Yes, I know I confessed my misunderstanding of the Model just now. But I think I have a good grasp on Gamism, and since its natural place and appeal seem to be a great unsolved mystery of these fora, I thought I would put in my 2¢

Gamism often gets some subtle discrimination on these fora. Perhaps for good reason -- one could certainly argue that most RPGs are very well tuned for Gamist play, and thus Gamists need no Indie movement to support their mode of play. There is no reason to discuss the hell out of gamism if it isn't in most of our play goals -- it's just not as applicable to day-to-day play. I have some ideas about how Gamism might fit into the big picture, and wondered about your thoughts.

A moment for definitions: My impression from the essays on the Forge is that Gamism is playing role-playing games as, well, games, where there is competition to win. Extreme Gamist games are things like 18xx, Go, or Civilization, which are not actually RPGs at all. I think that such a comparison is pretty important to the whole point, and if you disagree with it you will likely disagree with the rest of this essay.
Further definitions: The "gamism" I describe below is what I see as "functional, non-griefing" Gamism. It is, essentially, "Gentleman Gamism." There is also a form of Gamism which is very socially unpleasant and involves dominating the other players at an out of game level. I am not directly addressing this form in this essay and I will furthermore refer to it explicitly as "Cad Gamism." I think that all the modes have "Cad" forms, but that is a different essay.
The most major misconception about Gamists is that they "want to win." My impression from hanging out with Gamist-type players, and playing is such a style on occasion, is that Gamists are, by and large, more interested in a "good game" than a "winning game." A "good game" here is challenging, close, and solved by cleverness or luck. Of course, the best way to have such a "good game" is play to win while you are playing, but handicapping yourself in assorted ways also makes the game more fun.
An anecdote: When I was in High School, I used to play lots of Street Fighter II with my friends, and we got to the point where it played more like a strategy game than an action game. One fellow -- who was head and shoulders above the rest of us -- got very bored after beating us all constantly with major damage handicaps. So he started playing with his feet. And then he got to the point where he could STILL beat us. I think that understanding this behavior is key to understanding Gamism.
There is a rather strange conception about "good role-playing" which we have all had at some time -- "Combat ineffective characters are good role-playing." Or, in other words: "You shouldn't minimax." This idea, I think, is actually a Gamist idea, although one could also argue it emerges from bad Sim design. A really "good" Gamist gamer doesn't need a power-character to survive the game -- he can make it on his own wits, luck, and vim.
This is why Go uses handicaps.
So, I hope I have established that Gamists don't "want to win" as such.

Further, there is the question of why Gamists don't just play Diablo or similar games. The thing is that, in video games, the system has infinite power (or credibility, or authority) and only allows a narrow type of action. The best Gamist players that I have played with always require things beyond the system to play, and can do things like defeat entire armies with barrels, wax, rotten fish, and twine. There is an enormous satisfaction to defeating a challenge, not through the game's limited system, but through "your own" accomplishment. If the system causes the occasional death and failure, this is not bad. You don't need to worry about "setting the plot back." A loss just makes the victory more sweet.

So... Gamists are people who like the use the cleverness of their mind to defeat or fail against difficult challenges from either modules or their friend's minds.
And what could be wrong about that?
A gentleman Gamist has a certain feel for good sportsmanship, nobility, challenge, and fair play that few other gamers keep as well. They are very cool in that regard. And they, too, get something out of RPGs that computer games just don't replicate.

Does this work for anyone as a description of the mode, methods, and motivations of Gamist play?


Further, and slightly separate from the above, I'd like to talk about using "Gamist" power grabbing techniques (minmaxing, and similar "system abuse") for Sim or Narr goals. Given that most GMs are unwilling to relinquish much director power, players often use minimaxing to attain narrative control and sculpt the game. An example is the most fruitful thing I can think of:
A D&D 2nd game I was adjunct to featured the most minimaxed character I have ever seen. He was an Elven wizard of ancient years, giving him a modified intelligence of 20. He then took a kit modification that allowed him skill bonuses and bonus skills based on his age alone. In a "roll a 20-sided dice and get under" system, he had skills ranked upwards of 27. MANY skills. He completely dominated the game from day one. If there was a conflict, there was no doubt that Glen had some clever method of defeating it using his engineering, spell theory, or alchemy. It got even worse when he was 12th level, and had decent spell access.
What did the player do with this character? He shaped the game into a story about ethics and morality of those that were immortal, questioning the ethics of the elves that left the world for paradise and the uses of evil for the greater good. That campaign was amazingly touching, and largely because of his influence on it.
I think that this is worth commenting on. Power is obtained through whatever means are available -- it is a question of what the player does with it that is important. Minimaxing -- good.

yrs--
--Ben

Awesome and clear. For what it's worth, you just earned a reference in the about-to-be finished new Gamism essay.

Best,
Ron

Ben's wonderful post made something very clear to me, specifically this remark:

The best Gamist players that I have played with always require things beyond the system to play, and can do things like defeat entire armies with barrels, wax, rotten fish, and twine. There is an enormous satisfaction to defeating a challenge, not through the game's limited system, but through "your own" accomplishment. If the system causes the occasional death and failure, this is not bad. You don't need to worry about "setting the plot back." A loss just makes the victory more sweet.

You have some very good points here, Ben. Yes, I think you've got Gamism by the throat.

Ben Lehman wrote: Gamism often gets some subtle discrimination on these fora. Perhaps for good reason -- one could certainly argue that most RPGs are very well tuned for Gamist play, and thus Gamists need no Indie movement to support their mode of play. There is no reason to discuss the hell out of gamism if it isn't in most of our play goals -- it's just not as applicable to day-to-day play. I have some ideas about how Gamism might fit into the big picture, and wondered about your thoughts.

Extreme Gamist games are things like 18xx, Go, or Civilization, which are not actually RPGs at all. I think that such a comparison is pretty important to the whole point, and if you disagree with it you will likely disagree with the rest of this essay.

Further definitions: The "gamism" I describe below is what I see as "functional, non-griefing" Gamism. It is, essentially, "Gentleman Gamism." There is also a form of Gamism which is very socially unpleasant and involves dominating the other players at an out of game level. I am not directly addressing this form in this essay and I will furthermore refer to it explicitly as "Cad Gamism." I think that all the modes have "Cad" forms, but that is a different essay.

The most major misconception about Gamists is that they "want to win."

My impression from hanging out with Gamist-type players, and playing is such a style on occasion, is that Gamists are, by and large, more interested in a "good game" than a "winning game." A "good game" here is challenging, close, and solved by cleverness or luck.

Of course, the best way to have such a "good game" is play to win while you are playing, but handicapping yourself in assorted ways also makes the game more fun.

Further, there is the question of why Gamists don't just play Diablo or similar games. The thing is that, in video games, the system has infinite power (or credibility, or authority) and only allows a narrow type of action. The best Gamist players that I have played with always require things beyond the system to play, and can do things like defeat entire armies with barrels, wax, rotten fish, and twine. There is an enormous satisfaction to defeating a challenge, not through the game's limited system, but through "your own" accomplishment.

If the system causes the occasional death and failure, this is not bad. You don't need to worry about "setting the plot back." A loss just makes the victory more sweet.

So... Gamists are people who like the use the cleverness of their mind to defeat or fail against difficult challenges from either modules or their friend's minds.
And what could be wrong about that?

Does this work for anyone as a description of the mode, methods, and motivations of Gamist play?

Further, and slightly separate from the above, I'd like to talk about using "Gamist" power grabbing techniques (minmaxing, and similar "system abuse") for Sim or Narr goals.