What is "gamist"?

[Umbran]

I could see that. Do people really have an agenda driven toward RPG's with deliberately or explicitly gamelike elements?

Well, yes, but maybe not as you stated it. I'll try to explain what I mean, while avoiding Forgisms as much as possible.

Imagine a person who likes to play chess. When that person sits down at a chess board, they have a plan or goal - an agenda: to have fun playing a game of chess. They are not trying to simulate anything. They are not interested in dramatic narrative. They just want to play a game - they have a gamist agenda.

Now, imagine a gamer who really likes the tactical wargame aspect of D&D. A player who loves working on optimizations, who likes playing with the fiddly-bit rules at runtime - the player for whom this sort of rules-focused activity is a form of play they actively enjoy. When this player sets down at the table, he or she is not really worried about the plot of the session, or whether there's a reasonable monster ecology - the player is there to get to the fight scenes and kick some monsters around.

This player isn't much different form the chess player - there to play the combat game - and has a gamist agenda.

In general, that thing that you want to do when you sit down at the table, that's your agenda.

 

[Balesir]

... sputters.

I think that statement goes a long way to explain different views on RPGs. I can see some folks who would say, reflexively, "of course", and can see other folks who would just as quickly say, "of course not".

Of course

That is really my main point; we tend to assume one or other because it seems "natural" to us. Wisdom consists of recognising that others see it differently, and that the way we see it is not necessarily "right" (or, indeed, necessarily "wrong").

When I use the terms, I'm usually referring to the feel of a particular rule, sub system or even entire RPG rule set, not necessarily players.

"Gamist" is a rule which looks more like a move in a chess game, abstact and having little to do with "the real world" or the current scene or overall story in the RPG.

"Simulationist" is a rule which is trying to reflect how something works in the real world, often looking more like a physics equation for acceleration or bank interest.

"Narrative" is a rule more akin to a direction in a movie script, designed to push the scene or overall story forward, or enable more improvisational roleplaying.

Taken in order, GSN terminology kinda describes the evolution of RPGs. Take a game of chess, add rules to simulate factors like the pieces position on terrain, troop strength and a degree of uncertainty (typically via dice) for attacking the opponents pieces (like war games re-enacting famous battles), then add ways for players to narrate the interaction of their pieces with the game in detail, and you've got an RPG.

Except that the definitions you give are totally unlike those used by the GNS categorisations. That doesn't mean you should not use the words the way you want to, but realise that there are (several) other meanings, so using the terms without explaining them as you use them may be problematic, because others will have different meanings in mind when they read what you write.

 

[Balesir]

Now, imagine a gamer who really likes the tactical wargame aspect of D&D. A player who loves working on optimizations, who likes playing with the fiddly-bit rules at runtime - the player for whom this sort of rules-focused activity is a form of play they actively enjoy. When this player sets down at the table, he or she is not really worried about the plot of the session, or whether there's a reasonable monster ecology - the player is there to get to the fight scenes and kick some monsters around.

While it's conceivable that some players focus exclusively on tactical combat, I find that it's usually a good deal more "fuzzy" than that. Social encounters can be viewed in a tactical, challenge-beating or problem-solving light as well as combat encounters - as can "exploration" situations and in-game "mysteries".

Further to this, above the "tactical" level, the whole scenario/quest/mission can be viewed as a "strategic" challenge in much the same way. Once you get to this level, it becomes hard to see the agenda for play as "game-like" in the same sense as you see in the chess example. "Ordinary games" don't tend to be multi-layered or context-shifting in quite the same way. Once you get this far, it's much easier to see that the "game" is a roleplaying game and yet the agenda is still quite focussed on "beating the challenge" using player skill (with the game rules) and luck. This is pretty much the Forge category called "Gamist", rather than a wish to have "game-like play" for its own sake, it seems to me.

 

[Umbran]

While it's conceivable that some players focus exclusively on tactical combat, I find that it's usually a good deal more "fuzzy" than that. Social encounters can be viewed in a tactical, challenge-beating or problem-solving light as well as combat encounters - as can "exploration" situations and in-game "mysteries".

I was giving a demonstrative example, not a prescriptive one. I was describing one type of player, for purposes of elucidating what an agenda was. I was not trying to describe all people who might fall under "gamist agenda".

In other words - don't read too much into it

I would say, if the game has specific game-rules for doing social encounters, or exploration, then sure, a gamist could be involved in those, too. So long as playing with the rules is the source of the fun, then yes. But D&D is a bit short on social and exploration rules, honestly, while I expect everyone here understands the idea of the player who's really into combat.

