Within the constellation of arguments in favor of the GNS model, the contrast between simulationism and gamism comes to mind as a problematic example that highlights the problem with the GNS model overall: it tries to sidestep the question 'what is a game?'.

In the strict context of role playing games, gamism is contrasted with simulationism inasmuch as gamism uses point systems in which higher points translate roughly into greater success. The experience of success resembles or at least owes a lot to the same experience in other games where having a high number of points is tantamount to winning.

The argument is made that gamism, because it features point systems and because these point systems imply or allow for a competition between players, amounts to a different emphasis than that of simulationism, for example.

This posting is not to question the merits of one category versus another in terms of their practical value. In other words, it is not about the effectiveness of gamism in encompassing its proposed phenomena or any potential overlap between gamism and simulationism. Instead, it is about how the proposed differences between gamism and simulationism collapse when seen outside the historically contingent pantheon of existing role playing games.

The definitions in this GNS model amount to a taxonomy. It begins with a contigent set of existing games and attempts to create definitions intended to fit those existing games. The definitions, while sophisticated, inevitably carry assumptions that seem absurd outside of context.

Take gamism. Gamism's chief trait is that it features cumulative point systems that are related to character power and by extension character success. But only by extension. Everyone knows that as a character grows stronger or more powerful, the challenges he typically encounters also increase. So how then does greater power equal greater success? If the challenges rise to meet character ability and stand in equal relation to
it, a player's ability to 'win' under the gamism model should increase instead of remaining constant. Game sessions in the gamist style should grow shorter and shorter proportional to character progress along their power/success vector.

In actual fact, success does not occur and the scale of ever-growing power is a fiction of limitlessness, a device that allows for fanciful progress in orders of magnitude that don't really refer to anything other than the cooler and cooler things your character can do. At the level of the 'game' at which gamist games distinguish themselves, it is of fundamentally no importance that such scales exist. This is especially so given that even though a player is said to play to 'win' in this argument, winning is not really possible or a definitive concluding moment in the game.

So we have a definition that, while sophisticated, does not hold up on its own. What about as a contrasting trait -- a negative indicator that has value as a marker of what other styles lack?

The other support for the argument is that gamism is distinguished by what simulationism, for example, lacks. Mainly, the kind of increasing points or measurement system loosely aligned with character progress. A gamist approach is what it is to the extent that simulation does not use or put the same emphasis on points/strategy features. Simulationism is gamism without the game element and mechanics meant to simulate reality.

The problem with this concept appears when we take it out of context. Take the old Atari game Space Invaders. Space Invaders is strictly speaking 'gamist' according to a slightly revised definition based on what we mentioned above. It involves the accumulation of points that more or less denote success to the player. It has increasing difficulty while player ability stays constant. (This is not in direct parallel with role playing gamism. In role playing, if anything, there is a better AI -- the DM -- who tailors the difficulty to the player.) Players can compete with another by measuring their relative success. Game time involves calculated improvements designed to gain access to victory conditions. There may be an end to Space Invaders or no end whatsoever. In either case, it is punctuated by 'levels' or discrete intervals defined by difficulty.

Compared to other games, Space Invaders is actually a good example of what fits the 'gamism' definitions proposed. Most board games, for instance, have victory conditions in which the game concludes. Space Invaders goes on and on, and could do so either without end or with an end that is so prohibitively far out of reach that in either case the experience of the game in unchanged. But imagine what the game would be like if the points system were removed altogether. When you blow up an alien, no points are rewarded. Levels still exist, and difficulty may change, but the idea of success measured in points, the related competition, and illusion of victory all disappear. What you have left is a game, according to the definitions, that fits neatly within the simulationism category.

Preposterous? Not at all. The fact that Space Invaders was never seriously conceived as a way to simulate a real space invasion is not relevant. I could package the game tomorrow and declare that it is. The formal quality of our lobotomized version stays the same. In fact, it probably would model the reality of a space invasion just as well as other simulationist role playing games could.

The point here is that while the taxonomical system provided by the GNS model may satisfy some, even be unsurpassed to date, it is limited by the fact that it tries to incorporate an amalgam of historical abortions and half-concepts into an attempt to provide an all-encompassing definition for role playing. The definition for gamism as having to do with the 'meta-game' of strategy, points, and so on is circular and nonsensical. A game is a meta-game? What else is a game if not the so-called 'meta' aspects? This kind of definition is the result of trying to adhere to a model in which a 'role playing game' is subdivided into three categories in which one of them is an actual game. Some may object that it is just 'role playing' and not a game, but as I have said elsewhere, while you can escape the noun you cannot escape the verb: it is something you play.

The GNS model must be rectified through reference to the concept of 'game', the result of which being that many games must surely be discarded.

Hello, and welcome to the Forge!

