I know it’s been discussed a thousand times, but I must say it…

Gamism is not competition.

Most games are competitions (chess, football, warhammer). But a few is not (solitaire, peace chess (?)). Because games are so often competitions its tempting to say that games ARE competition, just like it’s tempting to say that fairness/ symmetry is a prerequisite for games (“you have 8 pawns, I have 8 pawns”).

To me it is obvious that gamist roleplaying, as it is mostly played, is an example of a non-competitive game. The players are not competing between themselves or with the GM, because if they did the game would end fairly soon with a clear winner (“Hmm, the GM won again. We must revise our tactics”). Roleplaying games nearly never ends soon with a clear winner.

Someone have suggested that gamists may in fact competing against themselves or set standards. I think that this is striving, not competition. Competition, as pointed out elsewhere, includes rivalry between persons. The first form of “competing” would just a well apply to the narrativist who strive to create a greater story, or simulationists who strive to build a more perfect virtual reality.

Gleichman has suggested that gamism is the test of skill, and it has been replied that so is doing anything, including playing narrativly, using your narrative skill (Yes there is such an animal). To that I say: Gleichman’s definition may be thin, but at least it is not wrong.

A group could decide to test if it’s members where gamists by playing a game of “Use your skill”, and come away wiser. If they had a game of “Beat the others” they would probably come away with bugger all. If a player read the competition definition of gamist, even an obvious gamists would think “well, competition between players and GM’s is childish… I think so, ergo I am… not a gamist.”

MJ

MJ -

It's tricky to respond to this, especially when what we're talking about are (mostly) linguistic issues, and it would seem English is not your native language. But let me try:

First of all, here's the Webster's definition for compete - "to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective". So your use of "striving" in "striving not competing" is very relevant - but by the (first appearing) definition in Webster's (and - it seems to me - the definition in use in Ron's essay), striving IS competing. The objective is NOT specified.

You say some games (like Solitaire) are not "competitions". But again, under my understanding of the way the term is used in Ron's essay, Solitaire most certainly IS a competition. The player is competing "with" the cards, in an attempt to gain (one objective, that IMO corresponds well to Ron's Gamism) the satisfaction of a "good game". Or (another possible objective) to make money. Or to "win". But not NECESSARILY to win - they aren't forced to play AGAINST the cards. Winning/losing is NOT a fundamental component of competing, only a possible objective.

There are, in fact, games (Gamist games) about creating a "greater story" (the Once Upon a Time card game is the most often cited example). They involve narrative, but they are NOT Narrativist (as defined in Ron's essay) games.

You're right, if people think compete means "beat the others" (players and/or GM), many of 'em are unlikely to label what they do in RPGs that way. To be fair, there is another definition of compete ("to be in a state of rivalry") that's kinda consistent with this. And I'd have no problem with someone (Ron or whoever) coming up with different language. But the fact is, the current language is perfectly "correct", as it does NOT mean "beat the others". It means "compete with [something]" - perhaps "the others", perhaps yourself, perhaps the system. The CONCEPT of Gamism, as explained in the essay and in discussion here, is very clear to me and entirely consistent with this understanding of "competition". A good Gamist game is about good competition. That may include winning/losing, or it may not. It WILL include striving for an objective.

Wow, that's really more than I thought I'd say. Hope it helps,

Gordon

PS - BTW, here's the etymology on compete: "Late Latin competere to seek together, from Latin, to come together, agree, be suitable, from com- + petere to go to, seek." Wow, "To seek together" - now there's a GREAT principle/definition for RPGs! Make it "to seek [BLANK] together", fill in the [BLANK] with your GNS (or other) choice . . . pretty cool!

PPS - "consciously OR UNCONCIOUSLY"? What should we make of unconscious Gamism? Nah, I don't think I'll go there.

Yeah - thats what it means, dammit, and no fricken gamist is gonna tell us otherwise, no matter how frequently or consistently they try. Right? Right.

Hello,

Gordon has read and paraphrased my existing material on Gamism correctly. I have little to add at this point beyond the following.

1) Any number of people apparently conflate "competition" with "vicious," or "screw the other guy," or a generally negative deal of some kind. I agree that competition may become such things, but I disagree that it is one of them by default. [Please note that we are still discussing role-playing, nothing else.]

2) I have decided to let the fur fly about this issue without participating much. Lest I be accused of elitism, bear in mind that this is exactly what I did with the whole "what is Simulationist" argument - and given a lot of input, a lot of thought, and TIME, I was able to come up with the contents of the current essay, which oddly enough proved satisfactory to many.

In other words, I am interested in everyone's input and am paying attention. Eventually, results will appear. If I don't post to it, that does not mean I am (a) conceding a point or (b) ignoring or avoiding the issue.

Gareth, in particular, please do not assume you are being ignored. To all, please maintain clarity in your points, without snippy references or sarcasm.

Best,
Ron

Several of my group are *avid* nethack players (okay, Zangband but that's not so well known). You know Nethack, don't you? Random dungeons, random treasures, random monsters. Lots of cool interactions (if stuck with cursed boots of levitation, walk over a sink in order to drop--hmm ... I think that one's out of Nethack).

Anyway: for them (at least one of them) it's about the 'pure joy of character advancement.' Take a 1st level guy up to whatever. It's *definitely* a test of skill. It's the same vibe you get from Diablo ... and real similar to what they get from 'straight' D&D (or AD&D or 3e or whatever). Is it competition?

Words have connotations. I submit that competition implies competitors. Struggle (contra's suggestion, IIRC) doesn't (there may be other strugglers but they're not necessairly against you--they might be *for* you).

