for the game. The "role-playing" in question can be anything from real interesting role-playing to throw-away stuff like "I go to my temple" "I go to the guild" "I go to the tavern and eat something" "I go to the shop to buy some new armour" "Do they have any magic items"

That sort of thing.

To a certain extent this is the stereotype and is as good as anyplace to start and build a better definition.

I think it's more accurate to say that Gamism is least understood to Ron. That's maybe a cheap shot because he's off to GenCon and all, but it's not really a cheap shot. He freely admits that he doesn't really "get" the Gamist outlook. I think Clinton Nixon and others do get it, but they're not too verbose on the subject. For my part, I've always claimed some distinctly Gamist traits in my approach to roleplaying, and not all the "best" Gamist traits, either.

Tell you something else: If it's part of the game, I'm one to pull out all the stops and try to beat the unbeatable - and I'm not above cheating to do it. In fact, my entire view of "cheating" in rpgs is probably a lot different than most people's view. I tailor my, um, Gamist tendencies to the surrounding environment. If the overall game isn't that competitive, then I'm probably not competing in the same fashion.

One thing that does make me itch is this perpetual claim that Gamism is just about competition, not winning. A lot of the time, I think that's bunk. I think when players get in that competitive gaming situation, they definitely want to win. It happens sometimes in other styles of game, too. Here's the thing: If you're not there to win, then why bother to compete? Why bother to learn? Even if you're a "good sport" about losing, it's only because you want to use what you've learned to kick some serious ass the next time around. If you're really not interested in winning, then you probably don't have many Gamist tendencies.

Now, there are Gamists and there are Gamists. Some game-oriented players are really into games of chance like Roulette, Craps, and Solitaire. Games like that, you win sometimes, but it's more random chance than skill. I think those sorts of games are interesting, but I can't really say anything about winning or losing. If I win, I was lucky. If I lose, it's just random chance. Other game-oriented games really leave very little to chance. It's all about skill, like Chess. To me, a game of skill is a better game because it's about skill. It's also a lot more personal. If I lose, I wasn't skillful enough. If I win, I can gloat. Or not. Seriously, if you win a game of skill, it's because you had the necessary skill to win. Of course, RPGs can engage a player in many areas of skill.

RPGs usually have a mix of chance and skill, providing something for everyone. Here is where GNS has a problem with Gamism: The most popular Gamist rpgs start the PC out as a weakling and the player must build him into a demigod over time. The player must be careful not to get into too great a challenge. Barring that, either casualties result or the GM might somewhat molly-coddle the PCs to ensure their survival through the early part of the game. There is a fine line which players and GM must walk in order to have a successful game session.

Furthermore, chance often plays a large part in the character's success or failure with the possibility for what Ron calls the "Whiff Factor." This is pretty common when success and effect are determined separately. The player rolls dice to hit the enemy and rolls separate dice for damage. The player could roll beautifully, getting a big critical; but the damage dice could betray him and his character still barely scratches his foe. By the same token, even the most powerful hero can get a critical miss and fumble his weapon. All this dulls the pleasure of doing well at the game of chance and minimizes the effect of rewards for effective play. If you ask me, it's a problem at the design level.

In any event, all this has some impact on the local view of Gamism, but then Brian's been standing there from day one saying he doesn't like our definition because it doesn't match his definition. Furthermore, he claims that our version makes his Gamist game (Age of Heroes) into a Simulationist game. Is this true?

I think Brian has tried to build a game that's very realistic (which is a hallmark of Simulationism centered on the World pole), but realism is one of those functions like exploration. You can have it in any game. It's that intangible quality that allows the player to preserve suspension of disbelief and accept what's going on in the game, regardless of how fantastical it may be. Brian has built a very heavy game, but weight does not determine its GNS orientation. Brian has built a game which allows the player to demonstrate his skill as a tactician.

Now, what Brian has written may well appeal to some Simulationist players, but if his intent is to make the players compete and fight to win (as opposed to playing the game as a science experiment to see what happens based on the character's actions), and that is effectively expressed in the rules, then it's still very much a Gamist game. If Brian has been successful in his design work, it will be a game more like Chess than like Roulette.