Now, please understand I'm not saying this to be rude, or standoffish, or any such. I'm just utterly, utterly mystified at your conclusions, and so I have to ask: You have read the GNS articles, right?

If you haven't, start with System Does Matter and then proceed to GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory.

If you have read the articles (the thoughtfulness and clarity of your post seems to indicate you've put a lot of thought into this matter, which would lead me to believe you've taken the time to do the reading), I'm curious how you reached your conclusions. Where in the text of the articles does it say that Gamism is based on the concept of points, for example? And where does it say that Simulationism is meant to simulate reality?

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just feel that you may be operating on a few misconceptions.

Hi Heinriech,

I just reread Ron's essay "GNS and other matters" and found that points played only a small role in his discussion of gamist decions. Here's a link to the relevant page:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/

You'll note that, of six examples, only one mentions points. I don't think it's fair to criticize for only measuring in points.

Actually, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the GNS theory. I don't think it's an attempt to define what a role-playing game is, only to make some distinctions. It is descriptive, not defnitive. To date, I've found this approach more useful for game design.

I'd ask for a few points of clarification here.

The problem with this concept appears when we take it out of context.

Compared to other games, Space Invaders is actually a good example of what fits the 'gamism' definitions proposed. Most board games, for instance, have victory conditions in which the game concludes. Space Invaders goes on and on, and could do so either without end or with an end that is so prohibitively far out of reach that in either case the experience of the game [is] unchanged.

The fact that Space Invaders was never seriously conceived as a way to simulate a real space invasion is not relevant.

The point here is that while the taxonomical system provided by the GNS model may satisfy some, even be unsurpassed to date, it is limited by the fact that it tries to incorporate an amalgam of historical abortions and half-concepts into an attempt to provide an all-encompassing definition for role playing.

The definition for gamism as having to do with the 'meta-game' of strategy, points, and so on is circular and nonsensical. A game is a meta-game? What else is a game if not the so-called 'meta' aspects?

This kind of definition is the result of trying to adhere to a model in which a 'role playing game' is subdivided into three categories in which one of them is an actual game.

Some may object that it is just 'role playing' and not a game, but as I have said elsewhere, while you can escape the noun you cannot escape the verb: it is something you play.

Welcome to the Forge, Heinrich. I hope you will stay with us, as I think you will probably contribute something here, and gain something from it as well.

But I'm afraid your attack on GNS misses the mark significantly.

Gamism is not about point systems. Point systems may be indicative of gamist priorities, and they may encourage them, but there is no such singular correlation. Point systems may be designed to encourage simulationism--in one game I, as a player, devised a points-based rating system which was built solely on whether other characters did things my character would like or dislike, and to what degree, so that I would have an objective (simulationist) basis to determine how my character felt about each character and how he would respond to that character. (This was done in part because there were tensions and personality conflicts between players, and my simulationist side thought it would be both inappropriate and unfair for my character to treat other characters better or worse out of my annoyance at or appreciation of the players.) Point systems have been devised which encourage narrativist priorities. At the same time, strongly gamist games exist in which there are no points, no advancement, no character improvement whatsoever--it's still about beating the game, and thus very gamist.

Gamism's chief trait has nothing to do with points. It has to do with competitive spirit, trying to do your best in the sense of overcoming some obstacle or proving your ability. Players test themselves against the game or against each other, and that's gamist.

Simulationism, meanwhile, is not "gamism without the game element". It is about creating a shared reality and exploring it, without some agenda beyond that exploration. Your example of Space Invaders as a simulationist game doesn't hold, because at no point (even without the points system) does it become exploring the world in which the aliens are invading. It is still about how long can you last against the aliens, even without the convenient measure of points.

I must ask whether you even read the articles, as opposed to cobbling together an understanding from forum posts.

Further, it is not always the case that phrases mean what is meant by the sum of the terms. A "Role Playing Game" is a particular kind of entity which is not necessarily defined or limited by the individual words included. This, ultimately, is the failure of Gary Gygax' argument in What's In a Name (at Gaming Outpost) that Computer Role Playing Games are not Role Playing Games because you're not playing a role. "French Fries" are not French, and the "English Horn" is not English. "The Dating Game" is not a game by your definition, I suspect (or is it?). As to the verb, is it "Roleplaying", "Role-playing" or merely "Playing", with "Role" as an adverb? You don't define concepts by deconstruction of terminology; it leads nowhere. Kittens and puppies are playful; they play. Children play in similar ways. None of them are out to win anything. You're narrowly defining "play" and "game" and then arguing that anything which doesn't fit your narrow definitions (narrower, certainly, than those found at Dictionary.com--we've been over this ground before) can't be a "Role Playing Game" because it doesn't involve "Play" by your definition or "Game" by your definition. So what is an American? Should that be strictly limited to refer to people whose ancestors lived here for many generations, and how many generations are necessary? Do they have to be citizens of the United States, or do Canadians count? Words mean different things in different contexts; before you use the meaning of a word as part of an argument, you have to determine that those involved in the discussion are willing to accept your definitions, or better, you have to use theirs.