Achievement seems like a better word to me ("Achievist"?) since you might be attempting to attain victory over the others, the world, or even the GM.

-Marco

Enter linguistics.

When I wrote “Strive”, I just meant it as a word that was better than competition. I might as well had written ambition, test of skill, struggle (thanks, Marco) or something about challenge (as long as it’s understood it does not have to be fair). All of these are free from being (mis)understood as rivalry.

But are we just talking (mostly) linguistics?

Some bits form ”GNS AND OTHER MATTERS OF ROLE-PLAYING THEORY”:

“Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people)”
“Gamist Premises focus on competition about overt metagame goals. They vary regarding who is competing with whom (players vs. one another; players vs. GM; etc),”
“The range in Gamism: GM as referee over players who compete with one another, GM as referee over the players competing with a scenario, GM as opponent of the players as a unified group, or even no GM at all among a group of competing players. “

Exit linguistics, I believe.


Take your average gamer. Yes, he is a male gamist and he plays D&D. When he and his friends learned about roleplaying it was through some D&D manual that said stuff like “There is no winner” and “The DM is not playing AGAINST the players”. The young male gamist and his group followed these wise rules for a time, but you know young people. They just had to break the rules to see what happened. You know what happened? It sucked. Every time. So now your average a-little-older-male-gamist KNOW that competition and RPG does not go together.

So when this average gamer reads about GNS, he is neither going to have an revelation on the spot and jump out of the closet a simulationist or narrativist, or he is going to go “Do they think I am a neewbie assassin-playing dork?”.

He will not recognize himself in the above descriptions of gamism.

MJ

Let me start by saying I think I understand Gamism, both the "term of art" used by Ron and the feel, mood and approach to RPGs that he/it attempts (partially unsuccsesfully, according to some) to describe. I have played in many, MANY RPG sessions that are entirely compatible with both my understanding of Ron's definition and the feel described by others (like Brian). I say this not in attempt to give "definitive authority" to my statements, but just to make it clear I'm not talking about a theoretical opinion here, I'm speaking from my personal, emotional experience in the area. I enjoy and seek out the "Gamist feel" to this day. I'm not so interested in it in my RPGs at the moment, but I need my Gamist fix from time to time, and if there aren't people willing to play a game of Titan or Settlers of Catan or the like, I can enjoy a Gamist DD3e dungeon crawl just fine, if not as a steady diet.

So . . . first point: ARE we really just talking about language here, or is there something folks disagree about in the CONCEPT of Gamism that Ron puts forth? If we simply replace all references to "competition" with references to "struggle" or "strive" or the like, is the issue resolved? If so . . .

Second point: Personally, I'm fine with competition for all the reasons covered in my first post. I spent a lot of time rock-climbing in my mid-late 20's, and I was clear I was competing - with the rock, with my mental/physical limitations, and etc. I most certainly was NOT competing AGAINST my climbing partner, who in fact was particpating in the activity WITH me, and whom I might rely upon to protect my LIFE as we "competed". Competition implies (for me) only one competitor of neccessity, and when there are additional competitors they aren't necessarily against you. That said . . .

Third point: Rightly or wrongly (guess where my vote is :wink:), a fair number of people have negative connotations for "compete". I have the same issue with "struggle" - I would NEVER describe the overall feel of Gamist activity as a struggle. It might occassionally have the feel of a struggle, but not overall. I like the "strive for an objective" language - true, you could say "Narrativists strive for the objective of a good story", but it is not the striving itself that is the reward for them, it is the story (or the participation in the creation of a story, to be precise). Since I find the concept described by Ron's Gamist description entirely satisfactory, I'm fine with using different language to accomplish the same (to me) description. But . . .

Final point: If what is really happening here is that some folks disagree with the very concept of the definition Ron provides, not just the language used to reach that definition . . . let's talk about that, and not disagree about what the language "really" means. While I've typed a lot of words expaining why *I* think the language is fine, it's the concept I care about, not the detailed language of the definition. You can even use "struggle" if you want - while I can't promise not to shudder a bit when I hear it, I'll know what you "really" mean by it and that's where most of the value is anyway.

Again, hoping this is helpful,

Gordon

MJ snuck in a post while I was composing mine. My opinion regarding "he will not recognize himself in the above descriptions of gamism" is "didn't he read 'GM as referee over the players competing with a scenario'"?

That's *exactly* (IMO) what he's participating in - "There is no winner" and "The DM is not playing AGAINST" the players" does not prevent the gaming from being about "competition". Again, using a different word is fine by me - it's that thrilling challege to ones' skill/luck/etc. as you struggle and strive towards some objective or accomplishment. That's what I understand "compete" to be. Tell me that that's what "challenge" (my selection for the best "compete" alternative) means, and I'm fine. Gamism is all about challenge, as in "rising to the challenge", acheiving a goal - or at least experiencing the thrill of striving towards a goal. The payoff's right there, in that experience, and you need no hokey "well rounded narrative" or "accurately represented simulation" to acheive it.

I agree that the essay would be well served if this (most common and widespread, in my experience) form of Gamism were more strongly emphasized, and the ways in which it differs from more conflict-oriented competitive games were stressed.

Conflict - there's another good word. But I'm tired of linguistic musings and disagreements - is the CONCEPT right?

Gordon

You know, I think a good deal of the arguments in the forge result from Linguistic misunderstandings.

When you say Competition to somebody many people automatically assume it implies a winning/losing/against the others aspect, even if to you that is not implied.

This is both the beauty and tragedy of words, they mean different things to different people. They're caught up in connotations and personal experiences, whatever the dictionary definition might be.