I can't honestly comment on Brian's success or failure. My tolerance for big, complicated game systems withered and died a long, long time ago. These days, even most of the light commercial systems are much too heavy for my taste, and I certainly don't play anything that requires the use of a calculator. I also doubt that I'll ever have anything to do with the much-advertised 3E. Frankly, I spent all of ten minutes looking at the PHB. My eyes glazed over and a haze filled my brain. I returned the book to its owner, and if I never see it again, it'll be too soon. Perhaps it's actually the Necronomicon... But any of those games are just fine by me when presented as a CRPG. I bet Brian;s game would make a fine computer game, too.

Anyway, to wrap this up, I think it's good to talk about Gamism, and I hope more people will offer their thoughts on the topic in time to come.

Logan

Hello,

Actually Brian's explination goes a LONG LONG way towards understading 'gamism'. And I think I agree with his definition because it completely fits with the odd things that my primarily gamist player has been saying to me when I tell him that I'm really getting into Narrativism.

Let's see if I get this straight.

Brian says Gamism is about skill of which being a good tactician is just one.

But say, being a good diplomat might be another skill. So there might very well be an element in the game where there are some heavy political negotiations going on. The whole event might pass without a single die roll but yet there is an objective measure of success relative to the goals. In this encounter the player with good diplomatic skills would get to demonstrate his talents.

This would go a LONG way to explain why when people are first exposed to the GNS model the Simulationists tend to become facinated with Narrativism and Gamists tend to shy away from the model as whole. This is a trend I've noticed.

A lot of Simulationists fall into that catagory we were vaguely calling 'Dramatists'. They're players who WANT a story and so do the traditional GM creates a story and then the players run through it. These player's (like me) sometimes end up feeling like their games are very hollow. They want something MORE but they don't know what and they don't know how to get it. So, when they encounter Narrativism they get excited. They see a doorway to achieving the effect they were orignally trying to achieve with heavy handed railroaded plotlines. This obviously doesn't apply to ALL simulationists but quite a lot, I imagine.

HOWEVER, a gamist who thinks in terms of SKILL and not in terms of STYLE sees Narrativism not as a style or goal but as just another skill. To a gamist a Narrativist is just that player who's really good at understanding character relationships and motivations. So when a gamist looks at a Narrativistic game they see a game that's entirely unbalanced in terms of SKILL. They get bored because only ONE skill is being used. Where do the tacticians, the diplomats, the politicians, and the puzzle solvers fit into the Narrativist game? Again this obviously doesn't apply to ALL gamists but I imagine that it's a pretty common reaction.

Jesse

Ok, a two parter.

First. An aspect of this discussion that I'd like to see incorporated into the FAQ. Alot of times its been mentioned that Gamism and Simulationism have a lot in common on the game mechanics / resolution level. But I think this thread (and Brians comments in particular) highlight what I see as the biggest differentiator between Gamism and Simulationism (though I still hate the way that word is used in these models).

When it comes down to skill, a Simulationist will be more concerned with the skill of his CHARACTER. A Gamist will be more concerned with the skill of the PLAYER (i.e. his own skill).

Consider the above example of a diplomatic opportunity. If my character has a very high level in Diplomacy, Persuasion, and Ettiquette skills, than as a Simulationist, I'd expect the outcome of the event to reflect that...even if I myself am a stammering stuttering fool. If another player's character was a thug of no social ability whatsoever, yet the player was a silver tongued smoothie, as a Simulationist I'd be rather upset if that made him more effective a diplomat.

As a Gamist, however, I'm much more interested in pursuing my own skills as a player. I'd much rather win the diplomatic encounter myself than just by random dice for a skill. Alternatively, I might deem it an equal challenge to my skill to determine ways of earning multiple modifiers thereby effecting my die roll favorably...but either way its my skill as a player (either my own ability to talk well, or my own ability to manipulate game modifiers)thats important.

The similarities between the two I think are more incidental than actual. Sure both types of players might be comfortable with a rules heavy game with lots of modifiers and factors, but the motivation is different. A simulationist wants the modifiers to account for how "this thing" is really different from "that thing" in an accurate manner. The gamist wants the modifiers because they are the tools he uses to compete with (i.e. knowing to do x, y, and z because then he'll get a +5 to the roll).

-------------

Ok Part II.

One of my underlying discomforts with GNS has been the way (to varying degrees depending on time and person) each node is semi-exclusive. By this I mean the multiple threads to the nature of at some point you'll have to make a choice in the game that demonstrates where your gaming priority is (the oft used "sniper test" for instance). I've always prefered a "well that depends" approach, and Brian's post above has really articulated that well for me.