I want to thank you for posting this, really. I just wrote a post about people who within their first month here are making their first post about why we're all wrong about everything, when it's clear they don't really know what we're saying. I hope you don't take that harshly; there are centuries of accumulated experience and thought represented on these boards, and we don't agree about everything, even about everything related to GNS--but we've put time into considering the matters, and have certainly been over the ground you present several times before.

--M. J. Young

ethan_greer wrote: Hello, and welcome to the Forge!

Now, please understand I'm not saying this to be rude, or standoffish, or any such. I'm just utterly, utterly mystified at your conclusions, and so I have to ask: You have read the GNS articles, right?

If you haven't, start with System Does Matter and then proceed to GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory.

If you have read the articles (the thoughtfulness and clarity of your post seems to indicate you've put a lot of thought into this matter, which would lead me to believe you've taken the time to do the reading), I'm curious how you reached your conclusions. Where in the text of the articles does it say that Gamism is based on the concept of points, for example? And where does it say that Simulationism is meant to simulate reality?

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just feel that you may be operating on a few misconceptions.

Alan wrote: Hi Heinriech,

I just reread Ron's essay "GNS and other matters" and found that points played only a small role in his discussion of gamist decions. Here's a link to the relevant page:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/

You'll note that, of six examples, only one mentions points. I don't think it's fair to criticize for only measuring in points.

Actually, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the GNS theory. I don't think it's an attempt to define what a role-playing game is, only to make some distinctions. It is descriptive, not defnitive. To date, I've found this approach more useful for game design.

heinrich wrote: Your second question about simulationism has to do with my problem with the concept. Think about it. You assert that exploration is the defining feature of simulationism, but on the other can't avoid the fact that exploration is so fundamental and integral to all role playing that to say simulationism favors is it is to only advance a negative definition. Simulationism 'favors' it because the other styles of games have their emphasis elsewhere. Gamism with its 'meta-game' goals and so on. I assert that simulationism is perhaps more truthfully viewed as what its name implies. The enjoyment is in the simulation, whatever the outcome. Rules and legalisms abound and themselves make up much of the fun. One tries to make it 'real' through the use and application of rules. Thus the definition is modified.

heinrich wrote: The purpose of GNS as I said in my post (see the word 'taxonomy') is descriptive and not definitive. That's the problem.

As for points, see the above. Again, are we talking about the definition of 'gamism' inside an article or two, or the definition and what it attempts to explain together? What it tries to explain, it seems to me, has at least as much prominence as the definition itself.

Trying to shift the emphasis to 'strategy' and 'winning', as you may do when you try to respond, amounts to favoring one aspect of a vague definition over another,

...but it also would mean using concepts of 'strategy' and 'winning' that as they appear in these so-called gamist games are watered down and end up being metaphorical.

The strategy part never crystallizes in the kind of clearly defined choices that you find in chess or even RISK, and the 'winning' part as I said in my post never really happens.

Here's a post that is patently absurd. If I dispute a circular definition, and thereby make reference to it, I commit the error of 'circular logic' according to this post.

Let's begin at the end:

As a general point, I think you have made a dangerous comparative move here. In order to establish the legitimacy of the critique, you would need first to establish the grounds of comparison, the points of valid agreement between categories; you could then challenge one side from within that framework. But here you have presumed, and not demonstrated, that all RPGs must be treated as members of the taxon "game," defined explicitly "out of context" of RPGs themselves.

What allows this comparison? Is it simply the noun "game"? As you say, "you can escape the noun." Thus the comparison is based on a false identity, such that I need say nothing more than that by your definition, RPGs are generally not games, with the limited exception of some pure Gamist games, and we have no further grounds for discussion.

This is a misunderstanding of Simulationism. Sim is about exploring, not about simulating anything. It's a somewhat unfortunate term, admittedly, but it's been reified by what amounts to a tradition (not only the Forge, but also rpg.net, I think).

Defined quite broadly, "meta" aspects of gaming do indeed become dominant. But a big part of Simulationism depends upon the attempt to subvert this perspective, to seek gaming that allows "dreaming" or the fantasy of gaming without the "meta" categories. To be sure, one can never escape these structures, but they can be relatively de-prioritized to such an extreme that players may refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of meta-options when presented to them. This is, however, primarily an issue of Stance, not of GNS.

Circular logic again, I'm afraid. By predetermining the meaning of the category "game," you have made your argument not "what was to be proven" but "what was presupposed." Only by accepting the absolute legitimacy of the parallel to certain other games, notably those in which victory conditions or non-failure conditions (e.g. Space Invaders) are set, can this be used to collapse other possibilities into pseudo-choices.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about parts of speech, but if I understand at all correctly, I would ask why "play" means "win." Why does the one entail the other? To be rather cliche about it, there's the old wheeze about the journey being more important than the destination. Is this simply an invalid perspective?