Which is why nailing down Gamism will always be objected to by somebody, because unless you described exactly how you were using your terms, they'll make an assumtion. The best you can get is what the majority will agree with.

See, struggle also implies a win/lose situation to some people. So does Conflict. Strive might be better, but I'm sure somebody would object.

Just my thoughts.


Matt

No, the concept is not right IMO. I made it quite clear on the last outing of this debate that I reject Ron's description of competitive play, and his attribution of the meaning of such play to gamists.

The statement: “Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people)” is false. There is no competition among the participants becuase no meaningful competition is possible.

The statement: “Gamist Premises focus on competition about overt metagame goals. They vary regarding who is competing with whom (players vs. one another; players vs. GM; etc),” is false. To the extent that any comeptition or strruggle is occurring in the game world, its really just a prop for the gamist to get their "challenge fix". It has no need to be metagame more than any other style or set of goals.

The proposed range of gamism suffers from the following problems:
"GM as referee over players who compete with one another" - is a very rare style of RPG, because RPG is by its nature cooperative.

"GM as referee over the players competing with a scenario" is meaningless becuase a scenario is an inanimate object and thus cannot constitute a comeptetitor. This one might be salvageable with a different terminology.

"GM as opponent of the players as a unified group" is meaningless because competing with God is Not Fun. We are not Job.

"Even no GM at all among a group of competing players" is questionable at the least. While narrative players might be able to operate in a GM-full way, a group of COMPETETITORS surely could not. This model would only make sense for gamists if they were something other than competitors.

All of which has been pointed out at some length before. The only room for linguistics in this debate appears to the extent that competition is being distorted to describe things that are not in fact competition at all. And having imposed the label, corollaries are drawn from the term itself. Rons descriptions of competitive RPG might be accurate descriptions of competitive RPG; but I do not think they are accurate descriptions of Gamism.

On 2001-11-28 17:50, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
MJ snuck in a post while I was composing mine. My opinion regarding "he will not recognize himself in the above descriptions of gamism" is "didn't he read 'GM as referee over the players competing with a scenario'"?

Not only can I not see how competition implies anything other than win/lose, but I believe it was selected BECUASE it implied win/lose.

...not see how competition implies anything other than win/lose...

Gamism is more about utilizing and caring more about the mechanical and statistical issues of play -- using them to advantage in attainment of goals...

There's something about this conversation that's fluttering around in my peripheral vision, and I can't quite figure out what it is. I had the same feel back when Brian Gleichman was arguing his definition of Gamism. There's something about the dispute over whether Gamism is "competition" that gives me this feeling. It's as if there's some important relationship that isn't being considered.

There's this notion of campaign play that we're all familiar with, where the purpose of play is to keep playing. In the context of campaign play, Raven's comments about Gamism being not so much competitive as it is a focus on using and exploiting the mechanics of the game system make a lot of sense. But translate that attention to the mechanical and statistical issues of play into a closed-ended, four or five session scenario, and isn't it then apparent that competition is really a part of Gamism?

Is the thing fluttering for attention in my peripheral vision the notion that differences in defining the nature of Gamism are arising from campaign vs. closed-ended scenario play preferences?

Paul

"Is the CONCEPT sound?"

There are two concepts afloat here.

1) “…players vs. one another; players vs. GM; etc…”
Just what it says.

This concept is rubbish.

2) “…players vs. one another; players vs. GM; etc…”
What Ron Really Means: the vs. / vs. bit is just there for the word count, what Really matters is the “etc”, which obviously means a lot, including competing with nothing in order to gain Buddhistic enlightenment.

This concept might be sound. I can find nothing theoretically wrong with saying “Gameism is Competition/ Conflict /Smorgasbord, as Competition/ Conflict /Smorgasbord is defined here, namely as competing against an inner standard or striving or challenge or ambition inaction or test of skill or resource management or whatever.” As an attempt to communicate RPG theory to the masses in order to prevent dysfunctional roleplaying, I find the method flawed, but then we are back to linguistics.

But then again, who knows? This way of describing gamism has not been put into words yet. It might turn out to be easy, and then we will all know that this discussion was just about semantics and communication. Or it might prove hard or impossible, and then we will all know that Something is Wrong in the state of GNS.

I would also like to add that this situation is volatile. It is the theoretical foundation of GNS that G, N and S is equal in value, and rightly so. But this is not the social reality of roleplaying. Gamism is the primitive form that most people start roleplaying in, and this means that all those lame, overeager novices are gamists, while narrativism is a lot more sexy, because a narrativist can claim to have “progressed beyond gamism”. So if the credo “G, N and S is equal” is to be pushed forward, extra care should be given to a fair description of gamism.

MJ

PS: Didn’t our average-male-gamist read the “GM as referee over the players competing with a scenario” bit? Maybe not. Maybe he didn’t understand what exactly “competing with a scenario” means. Maybe he just blinked.

make a lot of sense. But translate that attention to the mechanical and statistical issues of play into a closed-ended, four or five session scenario, and isn't it then apparent that competition is really a part of Gamism?

Hey Gareth,

In that upon completion of the scenario the character creation choices and in-game actions of each individual player shake out as having been more or less effective, and more or less interesting than the choices and actions of the others, and the scenario ends with some characters having floated to the top in terms of overall impact on the scenario.

Paul

At times like this I wish TrizzlWizzl was still reading and posting to this site. He's like the physical incarnation of Gamism. He'd have a lot to say about all this. But for now I'm just going to offer up something he once said to me, paraphrased since I can't find the email the exact words are in:

"A good RPG will feel like a sporting event. The players are one team. The NPCs/Monsters/Traps/Puzzles/Whathaveyou are the other team. The GM acts as referee only arbitrating the rules between the two sides. The tougher the challenge for the players, the sweeter the victory for the players."