At certain points in the game, what Brian calls Resolution Points, I might be firmly located at one apex, while at other points in the game (Support Structures) I might just as firmly be located at a different apex.

I'm pretty sure someone (Gordon IIRC) tried to make this point in a previous thread but it got somewhat passed over. But it seems to me to make complete sense (there may even well be more than 2 distinct "points" in a typical game).

I have no trouble at all visualizing a game that during the support structure proceeds in an entirely Narrativist fashion complete with Directoral power and all the trimmings. But during another part of that same evening in that same game the action shifts to breaking out the minis on the hex map and wargaming out a major combat scene in full gaming glory. (the reason I don't have trouble visualizing this is because this is precisely how we played our last Orkworld campaign, complete with Warhammer terrain and buildings to game out the final goblin assault on the Raven Lodge).

Actually, what Brian seems to be saying is something I've always believe but was never able to articulate very well. People are not "blank" They tend to side from one mode of play to another depending on the situation as it suits them.

This puts a different spin on the model, any model, in general.

In our case, Gamism is about player skill.
Simulationism is about character skill.
Narativism is about story. (usually using both player and character skill to craft an interesting story)

In any case these are not mutually exclusive items although focus on one or another is possible. But the focus can shift.

Here's the thing, Brian. Near as I can tell, you don't really like anything that's posted about 3-folds in general and Gamism in particular. In all the posts I've seen you make, I don't ever recall you saying, "Yes, I agree with that." You don't like rgfa Gamist definitions, you don't like our definitions. But some people *do* like rgfa definitions and some people *do* like our definitions. I've looked at your comments, and I think you make some good points, but you're off the mark in a few places, too. So here's the deal: I think we've reached a pretty good accord with the Simulationists. Let's see if we can do the same with the Gamists, including you. If it's just a matter of how we treat some key words, we can work on that.

Let's address the specific games you mentioned. AoH: It's your game. You say GNS makes it Simulationist. If you haven't done anything in your presentation to make it a more Gamist game, then it may well come across as a very heavy simulation of the game world. If you have intentions for how your game should be played and you don't express those intentions in your rules, then you really can't complain when people don't play it as intended or when people don't get your meaning.

GURPS: It has been discussed in detail that GURPS has very strong Gamist influence in its design. This is expressed most strongly through character creation and its point-counting system. As Mike Holmes has noted, if you leave the point-counting system in, it's more Gamist than anything. Take that out and let people design the characters they want to play, you get a fairly pure Simulationist RPG - and character generation is quick, too.

I think all that point-counting and balance stuff is an outgrowth of the designer's desire to prevent rampant munchkinism. Rather than trust GMs and players to reach a reasonable accord about character capabilities in the group's social contract, the designer imposes heavy-handed point-based character generation rules that enforce game balance and fairness for all. The unfortunate side-effect is that sufficiently determined players can always find loopholes and exploit them. This is most common with what we call Gamist games, but I think the mentality affects all styles of game to some extent.

You may not agree, but for the most part, people play games (even some RPGs) to win. People like winning. I don't know why you're so dead-set against this simple idea, but wishing it away won't make it go away. Game designers who tap into this primal urge often produce games that people like to play.

Challenge is a term open to more interpretation. There are many sorts of challenge, and we apply it to Gamist endeavors; but we're talking about a particular sort of challenge. Maybe in that respect the definition is too limited and would benefit from more discussion.

People also like to compete, especially in the US. I don't know if it's healthy or even especially desirable, but it's there and game designers tap into it because it sells.

Maybe some of these terms are also underlying concepts in all rpgs in the same way that "exploration" is an underlying theme in all rpgs. The difference is these other terms like "winning" and "challenge" usually map more strongly to Gamism than to Simulationism or Narrativism. "Challenge" especially applies to all roleplaying in different ways.

"Fairness" is another matter. What constitutes "fairness" varies from player to player and group to group. Regarding your wife's selection of ship in playing tactical games (from notes on your website), a few possibilities come to mind.

-She really doesn't care if she wins or loses. She really just wants to see how well she can make her relatively weaker ship perform, which is a more simulation-oriented goal.

-She does want to win, and feels that her choice better supports her tactics.

-She is so incredibly superior in her tactics that taking a weaker ship is a valid handicap.