Gamism's chief trait has nothing to do with points. It has to do with competitive spirit, trying to do your best in the sense of overcoming some obstacle or proving your ability. Players test themselves against the game or against each other, and that's gamist.

Simulationism, meanwhile, is not "gamism without the game element". It is about creating a shared reality and exploring it, without some agenda beyond that exploration. Your example of Space Invaders as a simulationist game doesn't hold, because at no point (even without the points system) does it become exploring the world in which the aliens are invading. It is still about how long can you last against the aliens, even without the convenient measure of points.

I must ask whether you even read the articles, as opposed to cobbling together an understanding from forum posts.

Further, it is not always the case that phrases mean what is meant by the sum of the terms. A "Role Playing Game" is a particular kind of entity which is not necessarily defined or limited by the individual words included. This, ultimately, is the failure of Gary Gygax' argument in What's In a Name (at Gaming Outpost) that Computer Role Playing Games are not Role Playing Games because you're not playing a role. "French Fries" are not French, and the "English Horn" is not English. "The Dating Game" is not a game by your definition, I suspect (or is it?). As to the verb, is it "Roleplaying", "Role-playing" or merely "Playing", with "Role" as an adverb? You don't define concepts by deconstruction of terminology; it leads nowhere. Kittens and puppies are playful; they play. Children play in similar ways. None of them are out to win anything. You're narrowly defining "play" and "game" and then arguing that anything which doesn't fit your narrow definitions (narrower, certainly, than those found at Dictionary.com--we've been over this ground before) can't be a "Role Playing Game" because it doesn't involve "Play" by your definition or "Game" by your definition. So what is an American? Should that be strictly limited to refer to people whose ancestors lived here for many generations, and how many generations are necessary? Do they have to be citizens of the United States, or do Canadians count? Words mean different things in different contexts; before you use the meaning of a word as part of an argument, you have to determine that those involved in the discussion are willing to accept your definitions, or better, you have to use theirs.

I want to thank you for posting this, really. I just wrote a post about people who within their first month here are making their first post about why we're all wrong about everything, when it's clear they don't really know what we're saying. I hope you don't take that harshly; there are centuries of accumulated experience and thought represented on these boards, and we don't agree about everything, even about everything related to GNS--but we've put time into considering the matters, and have certainly been over the ground you present several times before.

heinrich wrote: What does role playing belong with in this world? Knitting? Scuba diving? Auctioneering? Maybe 'games.'

Why is it that you show up here and simply attack GNS? Why not do something positive like explaining your ideas for how to improve it? Or write up a replacement model to explain role-playing? You don't seem to have anything to contribute except animosity and contentiousness. You don't even show the humility of saying "This doesn't make sense - can anyone expand on it?

Let me share my views on GNS model. I do not see it as "the model" of role-playing, as if it were some sort of RPG gospel*. I feel like there's something missing in there somewhere. But I'm not sure where, and I haven't found any better models. Perhaps someday I'll have my own manifesto to put up for others to review. In the meantime, I feel like the articles and discussions here at the Forge are examining important issues and defining a vocabulary that helps us talk about role-playing issues.

Thus, even if the GNS model is inherently flawed, it is still serving its intended purpose - merely to provide a vocabulary for discussion, with the goal of improving players' experiences in gaming.

So, unless you have some sort of constructive disagreement, or honest inquisitiveness I'd recommend staying quiet.

We'll just go one at a time.

How is it a failure? GNS (as I understand it) isn't striving to define anything, only provide a framework for conversation.

I've read with interest your posts and the responses, and I think the key thing you're missing is that you're assuming that GNS as a theory is an attempt to categorize, define, delineate, or otherwise categorize GAMES, when instead its looking at player behavior and what sort of decision environment is encouraged by the game.

I fail to see the logical connection between abstraction of incentive-driven player behavior and a "watering down" of the concepts. I'm actually, in general, having a very difficult time parsing out what exactly your argument is to begin with, but I'd like to hear what you have to say.

And yet, there are games that you can 'win', and games in which you can 'lose' within a Gamist perspective.. and yet, that's not the point of Gamism; the definition isn't about games that have clearly defined win-lose functions, but about non self-adjusting game systems that encourage "Gamist" behavior.

Again, I encourage you to read the GNS essay carefully before responding, and as much of the GNS threads as you can (as posted earlier by other posters); if you still have problems with GNS, then by all means, air them here! We're glad to have you..

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

heinrich wrote: What does role playing belong with in this world? Knitting? Scuba diving? Auctioneering? Maybe 'games.'

How about roleplaying belongs with roleplaying?