His words, paraphrased. That sounds an awful lot like competition to me. At minimum it's about players using the game mechanics to their fullest to overcome the challenges set forth by the scenario.

In any event I know what Gamist behavior looks and feels like. And I think that all of us do. The question is whether Ron captures that in his essay or not. I think he does.

I think that "Players vs. Scenario" or more appropriately "Players vs. Scenario Designer as presented by GM" is the most common form of Gamism. What I think people are missing is that Ron's goal in general is to push the bounds of Roleplaying as far out as humanly possible. He admits that Gamism is an underexplored form of roleplaying. Therefore to say, "Players vs. Players" or "Players vs. GM" is invalid because that's not the way RPGs work is ludicrous. Maybe they're not the way RPGs work NOW and maybe they're not the way you like to play RPGs BUT that doesn't mean that an RPG couldn't work this way.

Take a look at Rune. Granted, I haven't read the game thouroughly but my understanding is that it is very Gamist. Yet all the players take turns acting as GM and all the players are competing against each other but still working as a team. The CHARACTERS are all working together against a common enemy however the PLAYERS are competing for the most "Glory In Battle." Edited Note: This INCLUDES the GM. I believe the GM recieves points for how challenging his scenario or element of a scenario is. The more challenging the more points the GM scores. To prevent the GM from simply slapping down a killer encounter I believe the GM recieves points only for each character brought to the brink of death, not for any characters actually killed. If anyone knows Rune better than I do please correct me if I have misrepresented the point of the game.

Jesse

[ This Message was edited by: jburneko on 2001-11-29 13:28 ]

”The GM acts as referee only arbitrating the rules between the two sides. ”

So he is not competing. A gamist GM is not Gamist.

“What I think people are missing is that Ron's goal in general is to push the bounds of Roleplaying as far out as humanly possible” + ” Maybe they're not the way RPGs work NOW and maybe they're not the way you like to play RPGs BUT that doesn't mean that an RPG couldn't work this way. ”

GNS AND OTHER MATTERS OF ROLE-PLAYING THEORY is in fact a view into the future, and not at all about present roleplaying. Well, Ron could have mentioned that in the introduction, instead of all that other stuff that gives the impression the essay is about helping present day roleplayers deal with present day RPG dysfunctions. Guess that was a smokescreen. Your hear that Ron, you lurker you? We have seen through your smokescreen! Ron! RONNNN!

Rune? Sounds fun. Wonder how big a percentage of gamist play that game.

Seriously though. I’m not saying there is no gamist who compete against each other, or against their GM. I’m sure there is. I am saying that they are a minority. And I am saying that since gamist by the thousands play without competing against each other, neither the gamist = competition got to go, or else we have to clear a home for these people in the narrativist or simulationist niches. If they fall outside the GNS model, then the GNS model falls as well.

MJ

Great discussions here, folks - I'm enjoying it bunches. Let me pick a quote and add my thoughts from there.

"But the PLAYER is not competing with the scenario, the CHARACTER is. The player is getting their jollies from the process and the vicarious experince of the challenge, but is NOT motivated by "competition". Once again, competition with inanimate objects is meaningless; objects cannot experience rivalry, have no goals, have no motivations."

I just disagree with this understanding of competition, and what others have expressed elsewhere. Referee's aren't part of a competition? In animate object can't be competed with? I've competed with many an inanimate object in my day. At the risk of bringing in non-RPG analogies, cracks and vaugue nubbly protrusions of rock in a cliff may not ACTUALLY think, but I sure ascribed some dastardly motivations to them when I was trying to climb 'em. Same thing for, say, TSR's Tomb of Horrors module - it was out to get me, I swear it was! (and it WAS - I mean, it was designed with that in mind) The GM, as the scenario's representative/referee, was something like a climbing partner - I couldn't do it without him, but he is in many ways irrelevant to my competitive experience (if he does his job well).

However, saying "in Gamism you get your enjoyment out of the process and the experience (vicarious or otherwise) of the challenge" is also a good description.

As others have said, the GNS essay might better capture the spirit of Gamism if it were to either a) emphasize what is NOT a required component of "competition" (all the negative win/lose, us vs. them stuff), or b) use a different term/language (challenge?). The all-important "etc." and the not-first-mentioned "GM as referee between players and scenario" do NOT get enough attention as things currently stand. Someone *could* blink and miss the reference to their (good, functional, and rewarding to them) play style. Some of that blinking may say as much about the reader as it does about the writting (e.g., they may be letting their traumatic experiences with out-to-kill-me GM's get to them), but that doesn't change the reality that lots of folks seem to have missed what's "really" meant by Gamism.

It is important though (someone has pointed to this already) NOT to limit Gamism to ONLY this most-common form. Rune is a very good (only?) example of an explicit win/lose RPG design that seems to be fully functional. It fits in the Gamism category of GNS. So would a non-functional "GM gets his jollies killing PCs" session - the fact that Gamism CAN accomodate those kind of explicit win/lose and negative win/lose forms doesn't mean it is limited to them.

That said, there IS something (I think) about win/lose (in the broadest sense) that's fundamental to the GNS distinction of Gamism, even in a non-disfunctional form. It's that "objective" in the "striving for an objective" definition - at some level, you can't have a challenge without a scoreboard to judge the challenge upon. That scoreboard may be entirely internal - a "good Game-with-a-capitol-G" as judged by those participating - but I think the GNS claim is that it is a required, inevitable part of Gamism. Again, we can get into tricky linguistic issues, beacuse "scoreboard" leads to "bad win/lose" leads to "I'm not an immature/munchkin/assasin-playing/I've-gotta-WIN dweeb!", so care needs to be taken. But the issue is important - ignoring it probably wouldn't help.