Further to this, above the "tactical" level, the whole scenario/quest/mission can be viewed as a "strategic" challenge in much the same way.

Yes, but D&D is also pretty short on strategy-scale rules. For the combat orientation, you can imagine that the character build is the strategy-play for a gamist, and the runtime combat is the tactical level play, I suppose.

Once you get to this level, it becomes hard to see the agenda for play as "game-like" in the same sense as you see in the chess example.

Well, that is because (as I noted above) D&D's rules are mostly tactical scale, not strategic. If, for example, D&D came with a Catan-like resource-building subsystem we could talk about strategic gamists easily enough.

 

[TrippyHippy]

'Gamist' is the view that all aspects of play should have a specified goal, with the players rewarded for strategically and tactically utilising the rules of the game towards best achieving this goal.

 

[prosfilaes]

How about instead GNS-lovers and GNS-haters alike acknowledge that GNS theory doesn't get to assume control over the English language anymore than I can tell you that an "apple" is the stone in your wedding ring and expect everyone else adopt the term.

"Apple" is another word for a baseball. Are we claiming that baseball fans have assumed control over the English language, or do we simply understand the people in a certain field sometimes use words in an unusual manner?

In any case, I stuck "gamist" into Google Books*, and I'm not seeing any use for gamist prior to the 21st century. (It's swamped by polygamist, bigamist and other such words that got broken by a hyphen.) Given that the Forge lists the date of "GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory" as 2001-10-14, that may be the first use of the word.

Yes, finally I found a couple uses that predate that. "Software reviews on file" in 1986 used it in the sense of gamer, and "Collegiate microcomputer" in 1988 said "Levy is probably the world's foremost computer gamist. His works have been the standards that others have followed.", so I guess they used gamist to mean game maker. I think that amplifies my point; prior to GNS, gamist was a very rare word without established meaning, and Ron Edwards probably was not aware of prior usage. If you can't give a meaning to a word you made up, what can you do?

(And I'm not sure how gamers who play a game that defines dungeon†, goblin‡, and hobgoblin§, to pick a few, as aberrantly as it does, really get to complain about the misuse of words.)

* gamist - My library - Google Books

†1913 Websters: A close, dark prison, commonly, under ground, as if the lower apartments of the donjon or keep of a castle, these being used as prisons.

‡ 1913 Websters: An evil or mischievous spirit; a playful or malicious elf¶; a frightful phantom; a gnome||.

§ 1913 Websters: A frightful goblin; an imp; a bugaboo; also, a name formerly given to the household spirit, Robin Goodfellow

¶ 1913 Websters: An imaginary supernatural being, commonly a little sprite, much like a fairy; a mythological diminutive spirit, supposed to haunt hills and wild places, and generally represented as delighting in mischievous tricks.

|| 1913 Websters: 1. An imaginary being, supposed by the Rosicrucians to inhabit the inner parts of the earth, and to be the guardian of mines, quarries, etc. 2. A dwarf; a goblin; a person of small stature or misshapen features, or of strange appearance.

 

[Balesir]

In other words - don't read too much into it

Fair enough, but I think you are still only painting a part of the picture. For one thing, I think players can pursue more than one agenda (although not, in general, more than one at a time, I don't think). And taking a couple of other comments:

I would say, if the game has specific game-rules for doing social encounters, or exploration, then sure, a gamist could be involved in those, too. So long as playing with the rules is the source of the fun, then yes. But D&D is a bit short on social and exploration rules, honestly, while I expect everyone here understands the idea of the player who's really into combat.

As I have said in another thread, every game has rules for handling social and exploration situations - they just might not be written down.

The game world does not exist, except in the imaginations of the players. Players do exist in the "real" world. Ergo, there must be some mechanism that translates the real-world actions of the players into imagined events in the game world. These systems - even if they are not written down - can be "gamed".

Take the idea that "the game world works basically like the real world, but with magic, and the GM decides what this means in cases of doubt". The "system" is now "how the GM thinks the real world works, modified by how the GM thinks magic works in this game world". The "game" now becomes figuring out what the GM's beliefs about how the real world and game-world magic works, and utilising those "rules" to win.

It's almost a bit like the "sayings of the Orlanthi" in Glorantha:

- there is always a system in play

- gaming the system is always an option

Yes, but D&D is also pretty short on strategy-scale rules. For the combat orientation, you can imagine that the character build is the strategy-play for a gamist, and the runtime combat is the tactical level play, I suppose.