Hey Heinrich,

You may want to stop and consider that regardless of how well reasoned your arguments may be they probably won't get any serious consideration when you come off as a complete ass. This doesn't apply to just the Forge but many other sites across the internet as well.

The number of insults (mostly passive-aggressive) in your posts is disturbing to say the least. But, blah blah blah the benefit of the doubt and all that, I'd just like to ask you to make a stronger effort to carry on your discussion in a more civil manner. And yes, I do understand that we don't live in a world of sunshine and lollipops but your current method of discourse is giving me a facial tic.

Thanks in advance,

Chris

heinrich wrote: You're the kind that is so pathetically sensitive that any kind of real questioning is construed as an 'attack' and who lives in a world of 'positive' nice people and 'negative' bad people.

Friend heinrich:

My understanding of your (initial) argument is that Gamism and Simulationism are not seperate entities.
Because rarely is there explicit "winning" in Gamism, just progression along a path. This path happens to be festooned with markers (points, accumulated treasures, etc), but these markers can hypothetically be removed. This (a) doesn't change the nature of what's going on, and (b) causes the outcome to look a lot more like Simulationism.

Your example was Space Invaders. Straight out of the box, it's a model of Gamism: you versus the baddies, a test of skill. But by placing a post-it over that part of the screen that shows the points, suddenly it could be a Simulationist representation of an alien invasion.

Therefore, the line between Gamism and Simulationism is a false one.


Question: Is this a fair restatement of your argument?


Assuming that it is, here's my response:

GNS bills itself as a method of examining player attitudes to a game. Because different people have different aims, well-meaning gamers occasionally collide. GNS is intended as a forensic tool for sifting through the debris.
Different games may better facilitate one or another of the modes, but it's the player's behavior that determines what's going on.

Your argument is focusing on the specifics of a game, an allegory to games in general. But this can only shed dim light on GNS, which is concerned with the other end - player attitudes. To mount a challenge to GNS, you need to examine whether Gamist priorities are identical to Simulationist ones. That is, given the goals of "verisimilitude" and "challenge," are these in fact identical, or does one not exist?

For example, if someone with a Gamist mindset and someone else with a Simulationist mindset sat down at Space Invaders, do you feel they would be equally satisfied with the play? The blurb on the back of the box might have some crazy story (your consciousness has been thrust into a 2-d universe, etc etc) about how this is a cohesive reality, but my own guess is that this would still be a terrible Sim (read: Sim-facilitating game); there'd be no real decisions left to make and nothing to explore.

-Matt

As an aside, heinrich, you may enjoy past discussions on what - if anything - seperates Monopoly from rpgs. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6031

(It may be that my posts are absurd rubbish, my arguments have no merit, and I myself am pathetically sensitive and lack mental self-discipline. I would rather, however, to reach these conclusions on my own, while reflecting back on a civil and insult-free dialogue. Thanks, folks.)

Question: Is this a fair restatement of your argument?

Assuming that it is, here's my response:

GNS bills itself as a method of examining player attitudes to a game. Because different people have different aims, well-meaning gamers occasionally collide. GNS is intended as a forensic tool for sifting through the debris.
Different games may better facilitate one or another of the modes, but it's the player's behavior that determines what's going on.

Your argument is focusing on the specifics of a game, an allegory to games in general. But this can only shed dim light on GNS, which is concerned with the other end - player attitudes. To mount a challenge to GNS, you need to examine whether Gamist priorities are identical to Simulationist ones. That is, given the goals of "verisimilitude" and "challenge," are these in fact identical, or does one not exist?

(It may be that my posts are absurd rubbish, my arguments have no merit, and I myself am pathetically sensitive and lack mental self-discipline. I would rather, however, to reach these conclusions on my own, while reflecting back on a civil and insult-free dialogue. Thanks, folks.)

So, unless you have some sort of constructive disagreement, or honest inquisitiveness I'd recommend staying quiet.

Heinrich.

I humbly suggest you end this thread and begin another one. This thread has started quite badly.

Here's what I propose.

1) You've read the articles, on the basis of one or perhaps a couple of read throughs you've now decided that you know better how to define what GNS is than people who've been wrestling with the issue for months and for some of us years. I hope you can see the imbedded arrogance in this attitude. It implies that you are so much more brilliant than us that you can percieve and fix something that literally hundreds of individuals have been working on over the course of many years in a single thread. I have no doubt from your well articulated posts that you are indeed an intelligent individual and would be a fine contributor to the site but I hope you see how your initial introduction is probably not the best way to influence people.

2) You've made several statements about GNS that are patently false. I'll mention tieing Gamism to points and Simulationism to simulations of reality. Others have already corrected these conceptual errors so I won't repeat what was said. I submitt that you might wish to reread the essays with C.Lerich's et.al. commentary as annotations. Then start a new thread that actually *asks* questions rather than making statements.