Paul's comments about short/medium term vs. campaign play point out (to me) that the details of the "scoreboard" may well change based on this scope-of-play preference, but I'm not seeing (at the moment) a *fundamental* difference between a Gamist scenario and a Gamist campaign.

[sigh] As usual, longer than I thought. Time to get back to work . . .

Gordon

I hear you fine, Mad.

What I don't hear is an argument. I hear lots of cries of "rubbish" and similar. I also hear some attempts at provocation, which are mildly amusing.

For the record, so far, I have identified no less than four points of clarification to make, which I think will go a long way toward resolving the point at hand.

As a preview: a GM who acts as an impartial referee over competing players is still participating in a competitive event, in a focused and designated way. To claim that such a Gamist exercise is not competitive because the referee is not a player, is invalid.

A further preview: all sporting-competition is a sub-set of cooperation regarding the parameters of play. To suggest that the two words represent some form of dichotomy is invalid. Thus the cooperative act of role-playing may serve quite well as a competitive arena.

Since I feel no urgency about any of this, I'd rather continue to learn from the ongoing discussion. Both you and Gareth provide plenty of food for thought, at least in terms of how my points can be clarified, and possibly in terms of amending some of my points as well.

Again, all: please remain courteous and - please - acknowledge one another's valid points, as you go. The Forge is about building arguments, not about riding wave-fronts of contention.

Signing off for at least two full days on this thread,
Best,
Ron

Hello Again,

Alright let's take a look at: "Player vs. The Scenario." This is the most prevelant form of Gamism. So let's break down the Gamist definition and apply it to this one specific example. I think this will clear up the confusion.

The contention is that Gamism is about competition between real living Humans.

Argument 1) "The Scenario" is not a person therefore the players can not be competing against it.

This falls under Conta's video game example. When playing a video game the players are competing with the game. If you need a human entity then it is clear to see that the player is competing against the video game *designer* vicariously through the electronic medium. Same goes for RPGs. The players, in a gamist driven session, are competing against the SCENARIO DESIGNER vicariously through the scenario itself. The GM can be thought of as the computer on which the scenario is running.

So are the players in competition with another human being? Yes, they are competing with the scenario designer. The enjoyment of the game comes from overcoming the challenges set forth by the scenario designer in his scenario. As my good friend TrizzlWizzle has pointed out the GM in this capacity is acting as pure referee.

Argument 2) If the GM is purely a referee then he is not competing and is therefore not a Gamist.

Whoa! Hold on there partner. To qualify to be a gamist you need only to hold Gamist principles as your priority of play or speicifcially to make decisions that adhere to gamist principles. If a Gamist GM is doing a good job then he is fascilitating fair competition between the players and the challenges set forth by the scenario designer. The GM may not be *IN* competition but he is most certainly *INVOLVED* in competition. Most importantly his job is to fascilitate fair competition.

So is the Gamist GM who acts only as a refree still a Gamist GM? Absolutely. Yes, he is not IN competition, but he is fascilitating competition in some capacity. That is, he makes decisions based on Gamist priorities therefore he is still a Gamist.

Again, these arguments apply ONLY to the "Player vs. Scenario" case.

I hate to keep using my friend TrizzlWizzle as an example but he's the most direct observable gamist I know. In some of his more stubborn moments he's gone so far as accuse my heavily Narrativist sessions and my girlfriend's heavily Simulationist sessions of not even being GAMES at all simply because there are no objectively defined challenges with objectively defined methods for over coming them.

I hope this makes things clearer.

Jesse

So are the players in competition with another human being? Yes, they are competing with the scenario designer. The enjoyment of the game comes from overcoming

Argument 2) If the GM is purely a referee then he is not competing and is therefore not a Gamist.

It is important though (someone has pointed to this already) NOT to limit Gamism to ONLY this most-common form. Rune is a very good (only?) example of an explicit win/lose RPG design that seems to be fully functional. It

That said, there IS something (I think) about win/lose (in the broadest sense) that's fundamental to the GNS distinction of Gamism, even in a non-disfunctional form. It's that "objective" in the "striving for an objective" definition - at some level, you can't have a challenge without a scoreboard to judge the challenge upon. That

scoreboard may be entirely internal - a "good Game-with-a-capitol-G" as judged by those participating - but I think the GNS claim is that it is a required, inevitable part of Gamism. Again, we can get into tricky linguistic issues,

...if they are playing an established scenario. By definition and dramatic necessity, some conflict will be inherent in this scenario at the character level...

Hi Contracycle,

If competitionism is only one aspect of Gamism, then what other aspects are there? I can see how Gamism can have many subservient aspects that reinforce the overall feel of competition (any of the explorative elements from "GNS and Other Matters"), but are there really any other overarching goals? I ask in genuine curiosity, because whenever I think of other goals they either end up sounding like different forms of competition or like Narrativism or Simulationism.

Tor

To Rons
Of Content: No arguments? Who am I arguing with here anyway? You try arguing with “What Ron Really Means” and “What Trizziwizzle would have said where he here” and see if any clear thoughts crystallizes.

Of Form: I said rubbish because it was a short, precise statement and I did not even know if the subject were being contested (se above about the fog of debate), so why waste time on it.

Of Claims: “To claim that such a Gamist exercise is not competitive because the referee is not a player, is invalid.” Good thing nobody made that claim, then. I think.

