innerdude
Legend
Having heard oodles about it from various ENWorld-ers, I finally ventured over to The Forge (The Forge Forums - Index) for the first time a couple of weeks ago.
My first impressions of the site were generally positive, though anyone who's complained about the pretentiousness of Ron Edwards' writing style certainly has a point. That said, I found that I actually agreed with most of his explication of Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist theory, and the theory's general taxonomy. I enjoy exploring basic human motivation (one of the reasons I've always loved RPGs to begin with), and GNS theory is nothing if not a short-hand for looking at how RPG group dynamics develop.
That said, there was something that I simply couldn't shake while reading through Ron's five or six different treatises on GNS, and after further re-readings, it has still stuck with me. To me it's a huge "elephant in the room" surrounding GNS, and it is this:
Gamism in its purest form, as defined by Ron Edwards, is largely antithetical to the social contract of roleplaying.
Now, before everyone goes off on a massive "Who are you to decide what isn't roleplaying!!!" rant, or rails against me for "One True Way-ism," at least hear me out.
What I'm not saying is that those who enjoy Gamism are doing anything "wrong." I personally have a near-infinite appetite for gamism. I LOVE board games, and an evening of hard-core Cities and Knights of Catan, followed up by some Dominion is one of life's true joys. I love the "Step on Up!" challenge of digging into rules and figuring out how they tick, all to create a strategic advantage, and win the admiration of peers for a game well played.
What I am saying, however, is that RPGs are a vastly inferior source of fulfilling Gamist tendencies compared to numerous other venues, and as such, Gamism should, as it has since RPGs have evolved beyond their war gaming roots, play third-fiddle to Narrativism and Simulationism. Ron Edwards is all for having more "Gamist" RPGs. I happen to think they're the last place I would want to push Gamism.
In Ron Edwards mind, Gamism is "easy, diverse, and unpretentious." Yet pure powergaming, and "munchkin-ing" have long been derided in our hobby. So if Gamism isn't "bad," why is it so difficult to incorporate into many RPGs, and why do the majority of RPGs implicitly or explicitly push back against Gamist tendencies?
Ron seems to think it's mostly misguided GMs and game designers trying to "enforce their will":
"Some groups and game designers treat Gamism's easy 'in' as a necessary evil and to take an appeasement approach. The 'Id' can be controlled, they say, as long as the Superego (the GM) stays firmly in charge and gives it occasional fights and a reward system based on improving effectiveness. This approach may rank among the most-commonly attempted yet least-successful tactic in all of game design. It will never actually work: the Lumpley Principle correctly places the rules and procedures of play at the mercy of the Social Contract, not the other way around. Therefore, even if such a game continues, it has this limping-along, gotta-put-up-with-Bob feel to it."
But here's the thing: I don't think the problem is the groups, the GM, or the rules systems. If Bob is the problem, then Bob is the problem. And the problem is that most Narrativist and Simulationist players rightfully feel that Gamism in RPGs unnecessarily encroaches on territory considered to be fundamental to the genre.
Board games are one type of social experience, and RPGs are another, but to a Gamist, the ultimate purpose of them is the same--to "win" the "game." A Gamist can have similar senses of satisfaction playing WoW, Risk, Pinochle, or RPGs. Narrativists and Simulationists, however, are pretty much limited to RPGs.
Nobody cares about sharing a "narrative," or "interacting with the game world" of Risk--but in RPGs, they are fundamental to the entire experience.
If Gamism in RPGs has evolved away from its earliest war gaming roots, it's because most RPG players have found that Gamism is a poor fit, or more appropriately, a poorer fit for the genre than Narrativism and Simulationism. Why on earth would a Gamist prefer roleplaying games to one of the numerous, vastly superior outlets for their desire--video games, board games, card games, and the like? RPGs are different from other Gamist venues precisely because they're not wholly Gamist.
So if you're a pure Gamist, why hang out with all of us "Narrativists" and "Simulationists," when we're mostly going to tell you to stop being "Gamist" in the first place? Why not spend your time on something that fills your Gamist desires much more readily and fully than RPGs generally manage? Having said that, I recognize that many of us don't always get to choose our group's makeup. And sometimes, we have a friend we just want to be involved in the hobby at all, regardless of motivation.
But if Gamists consistently feel dissatisfied with their RPG experiences, it's probably because generally speaking, the genre is already making them swim upstream. RPGs are one of the few, singular outlets that Narrativists and Simulationists have, whereas RPGs are just one of dozens, if not hundreds of outlets for Gamists. As a result, Narrativists and Simulationists are rightfully protective of our turf. Our opportunities for exploration are vastly more limited compared to Gamists. We need our RPGs to be Narrativist and Simulationist, in ways that Gamists don't need their RPGs to be "Gamist." In other words, when it comes to RPGs, it's the Gamist's job to adjust their viewpoint to the Narrativists and Simulationists, not the other way around. And frankly, if the Gamists don't like it, they're almost assuredly going to go back to something that better "scratches their itch."
Does this mean that Gamists can't, or shouldn't be accommodated at all? No, but it does mean that the primary focus of RPGs should never primarily be the "G." After having read Edwards' GNS theory, I am even more convinced that while it doesn't need to be wholly ignored, Gamism is and should be subservient to Narrativism and Simulationism in RPG design and play.