For Example: "I've read the Gamism definition on these articles, and am having trouble understanding the definitions. Can someone explain to me why or how this definition of Gamism ultimately does not boil down to some variation of keeping score with points?"

THIS is the format of engaged and intelligent dialog that is a prerequisite for effective engagement on the Forge. Your first attempt at dialog was unnecessarily confrontational (yes, you may protest, but it was VERY confrontational). If such confrontation was not your attention (and I'm certainly hoping and ready to believe it wasn't) than I repeat my suggestion of ending this thread and beginning another one that begins with phraseology similiar to what I add above.


3) Certain debating tactics will not be recieved well here. Among those I point out the following two which you have employed in your posts here thus far.

First, the Bait and Switch: It is impossible to debate a moving target. You started declaring that you had read the articles and based on them made some conclusions. When it was pointed out that your conclusions were incorrect, you then pulled the switch. You introduced the claim that the definitions were t0o vague to use as written and you were forced to modify them to make them useable, and thus according to your modified definitions your conclusion was right. It is completely impossible, to offer concrete contradictory evidence if you keep changing the target we are to address. Are we now to demonstrate that the definition of Gamism as it appears in the article does not say what you claim it says? Or are we instead to discuss the pros and cons of your submitted modifications to it? One topic per thread please and try to lay all your cards on the table first so we know exactly what it is you are looking for.

Second, the strawman: You accused a poster of entering a strawman arguement above. I really didn't see one, but I do see the majority of this thread as a giant straw man. You read the articles...YOU then modified the definitions of those articles. YOU then criticized and condemned the MODIFIED definitions. Talk about your coup de grace on a straw man. It is completely ridiculous to ask anyone here to defend a statement that none of us here have made. There are no point requirements highlighted in the articles. If you want to insert them into your own version of the definition just to give you something to refutes, feel free, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with GNS. In fact, we'd all agree with you.


4) You've repeated several times that GNS is a taxonomy. This is fundamentally proveably, demonstratablly COMPLETELY false. In fact, I am on record here and elsewhere as stateing emphatically GNS is NOT a taxonomy.

This feeds into your discussion of games and RPGs as games. A couple things to say on that.

First: GNS is about observable player behavior at the table as it can be identified over an instance of play. This is the core conceptual truth of GNS. It DOES NOT in anyway start from a position of examining games or game design. Games have been used to provide examples by way of illustration. Once the theory is understood it can be applied to analysing games and determining what components they contain that encourage or discourage the observable player behavior GNS is about. Often we use a short hand of "Gamist Game" to mean this. But this should be taken to mean only "a game whose mechanics and system promote players making gamist decisions". Without players, and actual decisions being made in actual play...GNS does not exist and can not be measured (only speculated on). Thus, since GNS is not about the games themselves your distinction of RPGs and Games becomes interesting, but completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Second. Perform a search and you will find MANY very long threads where we have discussed "what is a game" and "what makes an RPG distinct from other games". You are not introducing anything that has not been extensively debated here already. Feel free to examine those other threads and see where the discussions have gone. If you want to discuss that idea further start a new thread on it (we generally frown on ressurecting old threads) and I'm sure if you have some new thoughts people will love to discuss them with you.


5) Finally, you will note that in addition to the SDM and GNS articles there is an extensive article solely on Simulationism in the article section. Very shortly Ron will be adding an article on Gamism which explodes a few lines and paragraphs into a multiple page analysis of just that mode. You will see very clearly why we say that Gamism is not directly tied to the idea of comparing points. Although that clearly is one possible way for Gamism to manifest, it is not the entirety of the definition.

So to conclude. You may perhaps wish to table further discussion on Gamism until this new article come out. It likely will save much rehashing of old ground. Any further questions on the definition and meaning of the terms, things you don't understand, aspects you disagree with; I would encourage starting a new thread on, as this one has gone sour. I also strongly encourage you framing your queries in a less confrontational manner and avoiding certain intolerable discussion tactics.

I hope to see further posts and contributions from you in the future. I'm sorry that your start with us has gotten off to such a rough start.

heinrich wrote: I see nothing in GNS for example that distinguishes role playing definitively from other games

The first sentence sets up the whole thesis: the body of thought as represented on this website that includes GNS and its associated role playing theory sidesteps the question as to what a game is.

I have to agree here

Simulationism, meanwhile, is not "gamism without the game element". It is about creating a shared reality and exploring it, without some agenda beyond that exploration.

heinrich wrote: I see nothing in GNS for example that distinguishes role playing definitively from other games

I humbly suggest you end this thread and begin another one. This thread has started quite badly.

1) You've read the articles, on the basis of one or perhaps a couple of read throughs you've now decided that you know better how to define what GNS is than people who've been wrestling with the issue for months and for some of us years. I hope you can see the imbedded arrogance in this attitude. It implies that you are so much more brilliant than us that you can percieve and fix something that literally hundreds of individuals have been working on over the course of many years in a single thread. I have no doubt from your well articulated posts that you are indeed an intelligent individual and would be a fine contributor to the site but I hope you see how your initial introduction is probably not the best way to influence people.