Enough bitterness, and on to:

Items of general concern

”…his job is to fascilitate fair competition…”

Some gamist groups no doubt look to the GM for “fairness” and “balance”. But a game does not have to be fair to be fun, and what is fair anyway, speaking in terms of RPG theory? I doubt fairness exists other than a feeling, leaving the gamist GM with a tiny role, theoretically speaking. Maybe I’m nitpicking, but I feel sorry for the poor gamist GM, who is not competing himself and so now becoming a part of the wallpaper. Define his role for pity’s sake!

Cooperating about competing? Obviously true for functional competitive gamist play. But as Tor kind of asked, is that all there is to gamist play?

Errr…

Maybe I should make it easy on myself, me being just a mildly amusing guy who does not seem to have English as my native language, and go on the defense (it works for others {insert disarmingly cute Smily})…

Could somebody please demonstrate that a gamist player, who does not feel that he is competing as his primary RPG activity, is in fact competing as his primary RPG activity. And this is perhaps the most important part: demonstrate it in such a way that the gamist player is himself convinced?

MJ

On 2001-11-30 20:21, Mads Jakobsen wrote:

Could somebody please demonstrate that a gamist player, who does not feel that he is competing as his primary RPG activity, is in fact competing as his primary RPG activity. And this is perhaps the most important part: demonstrate it in such a way that the gamist player is himself convinced?

“If you are concerned solely with your personal play style and would like to know where you fit in with things why don't we do this..”

I am not concerned with where exactly my gaming style fits in. Since you bring it up, it IS something I wonder about occasionally. But not in any urgent way. It should be enough to say that I am a gamist on occasion, for the sake of this discussion.

No, when I write “a gamist player who does not feel he is competing” I don’t mean myself particularly, I really do mean “a gamist player who does not feel he is competing”.


As to what a person is and what he calls himself: you are quite right, person A can be wrong about himself, and person B may be able to se this.

Firstly, this in it self proves nothing.

Secondly, person B has to prove to person A that his view of himself is flawed, otherwise nothing will happen.

Thirdly, we are on dangerous ground here, because it just might be that B’s omniscience-which-he-just-can’t-explain-to-stupid,-stupid-A is the real delusion. It certainly makes it very easy for B to be a great thinker without accomplishing anything, it is a part of least resistance so to speak.

So, I think Carthage should be destroyed and could somebody please demonstrate that a gamist player, who does not feel that he is competing as his primary RPG activity, is in fact competing as his primary RPG activity. And this is perhaps the most important part: demonstrate it in such a way that the gamist player is himself convinced?

Note the perhaps most important part.

MJ

On 2001-12-01 17:18, Mads Jakobsen wrote:

So, I think Carthage should be destroyed and could somebody please demonstrate that a gamist player, who does not feel that he is competing as his primary RPG activity, is in fact competing as his primary RPG activity. And this is perhaps the most important part: demonstrate it in such a way that the gamist player is himself convinced?

something else or 3) Your behaviors are not consistent with Gamism but are also not consistent with any of the other defintions within the GNS model.

So, I think Carthage should be destroyed and could somebody

That is, from an objective point of view the player in question exhibits gamist behavior. However, the player claims that he is not in competition.

opinion, is a behavior consistent with gamism. This player is either competing with the scenario in that he enjoys building the most effective character to overcome the challenges presented before him. Or if he's not really

into the 'effectiveness' in play part then he is essencially competing with himself in an effort to find new and creative rule combinations.

Other Matters"), but are there really any other overarching goals? I ask in genuine curiosity, because whenever I

On 2001-12-03 04:50, contracycle wrote:

You ommitted a fourth option: The Observed behaviour has been misinterpreted by the observers, and mischaracterised.

...such as problems to be solved, foes to be overcome, or mountains to be climbed.

...the joy of it arises from the troubleshooting, the problem solving, the strategic analysis.

"the opportunity to act, via character abilities"

"I believe that what has been erroneously described as competition should be seen in terms of resistance to the characters wishes."

"The gamist asks for consistency of rules, not necessarily because they want a "level playing field" but because they need to understand the feedback mechanisms at work "

Great stuff! Great!

"You cannot compete with yourself unless you are suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder."

Um, Well, you can, but the Pope don't like it, and you may go blind.

MJ

On 2001-12-03 15:43, jburneko wrote:

Where is the problem?

Jesse

First of all, I want to express many, many thanks to contracycle and Mads for sticking with this discussion - you can't clarify things unless those for whom they are unclear are engaged.

I intend to find sometime soon to put together a message or three of my latest thoughts, including the results of several conversations with Gamist folks in and around my own group. Quick answer to the "can you convince a Gamist . . .?" question is Yes, you can - but only one at a time.

But there's another quick issue I feel the need to raise, regarding "You cannot compete with yourself unless you are suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder." Appologies if this comes out a little cranky, as I'm really tired of discussing the language, but . . . look, this statement is the same "sin" that The Forge in general has been accused of re: Gamism - assuming that your version of what it (Gamism or competition) is, is OF COURSE the right one. I think I compete with myself all the time, I get great enjoyment out of it in more than just the RPG domain, and am frankly tired of having the very possibility that my understanding of competition is valid be ignored. You've got a different understanding - fine, I can see why that would be and agree that we need to clearly distinguish the meaning in this context from those valid issues. Let's build from there, and stop insisting that ANY particular definition of the word is right.

Additional posts, including analogies to the Olympics, "spirit of competition", and actual encounters with live, practicing (GASP!) Gamists, to follow as soon as I find the time.

Gordon

This is getting really nit picky but I'm doing this only to be fair to Contra and Mads. Since I'm playing heavy duty definitions I decided to double check my work and I'm willing to concede a point based on the following. I checked the definition of competition in the same dictionary from which I got the defintion of compete/competing. It read:

"the act or process of competing as active demand by two or more organisms or kinds of organisms for some environmental resource in short supply."

