"Gamism," The Forge, and the Elephant in the Room

[pemerton]

I don't think 'meaningful choice' has to mean 'Gamist choice'. It can mean Narrative or Dramatic choice, and it can mean Sim choice.

Agreed. But when used on these boards, it is often used to mean "operationally superior" choice.

 

[S'mon]

Agreed. But when used on these boards, it is often used to mean "operationally superior" choice.

? I don't really get that - if one choice is clearly operationally superior then in Gamist terms there is no meaningful choice. And those of us who talk about 'meaningful choice' a lot tend to expressly discount the kind of tactical decision-making you get in a 4e combat encounter. I think it's far more common for people here to use 'meaningful choice' to mean "Choosing what part of the world to explore" (sim) or "Choosing love over loyalty" (nar) than to mean "Choosing the best way to win" (gamism).

You occasionally get Gamist talk eg praising 4e for its multiple viable combat options, but that's definitely not the primary meaning of 'meaningful choice' I see used here.

 

[chaochou]

I think winning, or something like it, is pretty central to Edwards' conception of gamist play:

I'm defining "winning" as positive assessment at the Step On Up level.
​

Pem, I like your post.

But 'winning as positive assessment at the Step On Up level' is not what I call 'winning' in the way someone wins at Chess or Advanced Squad Leader or the 4*400 relay.

It means (imo) winning in the sense of 'winning approval from your peers'.

 

[Teataine]

There has to be a connection between what we're doing right now in the game and what we're doing in the game overall.

Gamism does require the meaningful choice of being able to pick different tactics, strategies and solutions to problems.

However, if all choices are "equal", in the sense that there's no clear advantage to them, then it's actually meaningless. So in fact I'd argue that there has to be some "operationally superior" aspect to at least some of the choices, otherwise you can't "step on up".

Picking the non-optional choice "because that's what my character would do" or "because that's how the setting works" or "because it's more interesting this way" or whatever is antithetical to gamism. Thus, if you want to make gamist choices, some of them have to be clearly superior...
...or rather, there has to be a clear connection between the choice you make right now and what we're doing here overall (ie. trying to "win").

In (post 3E) D&D it's clearly more optimal not to provoke an AoO unless the benefit outweighs the cost. That makes it a meaningful choice, because it effects your overal chances of getting your goal.

------

Also, regarding the "elephant in the room" from the OP.

I think "munchinism" is what happens when you let a gamist loose on a simulationist system. Taking an disadvantage like "Stutter" or "Greasy hair" to get a +2 to attack. Powergaming or - to use a more positive term - Optimizing on the other hand is always desirable to a degree.

Just like the DM won't throw an Ancient Red Dragon at the party at level 1, a good gamist player will recognize there is no sense in breaking the system to create Pun Pun or any other invincible build. He will create a character that can be appropriatelly challenged, because he wants to be challenged (So he can step on up.). But he won't intentionally gimp his character either.

And while boardgames and cardgames can certainly scratch the "gamist itch" of challenging play very well, I think RPGs are still their own form with their own kinds of challenges that other games can't deliver. Challenges that happen within a shared fiction. That's why RPG gamism is possible and desirable.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really get that - if one choice is clearly operationally superior then in Gamist terms there is no meaningful choice.

But this all turns on "clearly".

Examples include things like in classic D&D play, having two mappers so that if one gets swallowed by a Lurker Above the party still has a copy of the map. Or the ToH story about the guy who, teleported into the three lever pit, stood on two levers before operating the third, so as to avoid fallling down any further pit that was opened up. These choices become obvious in retrospect, but that just puts pressure on the Gygaxian GM to come up with new challenges and puzzles, and the players to come up with new solutions.

Another example of the usage of "meaningful choice" that I find fairly common is the idea that players should occasionally be presented with overwhelming encounters, so they can learn to judge their PCs' prospects and flee when necessary.

And yet a further example is this, from a former prolific poster on these boards, responding to one of my actual play posts:

The scenario I ran yesterday (from the Eden Odyssesy d20 book called "Wonders Out of Time") called for a Large bear.

I wasn't sure exactly how many 10th level PCs would be facing it at once, and so in prepping I placed a single elite level 13 dire bear

<snip>

As it turns out, the whole party encountered the bear. I didn't want to do any re-statting on the fly, so stuck with the level 13 elite. They players decided that their PCs would try to tame and befriend the bear instead of fighting it. To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned, I decided to run this as a level 13 complexity 2 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures).

Also, in a "fiction-first" system, the players could attempt to avoid a combat because that offered their best chance of success. If you design the challenge of avoiding said combat "To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned", then you undo the value of that choice.

From my (non-gamist) point of view, the following response captures some of the relevant differences in possible dimensions of meaningfulness:

I strongly disagree. Wide variance in difficulty or rewards based on player strategy doesn't preserve the value and meaning of player choice, it destroys that value - essentially, you create a single correct choice.

<snip>

Similarly, if a diplomatic approach is just as hard as a fight, whether or not the PCs have good CHA, skill trainings, etc means something. The fact that the characters chose a non violent means of resolving the problem even if it wasn't any easier tells us something about their values. If talking is easy, then PCs can get through without strong social skills, and all that their choice tells us about the characters is that they're expedient.

This is why I like the fact that, from the point of view of Gygaxian gamism, 4e is such a cakewalk, with all that plot protection, and lack of operational resource management, etc. It means that the importance of operational decision-making is reduced (less scope for gamist priorities to take over) and room is therefore created for thematically-driven decision-making.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think GNS often presents a false choice between gamism, simulationism and narrativism (I also think these are just models and there are plenty of other ways to cut up the gaming community that might be more fruitful).

 

[Teataine]

I think GNS often presents a false choice between gamism, simulationism and narrativism (I also think these are just models and there are plenty of other ways to cut up the gaming community that might be more fruitful).

I feel this is a fairly negative interpretation of GNS.

First of, it's certainly a model. GNS is a part of the larger framework called The Big Model, which is a way (not the way) to look at games, specifically through the lens of social dynamics at the table.

I also don't feel it's about cutting up the community, because GNS as such doesn't apply to people, or groups of people. If I say "gamist player" I don't mean "this person is a gamist", but rather that this person is, in this particular game, at this particular time, pursuing a gamist agenda.

It's not about division of groups of players but about understanding game design and the way priorities are set at the table.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I understand it is part of the big model, but that doesn't make it any more useful IMO. When I say "cutting up" I don't mean divide but categorize. I personally just haven't found it helpful to my gaming or designing.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I read a term on a blog (which one, I've forgotten): "tactical infinity". I think that's a key element to satisfying gamist RPG play.

You could imagine a war game scenario where a stronger force is set to root out a smaller one hiding in a forest. That could be interesting. You array your troops and have them fight each other. In an RPG, though, you could burn the forest down, go and talk to the leader and convince him to surrender, join forces and carve out your own empire, try to convert them to your religion, etc. The fact that you're not limited to any one course of action - and your PC's goals are (typically) up to you to decide - means that RPGs have that "tactical infinity".

 

[Scribble]

I tend to like my rules as written to be Gamist, but play at the table in a more narrative/simulationist style.

Gamist rules give us a clearcut starting point. The ability for the players to add narrative/simulationist elements themselves are what make the rules shine. (IMO)

Lady in the streets but a freak in the bed?