I don't know you or your wife, so I can only list some possibilities. My point is, she probably thinks the arrangement is fair and will be satisfied with the outcome, which is more important than some academic definitions.

Simulationism is not just representation of a world. It's a representation of the world and the characters in the world. That is, there is a World-Character axis. Historically, most of the Simulationist games of the 80's centered strongly on the World pole of the axis. LARP-styled roleplaying went the other way and centered on the Character pole. In Simulationism more than in the other forms, the weight of the rules and the approach to representing the game world has a strong impact on the player's attitude toward and portrayal of his character.

That'll do for now.
Logan

I don't know about all that, Logan.

I actually like the way Brian described gamist as player skill vs the simulationist character skill. It shows the mindset a little better, I think, of the gamist player. They see the game in question as a challenge or contest with certain resources at the player's disposal, the most important probably being the character they control.

The idea of winning can vary so widely in rpgs that to include it in the definition is problematic.

What does it mean to win an RPG? SOme games may have a clearly defined goal, but many do not and leave it to the players to decide, if at all.

What does it really mean to win any game?

Interesting question. I found an interesting answer in the humorous Pong FAQ, and this particular part was, I believe, taken from somewhere else. It goes like this:

Q:What does the king on the Chess board fear the most?
A:Checkmating the opposing king.

Why is this? Because so long as the game is in play, he is the master of the realm, the conquering hero driving his opponent beneath his heal. Once the game is won, he's no longer the king of the checkered world. He reverts back to what he always was: a playing piece on a game board. He's them placed back in the box with all of the other piece until the next game is played.

Winning usually means a mutual goal of some sort that once it's achieved by a player, the game ends. This is how it is for many games.

RPGs do not have such a goal that ends the game so it is ongoing and can effectively go on forever. This is a lengthy redefinition of "winning" that I do not think the FAQ is aided by this concept's inclusion.

Maybe as:

Gamist is about Player's skill in playing the game. The focus is on performing well, which may include, but not restricted to a traditional sense of "winning the game."

or something similar.

Actually, thinking about it I'm begining to wonder if using the terms at all helps the model. There have been many arguements over the terms themselves, mostly due to some hot-blooded monkey who hasn't read the FAQ thoroughly geting indignant about being labeled "gamist" or whatever.

We can distill the definitions down to a simple sentence, and the sentince will grate on people much less than the term which make them feel pidgeon-holed.

Consider:

Hey, Bob, you're a gamist.
(irritated)What do you mean "gamist?"

versus

Hey, Bob, you tend to focus on player skill when playing the game.
(not anywhere near irritated)Well, duh. It's fun.

Or something like that.

Beside, IIUC the model is about focus rather than exclusivity, isn't it? It's not like it's the narrativist vs the simulationist and the both of them are against the gamist.

It's more like the scene cut out of Pulp Fiction about Elvis people and Beatles people. Elvis people can like The Beatles and Beatles people can like Elvis but at some point you have to choose and that's what you are.

It's more like that.

RPGs do not have such a goal that ends the game so it is ongoing and can effectively go on forever. This is a lengthy redefinition of "winning" that I do not think the FAQ is aided by this concept's inclusion.

Hi, Jim.

What you say is true, but it still doesn't impress on me that "winning" is a necessary part of the Gamist arm of it. "Performing well" is more accurate IMO.

"Winning" has a connotation of finality which is not necessarily in RPGs.

You can "win" in pinball if you get the Hi-Score.

"Winning" is not just the opposite of losing. Just because you've managed to keep the play from going down the chute in pinball does not mean you've "won" in any way unless you've hit some targets and scored some points. It's not important to keep the ball in play if you do not play well. In which case, it boils down to player's skill again. Can you get the ball to go up that tricky ramp and tripple you score? Can you handle the multiball phase and keep all three balls in play and still manage to get the trickier shots or just barely keep them going long enough, hoping you acquire some amount of points while juggling the three balls? Or are you so unskilled that in trying to keep three balls in play you actually manage to lose all three?

Gamist is about player skill and performing well in the game using that skill.

The object may not necessarily be to actually win, either so much as to show or otherwise use this skill. Such as in Brian's example of teaching another player Chess. The more skilled player could probably very easily win against the lesser skilled player, but his goal is to teach his skill to the other. Therefore, winning is not always a priority in gamist game play or may be usurped by other concerns. Which is why I believe that the common element, the focus element is player skill and how it is applied.