So, I'm willing to concede that if we're being as precise about definition as I am being then, yes, it requires two or more living entities in order for their to be a competition. By definition it is impossible to be in competition with yourself or an inanimate object such as a mountain.

HOWEVER, I would like to point out the phrase, "...competing *AS* active..." in other words, it is possible to compete without being in competition. So, to be technically 100% semanticaly correct: I can compete with myself. I can compete with a mountain. I can not be in competition with myself nor in competition with a mountain.

So, I'm willing to concede that Gamism is not about competition but I still stand by the fact that gamism is about competing in some manner be it via competition or some other means.

Ron's current statement:

Gamist Premises focus on competition about overt metagame goals.

Some good stuff from Jesse and Gareth there - others too. I think I'll abandon my previous plans. My analogies about how the realtionship between common Gamism and "bad-competition" is like the realtionship between the Olympic ideals and the fact that the Russian judge always gave the best scores to Soviet athletes . . . will remain undeveloped. I will mention . . . did you know that an obsolete definition of the word "rival" is "A companion or an associate in a particular activity"? Every RPGr is a rival in that sense.

But I digress. I think everyone is MOSTLY violently agreeing about what Gamism is, with a few issues still outstanding. A lot of the argument is about picking the right words to describe the "feel" of Gamism, and rather than defend the current words, I think I'll just just try to discuss the topic in (mostly) other ways.

To start with an issue NOT (IMO) outstanding . . . both Mads and Gareth have mentioned it to be a mistake to attribute fairness (or equality, or level playing field, and etc.) as required components of a Gamist RPG. I agree - I think the line "his job is to fascilitate fair competition" (in re: the Gamist GM) describes but one possible role, and "fair" can be defined however the particular group likes (which could be Gareth's "need to understand the feedback mechanisms"). Any required association between "competition" and "fairness" I would deem to be mistaken. IMO, a "traditional" fair approach is at best one possible way to operate consistently with Gamist desires, and in no way required, much less fundamental. Gareth's point about it also being a possible component of meeting Simulationist needs is well taken, as is the fact that G and S will use that "fairness" for entirely different reasons, and quite conceivably for entirely different ends.

Now, the "challenge question": "Could somebody please demonstrate that a gamist player, who does not feel that he is competing as his primary RPG activity, is in fact competing as his primary RPG activity. And this is perhaps the most important part: demonstrate it in such a way that the gamist player is himself convinced?"

I did just that this weekend. It took a while, and it involved getting him to understand that what he THOUGHT I meant by competition was not what I actually meant (since that's failed here, I'll not try repeating the attempt). But the key for us was that he is correct - he is not competing-by-his-understanding as his primary RPG activity. In my case, we were able to agree that competing-by-my-understanding is in fact where the big thril in RPGs was for him. The challenge, a foe to overcome, a problem to be solved, the thrill of seeing a strategy succede - or to be forced to change strategy, based on altered conditions, and know that you STILL managed to pull your fat out of the fire. He could see that as competition-in-my-sense.

I'd like to make this another issue NOT outstanding - "bad-competition" is not what GNS means to be the foundational element of Gamism. No one need spend more time attacking or defending that notion.
Everything that Gareth and Mads have written about what Gamism is for them is entirely consistent with my understanding of "good-competition". They have at their core a "striving for an objective" - and the reason a Gamist plays RPGs is to experience that striving. For some Gamists, accomplishing the objective is a vital part of their enjoyment. Others see that as too much focus on "winning", and are content merely to be participating in the DOING, seeing that their actions produce results and have consequences. The key (for me) is that the enjoyment comes from the act of striving - the reward is to test yourself (through your character, with stylistic variations as to how directly/indirectly that realtionship is drawn) against an agreed-upon set of circumstances, in an agreed-upon manner, and DO WELL.

To use the model-builder analogy someone mentioned, a Gamist enjoys building the model because it's chance to DO WELL in an activity. There could be a model-building competition, and then doing well becomes a question of winning the prize or not - howerver, I'd say that for all but the most "bad-competitive" Gamist (which isn't really "bad", in all cases), the thrill of playing occurs no matter whether they "win" or not. If there is no contest, then the model builder will have to invent his or her own standards for doing well. Some folks are comfortable calling that competing, others aren't. But (and I think this is where the scoreboard issue comes in) without the standard, without a criteria by which at least the BUILDER can judge "success" . . . you can't get that thrill of accomplishment.

In a RPG, this means you can keep Gamists happy by providing opportunities for such a test. Having a group understanding of how to do well, or building a variety of do-well mechanics into the game system, will enhance the Gamists' enjoyment.

And that is the best I can do at the moment - as always, hope it helps. Again, thanks to everyone, especially Gareth and Mads.

Gordon

“In this case, I'm affraid that I, personally, would have to get into specific behaviors.” +
“I did just that this weekend. It took a while..”

But of course you do not have that luxury here. You are writing to the wide-blue-yonder-net and you are not face to face with anybody. You must, quite theoretically, prove that gamism is competition, and in order to affect the gaming community in general, prove it to passing-by gamists who do not feel they compete.


“…Is this a safe assumption or does your objection go back even futher than step 1? ”

The concept of gamism makes a lot of sense to me, on an instinctive level. But so does the flat earth. If we in 5 years time still haven found a good definition of gamism, I’m afraid the GNS model is in trouble.




Here is what I think is going on with this gamism is competition stuff:

In life you have heroes and villains, but they are actually facets of the same person – the villain is in fact a symbol of a side of the hero. Thus when he fights the villain he is competing with himself and visa-versa. Everything that happens has some significant connection to the basic conflict.