2) You've made several statements about GNS that are patently false. I'll mention tieing Gamism to points and Simulationism to simulations of reality. Others have already corrected these conceptual errors so I won't repeat what was said. I submitt that you might wish to reread the essays with C.Lerich's et.al. commentary as annotations. Then start a new thread that actually *asks* questions rather than making statements.

For Example: "I've read the Gamism definition on these articles, and am having trouble understanding the definitions. Can someone explain to me why or how this definition of Gamism ultimately does not boil down to some variation of keeping score with points?"

THIS is the format of engaged and intelligent dialog that is a prerequisite for effective engagement on the Forge. Your first attempt at dialog was unnecessarily confrontational (yes, you may protest, but it was VERY confrontational). If such confrontation was not your attention (and I'm certainly hoping and ready to believe it wasn't) than I repeat my suggestion of ending this thread and beginning another one that begins with phraseology similiar to what I add above.

First, the Bait and Switch: It is impossible to debate a moving target. You started declaring that you had read the articles and based on them made some conclusions. When it was pointed out that your conclusions were incorrect, you then pulled the switch. You introduced the claim that the definitions were t0o vague to use as written and you were forced to modify them to make them useable, and thus according to your modified definitions your conclusion was right. It is completely impossible, to offer concrete contradictory evidence if you keep changing the target we are to address. Are we now to demonstrate that the definition of Gamism as it appears in the article does not say what you claim it says? Or are we instead to discuss the pros and cons of your submitted modifications to it? One topic per thread please and try to lay all your cards on the table first so we know exactly what it is you are looking for.

Second, the strawman: You accused a poster of entering a strawman arguement above. I really didn't see one, but I do see the majority of this thread as a giant straw man. You read the articles...YOU then modified the definitions of those articles. YOU then criticized and condemned the MODIFIED definitions. Talk about your coup de grace on a straw man. It is completely ridiculous to ask anyone here to defend a statement that none of us here have made. There are no point requirements highlighted in the articles. If you want to insert them into your own version of the definition just to give you something to refutes, feel free, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with GNS. In fact, we'd all agree with you.

4) You've repeated several times that GNS is a taxonomy. This is fundamentally proveably, demonstratablly COMPLETELY false. In fact, I am on record here and elsewhere as stateing emphatically GNS is NOT a taxonomy.

This feeds into your discussion of games and RPGs as games. A couple things to say on that.

First: GNS is about observable player behavior at the table as it can be identified over an instance of play. This is the core conceptual truth of GNS. It DOES NOT in anyway start from a position of examining games or game design. Games have been used to provide examples by way of illustration. Once the theory is understood it can be applied to analysing games and determining what components they contain that encourage or discourage the observable player behavior GNS is about. Often we use a short hand of "Gamist Game" to mean this. But this should be taken to mean only "a game whose mechanics and system promote players making gamist decisions". Without players, and actual decisions being made in actual play...GNS does not exist and can not be measured (only speculated on). Thus, since GNS is not about the games themselves your distinction of RPGs and Games becomes interesting, but completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Second. Perform a search and you will find MANY very long threads where we have discussed "what is a game" and "what makes an RPG distinct from other games". You are not introducing anything that has not been extensively debated here already. Feel free to examine those other threads and see where the discussions have gone. If you want to discuss that idea further start a new thread on it (we generally frown on ressurecting old threads) and I'm sure if you have some new thoughts people will love to discuss them with you.

So to conclude. You may perhaps wish to table further discussion on Gamism until this new article come out. It likely will save much rehashing of old ground. Any further questions on the definition and meaning of the terms, things you don't understand, aspects you disagree with; I would encourage starting a new thread on, as this one has gone sour. I also strongly encourage you framing your queries in a less confrontational manner and avoiding certain intolerable discussion tactics.

You just don't get it. You could be the biggest proponent of GNS to ever fall out of a tree, you could be mowing Ron's lawn, and you would meet the same resistance.

Hey, maybe you're just so brilliant we're all blinded by the almost holy light pouring from your misunderstood mind. Whatever. None of it matters in the least until you can treat people with some basic human respect. What you say? That's 'namby-pamby'? Screw the man I'm not gonna conform? Give me a break. You're about as hardcore as the Easter Bunny.

Anybody who disagrees with you is apparently a mentally impaired cultist, anybody who might be inclined to agree with you probably won't just out of spite. Can't say I blame them. You can't alienate the people you're expecting to have discourse with and expect the discussion to be fruitful.

Of course, due to your arrogance, which is rather impressive btw, you may be inclined to feel martyred or impinged upon. Don't, it's very unbecoming.

