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

[Anselyn]

Enjoying the read, up until that sentence. This is, in my view, a rather terrible outlook: Competition means doing better than the adversary, not driving it down. Quality competition tends to have the opposite effect: Of driving up the adversary's performance. That is one of the strong benefits of competition.

Anyways, completely derailed my reading.

TomB

If you are attached to an absolute measurement scale and used to an economic analysis then I guess you're probably right. But if you just view a differential performance on a relative scale then the the concept is the same and clear.
I guess that an evolutionary biologist might assert that a successful species drives down the the adversary's performance having won, say, a competition for food. I think as gamers we should be able to take a rather generic interpretation of the idea of competition.

 

[1Mac]

I think GNS often presents a false choice between gamism, simulationism and narrativism.

If I'm remembering correctly how GNS works, then not really. As I recall, GNS isn't about full games, or players; it's about choices in a game. In a way it's improper to ask if DnD, or Paranoia, or Fate, are Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist; without first asking how the game handles individual gaming elements. How does the game handle combat? Exploration? Social encounters? Economy? Reputation and fame?

If the answer is that 1MacRPG handles most of these choices in a Simulationist fashion, then it is fair to say that 1MacRPG is a Simulationist game. Likewise, if JoBob likes making most game choices with a Gamist mindset, then it is fair to call JoBob a Gamist. But the reason many games seem to be a mix of GNS tendencies is because a particular sort of choice will lean towards a different GNS facet than another sort of choice. A game might handle combat in a very Gamist manner, but treat exploration in a Narrativist way. Likewise, a player might prefer the game's economy to be highly Simulated, but to treat fame in a Narrativist way.

The point being, because GNS theory focuses on components of a game, rather than the whole game; therefore GNS theory allows for games (and players) to be Gamist, Narrativist, and/or Simulationist, depending on what part of the game we are looking at. Thus there is no possibility for false choice, at least at the macro-level of an entire game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That is why I said it often presents a false choice (and not always). I see a lot of GNS propoenents push for focus on one of the three categories for example when discussing the best way to design games. Many people feel this is what created the problem for 4e, they applied GNS by making the edition with gamism as the focus. Most gamers, I believe, would rather have those three elements in balance.

 

[Umbran]

I feel this is a fairly negative interpretation of GNS.

Negative, but accurate*. When writing on GNS, Edwards claimed that a gamer held one of three mutually exclusive aims. His posit was that the problem with most games at the time was that they tried to satisfy all three aims at once, when the player really only wanted one.

Needless to say, I think Edwards was incorrect. I think WotC's market research in 1999 rather blows that part of GNS out of the water.

First of, it's certainly a model. GNS is a part of the larger framework called The Big Model...

Technically inaccurate. Edwards first had the "threefold model", sometimes also called "GDS theory". Here is it Game, Drama, and Simulation. Edwards then revised it to GNS. He later discarded GNS, and came up with the Big Model, which shares some ideas with its predecessor, but much of it is redefined, so it isn't really the original GNS that is part of the Big Model.


*cite: System does Matter, by Edwards:

"Three player aims or outlooks have been suggested, in that a given player approaches a role-playing situation pretty much from one of them, with some, but not much, crossover possible."
...
"Here I suggest that RPG system design cannot meet all three outlooks at once."
...
"To sum up, I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks."

 

[1Mac]

That is why I said it often presents a false choice (and not always). I see a lot of GNS propoenents push for focus on one of the three categories for example when discussing the best way to design games.

Fair enough, but then that is not a problem with GNS theory as originally presented, but with how it is often erroneously interpreted.

Negative, but accurate*. When writing on GNS, Edwards claimed that a gamer held one of three mutually exclusive aims. His posit was that the problem with most games at the time was that they tried to satisfy all three aims at once, when the player really only wanted one.

As I indicated in my previous post, that's an incomplete understanding of Edwards' thinking. From another Forge essay (emphasis added):

Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of shorthand are common.

For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play. The actual time or activity of an "instance" is necessarily left ambiguous.

Over a greater period of time, across many instances of play, some people tend to cluster their decisions and interests around one of the three goals. Other people vary across the goals, but even they admit that they stay focused, or prioritize, for a given instance.

The big point is that GNS is not really about games, or players; but individual gaming decisions, and how those decisions may or may not aggregate around one style of play for a given game or player.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think Umbran's reading of the essay is pretty accurate (Umbran's citation is quite explicit on that point). Part of edward's problem is the sprawling natural of his system of thought. Ultimately he is still saying these things are focused at an individual level and still tend to be at a broader level. I don't think that is the only way to apply GNS theory, but it is how most people seem to do so, and Edwards himself talks of these things frequently as being mutually exclusive or at odds.

 

[1Mac]

Umbran's reading is accurate if you are only looking at the one particular essay. The essay that Umbran cites and the one I cite do not really contradict each other (just because Edwards discusses games that are exclusively Gamist, that does not exclude games that have all three GNS facets), but the essay I cite clearly contradicts Umbran's interpretation.

A big problem with Edwards, I'll grant, is that his writing style frequently wants for clarity, which is why he is often misinterpreted. Apparent contradictions arise, but I think his ideas are interesting enough that it's worth the effort to resolve those apparent contradictions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Umbran's reading is accurate if you are only looking at the one particular essay. The essay that Umbran cites and the one I cite do not really contradict each other (just because Edwards discusses games that are exclusively Gamist, that does not exclude games that have all three GNS facets), but the essay I cite clearly contradicts Umbran's interpretation.

But edwards says explicitly Umbran's citation that an RPG can't do all three at once. He also says it is better design to focus on one style. Also the existence of another essay that muddies Edward's position doesn't remove System Matters from existence.

 

[1Mac]

What Edwards says is "a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks." Note that he doesn't say "game," and that at the beginning of the essay, he says, "by 'system' I mean a method to resolve what happens during play."

So by "system," he could mean a complete game, or he could mean rules for a particular situation in the game. Edwards' cursed lack of clarity allows for either interpretation. If we are going to be fair to Edwards' ideas and assume they are not self-contradictory nonsense*, then we have to look at his other writings on the subject to determine which interpretation is correct.

*I accept and appreciate that many will have this view!

 

[Bedrockgames]

What Edwards says is "a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks." Note that he doesn't say "game," and that at the beginning of the essay, he says, "by 'system' I mean a method to resolve what happens during play."

So by "system," he could mean a complete game, or he could mean rules for a particular situation in the game. Edwards' cursed lack of clarity allows for either interpretation. If we are going to be fair to Edwards' ideas and assume they are not self-contradictory nonsense*, then we have to look at his other writings on the subject to determine which interpretation is correct.

*I accept and appreciate that many will have this view!

I think by system (in the case of this essay) he meant Agamemnon system, not sub system. Though even there I think it is a mistake to assume you can't balance The three elements.

I do agree clarity an issue for Edwards, and in my opinion this was made even worse when he developed his own lexicon to talk about the big model.