In fictional life, that is.

In real life there are no heroes, no villains and other people are not reflections of your inner struggles. Real life people actually have very few inner struggles – they rarely spend their days agonizing over whether to feign madness or kill their uncle. And stuff that happens is just stuff.

Gamism is a real life behavior.

Seeing gamism as a completion between significant characters, or an significant inner struggle, is to impose fictional logic an a real life activity. Narrative logic.

Time for a sports metaphor (Weee!). To the Home team supporters the weekend match against Otherby is “the Great Tale of the fight against the Others”, they talk about the match and they watch it as a narrative event. The match lasts two hours. For a player on Home team the match is a real event. Sure it’s a competition, but only for two hours. For the Home team player, Otherby is not the Enemy, he might even play for them next season. They are not Significant. What is significant is his career. That’s what he spends 8760 hours a year working on. So, seen form the outside, with certain glasses, sports serves as fiction, but for the participants it is obviously not.

Am I competing successfully with your understanding? It sure sounds clever to me.

MJ

Well, upon reading and reflection, I have reached my conclusion about this thread.

First of all, Mads Jakobsen. You have tried hard to put the burden onto me (and others) of proving something that you have posed - a thought-question. However, this is not going to fly. The burden was and is on you, not on me or anyone else, to present a meaningful argument to support your postition. I asked for that a few posts ago. You have not provided it.

Until you do so, neither I nor anyone needs to pay attention to you. Your counter-call for a "proof" is a fine attempt to sidestep this responsibility, but it is not going to work.

I have another issue with you. Some posts above, competition and cooperation were presented as a dichotomy, and I refuted that position. You apparently failed to understand this, referring to my statement as a non sequitur (ie that no one had posed the original claim). This indicates to me that you are not reading carefully or sensibly, either because you are unable or because you are unwilling. In either case, I conclude that entering into debate with you is not worth my time.

Second, Gordon, Jesse, et al - many thanks for your attempt to present explanations, but it is apparent that Mads is not interested. He only seeks to enter into wave-front debate, spinning off of the last post into the next wave. I strongly suggest, if you want to continue dialogue with him, to take it to private email.

Third, to Gareth - as usual I have read your material with an eye toward eventual changes in the GNS essay. I think the issue of contention is the one I referred to above: you are dichotomizing cooperation and competition, and I consider the one to be a subset of the other (in reference to role-playing). I think we might do well ourselves to take it to private email for a while.

TO ALL: this thread is over.

Best,
Ron

Well, let’s finish it, then.

Ron: “Some posts above, competition and cooperation were presented as a dichotomy, and I refuted that position. ”

Me: “Cooperating about competing? Obviously true for functional competitive gamist play. But as Tor kind of asked, is that all there is to gamist play?

Errr…”

For the record I’ll make that clearer: Cooperating about competing? Obviously true for all games and sports and possibly war. Errr… that still does not make my happy about being called competing when I am in gamer mode.

Ron “The burden was and is on you”

Ah. But the original statement that got this tread started was form ”GNS AND OTHER MATTERS OF ROLE-PLAYING THEORY”: “…players vs. one another; players vs. GM; etc…”

I indeed cannot claim to have a coherent definition on what Gameism is, though this tread has given me a lot of new insight in the matter. Ron has claimed to have such a definition. A definition I find instinctly wrong. I had hoped that Ron would defend or explain his definition, but that was not to be, for some reason.

Ron :“In either case, I conclude that entering into debate with you is not worth my time.”

Good thing you never seriously entered the debate then.


Since Ron has ordered everybody to stop debating with me, I would like to sign of with the issues that have been unaddressed in my view:

1) We all agreed towards the end that competition was not meant to mean munchkinness. That competition could be understood in different ways. Ron has however not agreed to this. When I called “…players vs. one another; players vs. GM; etc…” rubbish he got kind of chilly (please note Rubbish can be understood in different ways, good-rubbish is not bad-rubbish). “…players vs. one another; players vs. GM; etc…” means munchkin as far as I can tell… which lead me to the next issue…

2) I find the description of gamism in Rons essay to be annoying. No proof. No arguments. This is what I feel. Brian Gleichman is known to feel the same way. How many roleplayers share our view? Who knows. I claim that it is unacceptable to have a text that is supposed to be a bridge of understanding between 3 parties, which is an annoying to one of these parties (and a party I have already argued have a image problem by default). To quote myself from the second post “He will not recognize himself in the above descriptions of gamism.”.

3) I have put forth the idea that the view of gamism as competition is a narrativist-mind mistake. No one has answered this. This indicates to me that you are not reading carefully or sensibly, either because you are unable or because you are unwilling. In either case, I conclude that entering into debate with you is not worth my time. Nahhh, just kidding.

4) Is the gamist GM always competing, or is he sometime a part of the furniture? Not all that important, maybe. Maybe not.


Since I am being cast as the villain, narrativist style, it seems proper to allow someone else to sum up the positive sides, what we have agreed on.

MJ

MJ finishes his post with a call for a reply - I sent one to his email (in case someone - like me - just couldn't bear to see that request left open).

This thread has helped me to develop my personal understanding of Gamism, but it has become very frustrating. Waiting for the next rev of "GNS AND OTHER MATTERS OF ROLE-PLAYING THEORY" doesn't seem like a bad idea, even (especially?) if it takes a while . . .

Gordon

Brian Gleichman is known to feel the same way.

Dammit. Raven, I love ya, but the thread is CLOSED.

Take it elsewhere, everyone.

Best,
Ron

What is the sound of one thread locking?

Oh.