My first impressions of the site were generally positive, though anyone who's complained about the pretentiousness of Ron Edwards' writing style certainly has a point. That said, I found that I actually agreed with most of his explication of Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist theory, and the theory's general taxonomy. I enjoy exploring basic human motivation (one of the reasons I've always loved RPGs to begin with), and GNS theory is nothing if not a short-hand for looking at how RPG group dynamics develop.
That said, there was something that I simply couldn't shake while reading through Ron's five or six different treatises on GNS, and after further re-readings, it has still stuck with me. To me it's a huge "elephant in the room" surrounding GNS, and it is this:
Gamism in its purest form, as defined by Ron Edwards, is largely antithetical to the social contract of roleplaying.
Now, before everyone goes off on a massive "Who are you to decide what isn't roleplaying!!!" rant, or rails against me for "One True Way-ism," at least hear me out.
What I'm not saying is that those who enjoy Gamism are doing anything "wrong." I personally have a near-infinite appetite for gamism. I LOVE board games, and an evening of hard-core Cities and Knights of Catan, followed up by some Dominion is one of life's true joys. I love the "Step on Up!" challenge of digging into rules and figuring out how they tick, all to create a strategic advantage, and win the admiration of peers for a game well played.
What I am saying, however, is that RPGs are a vastly inferior source of fulfilling Gamist tendencies compared to numerous other venues, and as such, Gamism should, as it has since RPGs have evolved beyond their war gaming roots, play third-fiddle to Narrativism and Simulationism. Ron Edwards is all for having more "Gamist" RPGs. I happen to think they're the last place I would want to push Gamism.
In Ron Edwards mind, Gamism is "easy, diverse, and unpretentious." Yet pure powergaming, and "munchkin-ing" have long been derided in our hobby. So if Gamism isn't "bad," why is it so difficult to incorporate into many RPGs, and why do the majority of RPGs implicitly or explicitly push back against Gamist tendencies?
Ron seems to think it's mostly misguided GMs and game designers trying to "enforce their will":
"Some groups and game designers treat Gamism's easy 'in' as a necessary evil and to take an appeasement approach. The 'Id' can be controlled, they say, as long as the Superego (the GM) stays firmly in charge and gives it occasional fights and a reward system based on improving effectiveness. This approach may rank among the most-commonly attempted yet least-successful tactic in all of game design. It will never actually work: the Lumpley Principle correctly places the rules and procedures of play at the mercy of the Social Contract, not the other way around. Therefore, even if such a game continues, it has this limping-along, gotta-put-up-with-Bob feel to it."
But here's the thing: I don't think the problem is the groups, the GM, or the rules systems. If Bob is the problem, then Bob is the problem. And the problem is that most Narrativist and Simulationist players rightfully feel that Gamism in RPGs unnecessarily encroaches on territory considered to be fundamental to the genre.
Board games are one type of social experience, and RPGs are another, but to a Gamist, the ultimate purpose of them is the same--to "win" the "game." A Gamist can have similar senses of satisfaction playing WoW, Risk, Pinochle, or RPGs. Narrativists and Simulationists, however, are pretty much limited to RPGs.
Nobody cares about sharing a "narrative," or "interacting with the game world" of Risk--but in RPGs, they are fundamental to the entire experience.
If Gamism in RPGs has evolved away from its earliest war gaming roots, it's because most RPG players have found that Gamism is a poor fit, or more appropriately, a poorer fit for the genre than Narrativism and Simulationism. Why on earth would a Gamist prefer roleplaying games to one of the numerous, vastly superior outlets for their desire--video games, board games, card games, and the like? RPGs are different from other Gamist venues precisely because they're not wholly Gamist.
So if you're a pure Gamist, why hang out with all of us "Narrativists" and "Simulationists," when we're mostly going to tell you to stop being "Gamist" in the first place? Why not spend your time on something that fills your Gamist desires much more readily and fully than RPGs generally manage? Having said that, I recognize that many of us don't always get to choose our group's makeup. And sometimes, we have a friend we just want to be involved in the hobby at all, regardless of motivation.
But if Gamists consistently feel dissatisfied with their RPG experiences, it's probably because generally speaking, the genre is already making them swim upstream. RPGs are one of the few, singular outlets that Narrativists and Simulationists have, whereas RPGs are just one of dozens, if not hundreds of outlets for Gamists. As a result, Narrativists and Simulationists are rightfully protective of our turf. Our opportunities for exploration are vastly more limited compared to Gamists. We need our RPGs to be Narrativist and Simulationist, in ways that Gamists don't need their RPGs to be "Gamist." In other words, when it comes to RPGs, it's the Gamist's job to adjust their viewpoint to the Narrativists and Simulationists, not the other way around. And frankly, if the Gamists don't like it, they're almost assuredly going to go back to something that better "scratches their itch."
Does this mean that Gamists can't, or shouldn't be accommodated at all? No, but it does mean that the primary focus of RPGs should never primarily be the "G." After having read Edwards' GNS theory, I am even more convinced that while it doesn't need to be wholly ignored, Gamism is and should be subservient to Narrativism and Simulationism in RPG design and play.
Last edited:
