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

[tomBitonti]

Re: Tomb of Horrors as Gamist

Something curious about TOH as an example of gamist type play, the module forces players rather far outside of the usual rules.

Puzzles are often defeated by clever player ingenuity. Not by clever rules combinations.

Getting through the tomb is assisted tremendously by creative play. The result is rather immersive, in that players must think in terms of the base physics of the situation. Players are forced to interact, in detail, with the module defined environment.

Not sure of my point, but I thought it was curious.

TomB

 

[Balesir]

I still read what you wrote and see you drawing a connection between "a reason" the DM is called a referee and expectations about metagaming.

I can agree with your clarified point of view. But that statement I quoted remains an example of taking a rather simple point tied to a simple explanation and spinning it as a thought out plan to achieve a particular cause.

You are reading the "reason" somewhat backward to the way I had taken it - and this might explain the sinister intent you see.

Instead of "they were calling the GM a referee for the reason that they wanted to promote or encourage gamism", I read it as "what they were engaging in (and assuming as the "natural" way of things) was gamism; for that reason the word 'referee' seemed a natural one to use for the GM".

Now, I happen to think there are things "on heaven and earth" in roleplaying that are well outside GNS. So if someone wants to say that is more social gaming, I'm not offended. I'm just working within what GNS says. But certainly, there is something more "gamist" oriented in that activity than Nar or Sim. For one thing, we'd do it anyway without the reward, but the reward does intensify the drive and the one-upmanship.

One of the most revealing and useful things I have read on The Forge in this respect is the idea that the rewards that really tell you what agenda is being pursued are not those in the game system; they are the rewards of kudos and approbation given and received between the players.

When I want to figure out what agenda is engaging my players, I don't look at the rules or the in-game action - I look at the high fives, the compliments, the laughter, the applause, even. That tells me far more than any game-related factors ever will about what the players are looking for out of the game.

 

[Rogue Agent]

But (in my view) it's not as if Edwards has made some sort of simple error here. Rather, it's a point of deep interpretive disagreement. From Edwards' perspective (which, on this point, I share), there is a radical difference between a GM making a decision because it makes for a good story (which is "dramatism") and the game being designed so as the agency of all participants, channelled in a certain way by the rules, will produce a good story.

Oh, yes. While there are certain problematical elements of Edwards trying to move the Threefold from decision points to mechanical design (which makes the concept of exclusivity even less applicable in actual practice) while simultaneously cranking up the theory's reliance on exclusivity into a mantra of brain damage, that's not what makes GNS theory an incoherent mess.

What turns GNS into an incoherent mess is when Edwards takes a bunch of dramatist play-styles and shoves them into GNS Simulationism. That turns GNS Simulationism into a complete mess. It's why GNS as a theory fails to find much traction with simulationists. It's also why those discussing GNS find it difficult to discuss GNS Simulationism in a meaningful, coherent, or consistent fashion.

The first subordinates the agency of the players to the choices of the GM.

This isn't actually true, but this probably isn't the best place to get into it. Short version: It is possible for a traditional GM to make decisions to promote the creation of a good story without predetermining what the story will be.

 

[Rogue Agent]

Why? Dungeons and Dragons got there first. Tomb of Horrors was published in 1975.

Quick correction: Published 1978. First run at Origins in 1975.

But you have not demonstrated it at all.
Yes, you could run Tomb of Horrors in exactly that matter with every bit of the narrativist elements removed.

Note that Neonchameleon didn't says "without ANY narrativist trappings", he said "without MANY narrativist trappings".

I think it would be pretty much impossible to run an RPG session that completely eliminated the trappings of one of the three agendas in Threefold and/or GNS theory.

 

[pemerton]

One of the most revealing and useful things I have read on The Forge in this respect is the idea that the rewards that really tell you what agenda is being pursued are not those in the game system; they are the rewards of kudos and approbation given and received between the players.

Yes. Given that I run a pretty vanilla narrativist game, these cues are important - it's not as if their are funky narrativist mechanics that my players are using to show what they're interested in.

As far as I'm concerned, if one wants to say that the three GNS entities are the only ones, then gamism is even wider than that. Namely, it even applies when the "step on up" is built around surface and/or metagaming things instead of the direct subject matter of the "story" itself.

For example, when we play 4E, I award bonus action points for "making people laugh".

<snip>

We've done something similar in all our games since the late '80s.

Now, I happen to think there are things "on heaven and earth" in roleplaying that are well outside GNS. So if someone wants to say that is more social gaming, I'm not offended. I'm just working within what GNS says. But certainly, there is something more "gamist" oriented in that activity than Nar or Sim. For one thing, we'd do it anyway without the reward, but the reward does intensify the drive and the one-upmanship.

Nice example. And to me, illustrative of the limits of any interpretive theory - it's meant to be an aid to interpretation and understanding, not prescriptive of practice. In this particular example, the line between gamism and narrativism is thin. For example, Edwards characterises The Dying Earth as narrativist, not gamist, but it also is aimed at producing humour (and I imagine this was also true of some T&T play back in the day). One difference between narrativist humour and gamist humour might be that narrativist humour is built out of the situation in a more intimate way than gamist humour (and The Dying Earth certainly aims at this).

But I don't see this as a point against GNS (nor for it), I just see it as an example of how interpretive theories can help frame critical thought and generate critical discussion.

Not sure of my point, but I thought it was curious.

If I can suggest a point, it's an illustration of how GM-adjudicated play in a shared imaginary space can be a terrific venue for a type of gamist play. Playing ToH is not like playing a board game!