Jim accurately described what I'm getting at when talking about winning and victory conditions in rpgs. Even what Jack said about using skill to perform well in the game is a measure of victory. It's not that winning is the primary goal. It's that winning or achieving a degree of victory often accompanies playing well, and people do like to win.

Pinball is probably a pretty good point of comparison for some roleplaying because "winning" is a bit more complicated than just staying in the game. Skill always helps, but sometimes it's luck, too. You can have the best-laid plans, but if the dice betray you, it's not going to work. OTOH, a mediocre plan may work out okay if the dice are in agreement.

In pinball, it's similar. As Jack pointed out, mere survival isn't enough. You do have to score points. It helps if you know how and when to bump the table, which portion of the flippers result in certain trajectories for the ball, etc. But even knowing all that and having the skill to put it in play, the results are uncertain. A fortunate hit may send the ball right up the ramp and get you that triple bonus or an extra play, but an unfortunate bounce off a bumper may drop the ball straight between the flippers. Of course, in roleplaying, there are a variety of constructs to affect this uncertainty. In pinball, the ball goes where it goes.

Now, this issue of character skill... Jack, if I understand you correctly, you equate Simulationist play to skill in handling and/or portraying the character. Is this accurate?

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-08-05 20:41 ]

On 2001-08-05 20:39, Logan wrote:

Now, this issue of character skill... Jack, if I understand you correctly, you equate Simulationist play to skill in handling and/or portraying the character. Is this accurate?

On 2001-08-05 22:14, pblock wrote:
Hmm.. I'm still learning all of this as I go along, but as I understand it now, Simulationism is about representing the game world and, therefore, the characters as a part of that world.

On 2001-08-06 09:35, Logan wrote:

For now, let's talk about your original idea. You said Simulationist play is about skill with the character. Okay. What do you mean when you say that?

We need to bring this all together. Obviously none of the concepts presented here or on the RPG Theory forum exist in a vaccuum.

I can see the concepts in Ron's character currency applies, but how it applies needs to be debated.

What are some other concepts?

What we need in a cohesive essay bringing all of this together, simply a FAQ on the GNS model is not enough.

I need to dwell some more.

As far as I'm concerned, GURPS is not an example of pure Simulationist design. It sits somewhere on the edge between Gamism and Simulationism.

I agree with you on the effect of rules to enforce balance in character creation. No debate required.

I exclude no one. I merely point out that people play to win. You can deny that it happens, but it happens. It's also encouraged in many Gamist game designs, including some games that people actually pay money to play. The same is true for fairness, the idea of fair challenges, and some degree of competition. Of course, as is pointed out over and over again 'til we all want to throw up, there are many variations and possibilities.

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-08-06 15:18 ]

>Of course some people like the current definition of
>Gamist, it allows them to look down on them as lesser
>creatures driven only by the need to WIN no matter
>what. It's a feel good definition for the other
>corners.

Not to pick on Brian (who's got great things to say about Gamism, as far as I'm concerned), but . . . NO ONE IS PICKING ON PLAYING STYLES HERE! I for one am tired of fighting this battle, of having the issue raised again and again. Historically, in other places, in other debates, it might be true that saying "gamism is about winning" is a way to disparage those who practice it. I've certainly seen some of that in places like rpg.net.

But it doesn't happen here. REALLY. If someone says "gamism is about winning", it's because they think that's a good model. That's all. I have NEVER seen a playing style "looked down" upon here at the Forge - when someone comes close, someone else warns them off.

Can we set all that aside, please? If there's a disagreement about a definition, it doesn't have to be about "you're elitist" or "you're insulting my play style". It's just a disagreement - maybe it can be worked out, maybe not.

There are no "lesser creatures" here.

Gordon C. Landis

Jack,

The latest version of the faq takes the first step toward addressing both RPG theory and GNS. It'll probably come out as 2 docs, but you're on the right track. The only thing I don't know is when you'll get to see it. That's up to Ron.

I agree that Simulationism should be at least 2 terms, maybe not for the same reasons Brian suggests.

I think these models are a pretty good effort, but on reflection, I think it would have been better if GNS had not been born from the rgfa model. I suppose it would have been one thing if the rgfa discussion had completely ended, but it didn't. It's still going on, and I think the built-in assumptions about what the terms mean are (and probably always were) a problem.

I don't have anything else to say about any of this until the next draft is posted. Even then, I think it'd work a whole lot better if you engaged Ron directly in these discussions.

