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

[Bedrockgames]

Edit: that should read "a game system" not agamemnon.

 

[Umbran]

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

His words were pretty clear there, when put in context of the entire piece. I'm sorry, but there aren't too many ways to interpret, "I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks." I see two, and the rest of the surrounding text strongly suggests one over the other.

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

In historical context, I read that rather differently.

All due respect, I think Edwards had a major problem. His fundamental thesis, that players really focus on a single primary aspect, was wrong, at least for a large chunk of players. The "torment" arose not from people misunderstanding his theory, but from his simply not understanding players as well as he thought. As time progressed, he backpedaled from the clear initial statement I presented, to the softer statement you referenced.

It is no surprise that the model was flawed - it was a theoretical construction, without empirical underpinnings or support.

 

[1Mac]

All due respect, I think Edwards had a major problem. His fundamental thesis, that players really focus on a single primary aspect, was wrong, at least for a large chunk of players. The "torment" arose not from people misunderstanding his theory, but from his simply not understanding players as well as he thought. As time progressed, he backpedaled from the clear initial statement I presented, to the softer statement you referenced.

That may well have happened. At least, it's impossible to contradict. But if he did backpedal, I find his "backpedaled" thesis more interesting that his original idea. That is, I find GNS theory more interesting and insightful when applied to individual gaming decisions, rather than entire games.

Whether Edwards always had it in mind to apply GNS to such micro-decisions, or he originally applied it to macro-games and started blowing smoke while refining the original theory; in either case, GNS theory as it currently stands applies to smaller gaming decisions, not full games.

 

[Umbran]

That may well have happened. At least, it's impossible to contradict.

And I admit it is speculation.

But if he did backpedal, I find his "backpedaled" thesis more interesting that his original idea. That is, I find GNS theory more interesting and insightful when applied to individual gaming decisions, rather than entire games.

I find that taking it that way makes it much more academic than useful. Individual decisions are so mired in their own context of the moment that the agenda of the maker is only part of the story. It seems to me that the signal to noise ratio on individual decisions is pretty low.

Whether Edwards always had it in mind to apply GNS to such micro-decisions, or he originally applied it to macro-games and started blowing smoke while refining the original theory; in either case, GNS theory as it currently stands applies to smaller gaming decisions, not full games.

It seems to me that GNS effectively has a few versions - editions, if you will.

 

[Greg K]

Could someone XP Umbran for post 42? I am unable to XP him until I spread out the XP.

 

[innerdude]

Don't have time to make a huge response, but I did want to comment that the responses so far have been really interesting to me.

I will say this:

If it was in fact what he meant, I think Edwards' idea that "GNS only applies to the individual components, not the whole" is fairly disingenuous (and I'll need to go back and explore it further, and it's possible that's not what he meant at all).

What's the point of applying the criteria of GNS to individual objects, and not the whole? We don't play "Role Playing Mechanics Decontextualized and Piece Meal," we play "Role Playing Games." A game is the sum of the experience created by its rules constraints, not the rules themselves.

Anyway, I'm really interested in seeing what else people think.

 

[tomBitonti]

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.

I think you are thinking of rewards distribution, as a consequence of the outcome of overcoming the adversary. Wolf eats deer, caveman slogs a second wife, and so on.

But as far as the effect of competition on performance, that trends to increase the performance all around.

One style of "doing better" is to undercut the opponent. Another style is simply to "do better".

There has to be care in measuring performance. Say, shooting basketball, scoring a hoop is success: Jumping higher (or faster, or more accurately) is performance.

TomB

 

[Crazy Jerome]

When I use "meaningful choice" it is not restricted to any one aspect of GNS. There are individual cases where it might be by the nature of the case itself, but as long as choice involves a decision point that has more than one reasonable answer, and each answer has consequences, then I consider the choice meaningful.

An interesting thing that I've noticed the last few months is that the differences that the theory tries to explain (however well or poorly) can also be present in other venues. I've been playing a lot of Agricola (a farm-themed Euro boardgame), and seen outright frustration from my wife and daughter because they want:

1. To be competitive--have a chance to win the score.
2. Get a complete farm, make it look nice--tell the story of the farm through play.
3. "Explore" different ways of putting the farm together--simulate the different farms.

The "problem" in straight Agricola is that pursuing anyone of these goals cuts off avenues to get the other two. I got the "Farmers of the Moor" expansion as a gift recently. If reviews are accurate, it goes a long way towards reconciling this problem by making the actions you take towards one aim the natural actions you could take for the others. Not perfectly, of course, but noticably better than the original. FotM achieves this, in part, by adding a few elements that help synchronize meaingful choices for all three of those goals.

Of course, a theme board game is a very closed system compared to any RPG, but then it doesn't have the DM to help smooth over rough areas, either.

 

[GSHamster]

Assuming the validity of the GNS stuff, the OP's basic argument is that a game cannot be all things to all people. In that case, it's better to focus on the underserved marked (NS) than the overserved market (G).

I think that's a reasonably valid statement.

However, I wonder how this works with groups of people. Let's say you have group of three friends, one G, one S, and one N. Would a game that attempted to hit all three points be better for that group? Compared to a game that did a better job on 2 points, but a terrible job at 1 point.

 

[1Mac]

What's the point of applying the criteria of GNS to individual objects, and not the whole? We don't play "Role Playing Mechanics Decontextualized and Piece Meal," we play "Role Playing Games." A game is the sum of the experience created by its rules constraints, not the rules themselves.

Because it doesn't stop there. Once you've identified how a game handles discrete sorts of task, you can build a picture of what the entire game is like, "the sum of the experience created by the rules constraints," as you put it.

Put it this way: If GNS applies only to full games, and not game decisions, then by the theory there are only three sorts of games. That's boring, and not very insightful. But if you look at individual sorts of decisions and see how they combine, then you get a much more colorful picture of what the game is like. That's why I say the revision (if it is a revision) is an improvement.