Just as with "unwritten" social and exploration systems, there is always a strategic level (unless the scenario is being railroaded incredibly tightly). The choice of what direction/mission/dungeon room/task to tackle next is "strategy". The decision when to rest is strategy.

Thinking about and "playing the game" on this "layer" means interacting with what is commonly thought of as the "plot". This is what I mean about "this layer being fuzzy" - the playing out of such games in the context of a game world is pretty uniquely a roleplaying game activity, and yet it can still be approached with an agenda that says "we aim to win". This can fit with the character "roles" quite seamlessly, too. Even though a reader of The Lord of the Rings might engage with the plot avid to find out what happens to Frodo, Sam, Aragorn and company, I have to say that I imagine Frodo, Sam and Aragorn engaging much more from the angle of "how do we defeat this Sauron guy?"

Edit to add: this is partly why I am keen on the function the rules fulfill in communicating among the players (including the GM) how the game world works. If this is done, then "gaming the system" and "strategizing in character to beat the in-game challenges" grow together to approach a singularity. For a "challenge busting" roleplaying game such as I think D&D has always had in its DNA, I think that is a very good place to get to.

 

[Krensky]

In any case, I stuck "gamist" into Google Books*, and I'm not seeing any use for gamist prior to the 21st century. (It's swamped by polygamist, bigamist and other such words that got broken by a hyphen.) Given that the Forge lists the date of "GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory" as 2001-10-14, that may be the first use of the word.

Yes, finally I found a couple uses that predate that. "Software reviews on file" in 1986 used it in the sense of gamer, and "Collegiate microcomputer" in 1988 said "Levy is probably the world's foremost computer gamist. His works have been the standards that others have followed.", so I guess they used gamist to mean game maker. I think that amplifies my point; prior to GNS, gamist was a very rare word without established meaning, and Ron Edwards probably was not aware of prior usage. If you can't give a meaning to a word you made up, what can you do?

Wrong tool. Try Google Groups and look at rec.games.frp.advocacy. Thousands of hits from the late 1990s, using the term gamist the way I and others use it. Before Edwards started redefining it as part of his pseudo-intellectual claptrap. Edwards was aware of these discussions, he just decided that everyone else's critical theories were wrong and he needed to redefine the words for some unfathomable reason.

He didn't make up the word. He doesn't get to redefine a word in use to support his theories anymore then I get to redefine the word blue so that I can say that the sky and the grass are the same color.

 

[tomBitonti]

In any case, I stuck "gamist" into Google Books*, and I'm not seeing any use for gamist prior to the 21st century. (It's swamped by polygamist, bigamist and other such words that got broken by a hyphen.) Given that the Forge lists the date of "GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory" as 2001-10-14, that may be the first use of the word.

Except that, there is an indirect route that obtains a meaning for "gamist":

Gamist as a contraction of "Gameist", then, gamist using the usual meaning of "ist" applied to "game".

As a made up word, this seems to be the route that most would take to define it. (I approach the word in this manner. I'm only indirectly familiar with the GNS definition. Since we are not writing in a strictly technical forum, the GNS definition doesn't apply.)

Then:

-ist - Definition of -ist

a person who does, makes, or practices (the thing specified): words so formed correspond to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism: moralist, satirist

a person skilled in or occupied with; an expert in: druggist, violinist

an adherent of or believer in: anarchist

a person having or displaying prejudice related to: ageist

Note also the following, which matches the last form of "ist":

Urban Dictionary: Gameist

Gameist
Person who hates a person entirely on their gaming skills.

or

person doesn't know him or her and hates them through the game.

TomB

 

[Umbran]

Fair enough, but I think you are still only painting a part of the picture.

I think I just said, pretty clearly, that I wasn't *trying* to paint the entire picture.

For one thing, I think players can pursue more than one agenda (although not, in general, more than one at a time, I don't think).

GNS theory has, in my estimation, two basic and major flaws:

1) They speak as if G, N, and S are not merely convenient concepts to use as axes, but are The TRVTH!

2) In some of the literature, they explicitly state that a given player really follows only one of these things, and that any desire they may think they have is really a desire on their main agenda.

Personally, I view G,N, and S as simply being coordinate axes, and a player's actual desires can be imagined as a vector in that space. I could pick different axes (say, something more akin to the WotC market research Breakdown of RPG players), and look at the same player through a different framework.

And taking a couple of other comments:As I have said in another thread, every game has rules for handling social and exploration situations - they just might not be written down.

We shouldn't rehash the other thread, but I don't agree with that assessment. Specifically, the assertion that there is *always* a system in play. At least, not in what I consider "system".