Logan

I suppose, Logan. But I still think that including "winning" in the definition excludes some playing styles that would otherwise fit neatly in the gamist category.

Like the golfer working on his swing on the driving range. I suppose you could say that he "wins" if he manages to hit the ball further but I think any form of winning is a non-issue to the golfer at that time. His real goal is to improve his skill. Increasing skill could be seen as a "winning" condition as well, I suppose, but it seem more natural to simply see this as being about the player's skill and worry less about winning being a game goal.

This is also true in Brian's example of the chess player in teacher mode. In this case, winning the game proper is also a non-issue. I suppose you could see it as the teachers winning condition is to teach the rules to the other player and it's the student's goal to learn the game. But it is about the skill of the players again. One trying to pass on his knowledge of the game, the other trying to learn it.

Winning is a given and most games with such a concrete goal state them directly. People do like to win, as you say. This can be taken as a given to the point that we need not include in in the definition of gamist IMO.

Besides, in the role-playing context, many people immediately think of the "munchkin" style of playing which is usually defined as winning at all costs including the other players' enjoyment of the game. Such may be true of munchkins but is not true of gamist players.

If taking winning as a given in the definition eliminates this particular misunderstanding of the model, I think it will be benefical.

I suppose it would have been better if GNS had not come from the rgfa model. The use of similar terms causes much confusion. I also believe the terms themselves cause confusion, but that may just be me.

On 2001-08-07 09:18, Brian Gleichman wrote:
Perhaps not intentionally (and I only put the perhaps in because I can't read people's minds). But as a matter of result, defining Gamism as nothing but the desire to win is doing exactly that.

On 2001-08-07 11:26, Brian Gleichman wrote:
Since my definition includes the total sum of your concept of gamism and far more besides, you’re a minority trying to enforce a one true view on people who don't share it.

Let's say Gamism is not about winning. Banish that thought. It's about skill. Skill, skill, skill. Nothing but skill. It's about demonstrating skill, gaining skill, and improving skill. Fine.

Then why does a person want skill?

Look at Chess. People learn to play, and they want to improve. Why do they want to improve? Skilled players want skilled opponents. Why do they want skilled opponents? Why would anyone want to play against Big Blue?

Look at golf. Why does a golfer want to learn to hit a hole-in-1?

Look at RPGs. Why do players want to reach the point where their characters can slay dragons?

Some of you say it's not about winning. Fine. I believe you. But tell me. If it's not about winning, meeting victory conditions, gaining rewards, or finding out how well you can do (which is to say, finding out how close you are to winning), then why bother? What's the point? Why do it at all?

What do you say? Is it for the same reason people climb mountains? People climb mountains, because they get the idea that they can do it, that they can beat the mountain and demonstrate their prowess by reaching the mountain's peak.

That can't be right. I must be mistaken, because, you know what? Those people who climb mountains meet their own victory conditions. They do it by climbing the mountain and returning to tell the tale. They climb to overcome the challenge, to beat the mountain, to win. If their skill is not great enough, they either get to try again, they get injured, or they die. And if the mountain is too easy, many of them go find a bigger, more dangerous mountain for next time. That entails winning and losing, so that must be wrong. Someone please tell me the right answer.

I'll agree with you, but someone needs to tell me, how should I write it up? What role does winning play? Where does it fit in the model? Since winning is obviously not the answer, why do players, especially Gamist players, want to have and improve their skills as players? Be convincing, because your well-reasoned answers might become part of the faq.

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-08-07 14:21 ]

On 2001-08-07 16:44, Brian Gleichman wrote:
For you see, the term WIN is interpreted by the reader instantly and in his own view. And we get the common view of D&D slash and hacker as the Gamists.

On 2001-08-07 20:16, Brian Gleichman wrote:
Except that in my games, winning is other things.

Having a character die after running him for 20 years.

Failing to save a friend in the middle of a battle.

Losing a major fight that causes a war to continue for another year in game time.

Finding out that small and fast just isn't good enough sometimes.

Brian--

You said:

Except that in my games, winning is other things.

This were applications of skill and the results thereof. And you would have me believe that they are covered under the english word "Winning"?

On 2001-08-07 21:18, Clinton R Nixon wrote:
People - do not take Brian's last post as an example of how to act on the Forge. It's unacceptable, as we all - including Brian - know.