What is "gamist"?

[nightwyrm]

I object to GNS's use of the word theory. Where are its rejectable predictions? What experiments can you do to test it? It's at best an unsubstantiated hypothesis - a "just-so" story that due to its poorly defined terms causes confusion and chaos on the interwebs.

 

[1Mac]

I have seen writing by Edwards asserting that a particular gamer really, deep underneath, really only has one stance - Not just of the moment, but in general - and any other stance they *seem* to take is merely a misunderstood attempt to achieve their One True Stance.

Did Edwards always say that?

The bit you cite was from an earlier essay. A later essay refined it to the much more sensible position, that GNS refers to smaller gaming moments, not games or gamers at large.

I don't think GNS theory is the hopelessly self-contradictory hodge-podge you seem to think it is, but even if it were, why focus on the worst versions of the theory? Why not focus instead on the more sensible clarifications?

Upthread, you said one of GNS's flaws is that:

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.

But in later writings, Edwards advocates the subtler position, which I think we all agree is more reasonable. So why not focus on that, instead of more primitive formulations of his theory, if the former is clearly better?

 

[Bedrockgames]

The bit you cite was from an earlier essay. A later essay refined it to the much more sensible position, that GNS refers to smaller gaming moments, not games or gamers at large.

I don't think GNS theory is the hopelessly self-contradictory hodge-podge you seem to think it is, but even if it were, why focus on the worst versions of the theory? Why not focus instead on the more sensible clarifications?

Upthread, you said one of GNS's flaws is that:


But in later writings, Edwards advocates the subtler position, which I think we all agree is more reasonable. So why not focus on that, instead of more primitive formulations of his theory, if the former is clearly better?

I have to say, I find it hard to work past much of the absolutism in the earlier incarnations of the theory. Personally I also don't find the thepries all that helpful. Initially when i encountered them I read with some interest and tried to make sense of what was being said, but it just became clear to me that these ideas didn't match my experience or really offer much for me. If people find the ideas work for their own games, more power to them. For me I think alternate definitions of gamist are more productive in terms of design and play.

 

[prosfilaes]

For me I think alternate definitions of gamist are more productive in terms of design and play.

What alternate definitions? I haven't seen an alternate definition that of any interest where's there's not a less ambiguous word to use.

The GNS version of gamist describes useful things I see in my play environment. It seems to be the only non-pejorative word to describe a set of behaviors in RPGs.

 

[Umbran]

But in later writings, Edwards advocates the subtler position, which I think we all agree is more reasonable. So why not focus on that, instead of more primitive formulations of his theory, if the former is clearly better?

Yes, but I've covered that, no? In even later writings, Edwards abandoned GNS for another model. So, why not focus on *that*?

I object to GNS's use of the word theory. Where are its rejectable predictions? What experiments can you do to test it?

All that stuff only holds for scientific theories. There's other forms of theory - mathematical, philosophical, political, economic - if you're trying to accomplish different things with them, they need not be held to the same process.

But then, I think that's another, lesser flaw of GNS - it is entirely theoretical, and not subjected to any real empirical testing. Same goes for all of Edwards' work, really. This ties into my objection to the "one agenda" stuff - either the early or later formulation - it comprises a statement of knowing why another acts as they do, without actually having asked them.

So, the three-axis framework for analysis? Sure, I can take that and use it. The assertions about player motivations? Not so much.

 

[Celebrim]

What do you mean or what do you have in mind, when you use or read the word "gamist" in a discussion?

Fundamentally, "competive". If I say a player is "gamist", I mean that they have a competitive mindset and that they play the game to 'win' in the most conventional way. If I say that a ruleset is "gamist", I mean that it fosters a competive spirit by facillitating or allowing for complex tactical play in transparent and fair way. If I say that a group prefers a "gamist" game, I mean that they thrive on a "DM vs. the Players" mentality with an open rules set and aggressive attempts to thwart each others 'goals'.

Simulationist and narrativist players may feel that the environment is hostile. They may also feel that the reliance on metagame language to define scenarios and actions in concrete ways hinders and distracts from the story. They may also feel that the gamist player is too hidebound to the rules, and that the rules are too limiting since they prevent attempting things which might make for an interesting story or which would be concievable in the described environment even though they are not technically within the rules.

Of course, I have some deep reservatives about some of the tenents of GNS, most specifically, that GNS are mutually exclusive.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Personally with the word "gamist" I mean mostly the attitude of reasoning in terms of codified rules, rather than in terms of what those rules originally represented...

What's your take on the word "gamist"?

Mine is essentially the same as yours.