 

[S'mon]

What turns GNS into an incoherent mess is when Edwards takes a bunch of dramatist play-styles and shoves them into GNS Simulationism. That turns GNS Simulationism into a complete mess. It's why GNS as a theory fails to find much traction with simulationists. It's also why those discussing GNS find it difficult to discuss GNS Simulationism in a meaningful, coherent, or consistent fashion..

Yeah, I agree strongly. It's insulting to both Simulationist and Dramatic styles to shove them both into a Sim box, while privileging the narrow Narrativist premise-based sort of Dramatism into one of the Big Three. Conflating Twilight: 2000 and Runequest simulation-games with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a Dramatist game, as all 'sim' is hugely unhelpful and gives me brain-ache, if not brain-damage. The design goals and the play goals are just not the same.

Hint: If a game has Drama Points or Fate Points, it's not a Simulation game. Just call it a Dramatic (Or even Narrativist) game. Thank you.

 

[Balesir]

What turns GNS into an incoherent mess is when Edwards takes a bunch of dramatist play-styles and shoves them into GNS Simulationism. That turns GNS Simulationism into a complete mess. It's why GNS as a theory fails to find much traction with simulationists.

That would be the "simulationists" that don't exist in GNS because it's about agendas, not classifications of people?

Is it entirely possible that the "Simulationist" agenda is poorly defined and consists of more than one distinct agenda? Yes, absolutely. But I have yet to see anyone come up with a very clear division or taxonomy - and I'm not convinced it's meaningful or worthwhile. I love playing to a Simulationist agenda at times, but my experience of it is that the exploration that forms its core is too freeform, too variable, to make classification really useful. That does not make it an "inferior" way to play in the slightest - and maybe if we'd all stop being so goddamned touchy all the time a lot of these debates might be a lot more productive.

This isn't actually true, but this probably isn't the best place to get into it. Short version: It is possible for a traditional GM to make decisions to promote the creation of a good story without predetermining what the story will be.

Sure, it's possible - I've experienced it. But do the players focus no making the story? No - the GM does. That makes it a game focussed on exploration - exploration of the situation the GM creates (and maybe also the world setting and the characters the players are playing, depending on the proclivities of those involved). Focus over all else on exploration is Simulationism as defined in GNS, therefore it is a correct classification as far as it goes - the "cap fits".

Is it different from Simulationist play focussed on other aspects of exploration - pure world exploration, for example? Sure it is - no-one claimed that GNS was a total classification! There are several "flavours" of Gamism and Narrativism, too. What you are saying is like claiming that strawberry ice-cream should not be called "ice-cream" because it's not the same as chocolate ice-cream. Would it be useful to come up with names for the flavours within "ice-cream"? Maybe. Maybe not. Give us an example, if it's important to you. Edit: as a "starter for ten" Edwards already did, FWIW - exploration of setting, of situation and of character.

Yeah, I agree strongly. It's insulting to both Simulationist and Dramatic styles to shove them both into a Sim box, while privileging the narrow Narrativist premise-based sort of Dramatism into one of the Big Three. Conflating Twilight: 2000 and Runequest simulation-games with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a Dramatist game, as all 'sim' is hugely unhelpful and gives me brain-ache, if not brain-damage. The design goals and the play goals are just not the same.

I can set out to explore a town I just moved to or I can set out to explore Antarctica - very different goals, but still both are "exploration". In an RPG sense, T:2k, RQ and Buffy are all games about exploration, too. They are also very different games, but so are Sorceror, Burning Wheel and PrimeTime Adventures (all Narrativist in focus). This is not intended to be any sort of "insult" and I'm somewhat mystified as to how it could be perceived as such.

Edit: I'm not that happy with this post, but I don't have time to rewrite it; I hope you'll get the points even though they are not well expressed...

 

[Bedrockgames]

Belasir it sounds like the GNS definition has found a common thread for the convenience of its categories but is totally missing the essence of simulationism. Really it sounds like the forge is just trying to define away anything that intrudes on its theory. It is overly reductionist in this case. RQ and Buffy are setting out to do two entirely different things. You can't just reduce them to Exploration. I also think the term Exploration is being used far too broadly here and artificially bounding two very different ideas unde the same notion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I can set out to explore a town I just moved to or I can set out to explore Antarctica - very different goals, but still both are "exploration". In an RPG sense, T:2k, RQ and Buffy are all games about exploration, too. They are also very different games, but so are Sorceror, Burning Wheel and PrimeTime Adventures (all Narrativist in focus). This is not intended to be any sort of "insult" and I'm somewhat mystified as to how it could be perceived as such.

Edit: I'm not that happy with this post, but I don't have time to rewrite it; I hope you'll get the points even though they are not well expressed...

I think the reason people (particularly those who side with simulation) react negatively is because of the dismissive attitude on the forge to concepts it doesn't like or grasp. You are not being dismissive or insulting. In fact I have found you to be a polite and open-minded poster. But the moment someone shows up on a board and advocates GNS people get defensive for a reason. Just look at Edward's attitude toward immersion. He is entitled to his position, but if someone values immersion and reads Edwards dismissive comments about it, it is natural they will react negatively. I think the same thing is happening with simulationism. Self identified simulationsists reject Edwards definition of the term and say "no, that isn't what we are doing." The GNS response feels like a semantic trick to say "oh, but you are".

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just to add my two cents I think it is practical to distinguish between simulation, which strives for varying degrees of realism (RQ and Harn), and Emulation which strives to capture the feel and "laws" of genres (Buffy and Savage Worlds).