-Chris

Okay, everybody.

The starter of the thread said his most recent post was the last post. You know the drill. Should heinrich post again, the thread starts back up. But other than that, if I understand the protocol correctly, we're done for the day.

Christopher

I read this a couple hours ago and started to reply; my wife interrupted, seeking information on the new Harry Potter book, and the system froze, and then I had real world things to do, so I lost all of that. I've overall had a bad day, so please forgive me if I rant a bit. I think there's going to be some good stuff here.

I do recall that I thought we might be getting somewhere; I hope I can recreate what I lost.

Heinrich wrote: On one hand it has to be admitted that testing you or your character against the game or against other players is often done within an abstract framework of 'points' or some other symbolic marker or token that symbolizes or quantifies success.

Then Heinrich wrote: If I make any sense of this proposed definition, it's that while gamists play to win, simulationists don't care whether they win or lose. That's all well and good, but has little to do with the nature of the game itself other than those 'meta-game' elements that allow for strategy and the perceived measurement of success are lacking. This is not some preference-laden statement on simulationism. It has only to do with the formal aspects. What is the distinctive trait? That it is exploration without any other traits?

But I want to get back to what Heinrich wrote: That's all well and good, but has little to do with the nature of the game itself other than those 'meta-game' elements that allow for strategy and the perceived measurement of success are lacking.

He further wrote: Part of the lack of mental self-discipline that I gather from what I have been reading here is due to the predominant belief in today's ideology that definitions don't really refer to anything and have just a provisional value.

Then he wrote: Funny that given this ground has been so covered, nothing essential from my first post has even been addressed....I fully expect that in that very reasoned deliberation on those matters considered before that in typical fashion the concept of 'game' was thrown out the window as 'too subjective' and that one mustn't be 'exclusionary'.

I find it fascinating that he wrote: The whole big fat corpse in the middle of GNS' dining room is that all of its fine distinctions, with their considerable subtlety, are only possible by excluding any mention of other games, or games in general, from the outset.

It's worth considering that he wrote: But it should be noted that nowhere are there any insults, or even direct address, other than the reply to jdagna....

The point here is that while the taxonomical system provided by the GNS model may satisfy some, even be unsurpassed to date, it is limited by the fact that it tries to incorporate an amalgam of historical abortions and half-concepts into an attempt to provide an all-encompassing definition for role playing.

If after a historically contingent set of compositions and much study, one lands upon the Sonata form, and it is agreed the world over that the sonata form has such-and-such parts and certain regularities, would a series of failed sonata compositions by music majors then disprove the rule?

The sonata form has had better minds working on it than those working on role playing games.

Perhaps I should use an expanded model of what a 'game' is to encompass all the other failed experiments made by amateurs out there.

This tells of a neurotic denial to accept the truth.

Part of the lack of mental self-discipline that I gather from what I have been reading here is due to the predominant belief in today's ideology that definitions don't really refer to anything and have just a provisional value.

You're the kind that is so pathetically sensitive....

Heinrich displayed his failure to understand human relationships when he wrote: Civility is in act, not in word choice.

I might have an answer for when he wrote wrote: In fact, in defense of this point, I challenge you to mention a gamist 'meta-game' element that does not appear in some sort of points/cumulative system. EVEN IF you find a feature, like a marker that only can be obtained once and no more indicating some kind of trait or characteristic or ability, inasmuch as it could be absent, it still fits into a system of accumulation. One has it or one doesn't.

Guys, I think Heinrich is a troll. Ignore his bullshit and he'll either (a) get the picture and start to contribute in a positive way to the fora, or (b) he won't post anymore.

it's possible, but the appropriate way to treat trollish behavior is to always act rationally and ignore any obviously absurd statements... because you can never be sure that a "troll" is not really a serious participant in the discussion. it's best not to treat someone rudely.

anyways, the main thrust of the argument was that GNS fails because it fails to define "game" and "role-playing" in any rigorous way. I think the responses to this aren't quite accurate, because they overlook the obvious: "game" has never been defined rigorously. it's a flexible, fuzzy word in common speech and carries this fuzziness of definition over into the realm of rpgs.

this isn't rocket science. we can be a little more careful about our use of terms because we are discussing rpgs from the theoretical side, but we shouldn't pretend this is a scientific discipline, because it isn't. the closest the Forge discussions come to any existing discipline is philosophy, specifically aesthetics, with an occasional side argument about ethics. and it's not even as rigorous as *that*.

Talysman wrote: [The idea was that] GNS fails because it fails to define "game" and "role-playing" in any rigorous way. I think the responses to this aren't quite accurate, because they overlook the obvious: "game" has never been defined rigorously. it's a flexible, fuzzy word in common speech and carries this fuzziness of definition over into the realm of rpgs.

Hello,

Chris, I agree with you wholly.

I'd say the thread's over now.

Best,
Ron