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

[pemerton]

First, can I say that I'm really enjoying this thread, and just wanted to thank everyone who's conrtributing to it!

I never really understood why it was so important to polarize players by heavily differentiating between purist for sim vs high concept simulation.

I'm not sure about the polarisation - to the extent that it occurs, I think it's side effect rather than intention.

The main way that Edwards articulates the difference has a signficant historical (rather than conceptual) dimension: many high concept games have inherited (from D&D, either directly or via mediation) action resolution systems with a somewhat purist-for-system orientation, but then hedge these in or water them down in order to produce a narrower range of mechanical consequences that will help produce the desired genre outcomes in play. (Reducing the prospects of PC death would be one common example of this sort of "hedging".)

The main conceptual difference, I think, is that purist-for-system wants a mechanic for everything - as Edwards puts it, the system itself becomes a signficant focus of play - whereas high concept is more interested in treating the system as a means to an end (the ends of setting, character and/or situation) and so can handle system compromises or limitations when focus moves away from those ends of play.

I don't have an interpretive theory, only a mere opinion: that D&D -- with very unpurist systems -- was the most successful RPG in history, and that 4E -- which attempted to narrow down the playstyle -- has quickly seen the coming of the next edition.

So perhaps like anything in life, some of the best systems are the flawed and messy compromises, and that perfection is not the elegant elimination of inner conflict, and that Ron Edwards (being a purist, if I understand him correctly by some of the harsh judgement values he has applied to simulationism) fails to understand the importance of compromise in approaches to playstyles.

I'm not sure that 4e is more narrow in the playstyles it supports than earlier editions. I think that it is more upfront than earlier editions about its orientation, and also - it turns out - that the sort of game for which it is best suited appears to be less popular than WotC hoped.

As to D&D's popularity, I'm in no position to judge how much that turns on being first to market, and how much that turns on the details of the mechanics.

So D&D is very popular in the mainstream, and Rolemaster not nearly as much, for example.

I think that one stage (late 80s-ish?), ICE - publisher of RM and Middle Earth RP (a RM light system) - was the second-biggest RPG publisher.

i think it is true that popular games need to appeal to a variety of players and playstyles. If you focus on one way you alienate the other appeoaches. And since gaming is a communal activity, it is rare for a group to be so homogenous that it is made up entirely of "gamists" or "simiulationists". 4E literally split gaming groups up because it catered to a narrow agenda.

Again, I'm not sure that 4e is as narrow, in comparison to earlier editions, as it is portrayed. I think it is true that there was an apparent willingness to drift earlier versions moreso than 4e.

I think some other factors were also at work - for example, it seems that the expectation that those with non-simulationist preferences should subordinate those preferences in order to unite a group around a system like 3E was stronger, and more effective, than the expectation that those with simulationoinst preferences should subordinate those in order to unit a group around a system like 4e. I think that this relates to the overall significance of simulationist design as the mainstream of RPGing since at least the mid-80s, and the default expecation for how mechanics should work, even among some of those whose goals for play were frustrated by those mechanics.

I think I see what you mean. The issue we'll have, then, is that I find critical accounts not grounded in popular enjoyment of an art to typically be self-serving, self-referential and often useless.

<snip>

You end up with museums filled with works that cannot be understood except by folks who have first spent time studying the particular critical formulae for the genre in question.

Take much of "modern art" as an example. Your your average person is bored in a modern art museum for this reason - the critical rules for modern art are not strongly associated to base human responses, and the art was created for folks immersed in those rules.

Modern art is an interesting phenomenon, connected also to intellectual, political and emotional responses to the first world war undertsood as marking the end of a certain illusion about the character of modernity.

The broader question, of the relationship between "cultured" experiences/preferences, and "folk"/"popular" experiences/preferences, is complicated, and can also lead in directions in breach of board rules. But I think that the subsumption of cultural production under the imperatives of commercial production is an important transformation - something which begins in at least the second half of the nineteenth century (and which romantics, both conservative and socialist, such as Ruskin and William Morris wrote extensively about).

I remember some time last year eyebeams (I think) had a post on these board saying that there is a widespread self-delusion among gamers, of themselves as immune to or above commercial/corporate spin, when in fact they are very easily manipulated by well-judged commercial/corporate endeavours. A factor in this, I think, would be that for many gamers a signficant part of their self-identification and self-validation is bound up in their consumption of cultural products which are privatised and commercialised in a way that traditional folk culture is not.

I think a lot of the conversations about the OGL and Pathfinder exhibit curious features resulting from this particular state of affairs - the fact, for example, that Paizo is able to present itself, or be presented by its fans, as almost a countercultural underdog, when in fact it is a highly successful commercial venture based on selling subscribers a luxury prodcut in quantities that they will probably never have the time to use for its ostensible purpose (namely, RPGing).

The announcement of 5e/D&Dnext is another interesting example of the intersection of cultural and commercial imperatives in a way that seems to involve a degree of willing cooperation by customers in a type of wilful blindness about their relationship to the producer of the product in question.

I don't know if you know Edwards' nuked applecart essay, but it can be seen as a Morris-style call for authenticity and "craft" in RPG production and the relationship between production and consumption. And I think that there is a non-accidental connection between his views about the RPG industry, and his approach to thinking about RPG play.

 

[innerdude]

Don't want to interrupt the train of thought, but it seems that the thread has kind of diverged into several separate yet related questions:

1. Does GNS theory actually present valid, significant, hypotheses surrounding the way RPGs are used/formed/interpreted?
2. If it does, how accurate is it within each of its "3-fold" structures?
3. Are the three playstyles in GNS as "pure" as Ron Edwards describes them to be, or are games necessarily a mixture?

Obviously, my original idea--that Gamism as such, when pursued in its purest distillation, ultimately leads to play styles, systems, and social "contracts" that fall outside the common genre purview of "roleplaying" generally--hinges on answering some of those questions. If GNS theory is all bunk to begin with, then obviously I'm wasting my breath (and a LOT of keystrokes).

Clearly there are vagaries within GNS that are highly undefined and fluid, but when I read the material I connected with it. Taken individually, I recognized each of the three GNS concepts, and could picture situations and game sessions where each had taken place.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I "get" Gamism. I know EXACTLY the feeling of "Step On Up!"; it happens every single time someone lays out a board to play a game of Settlers, or lays out the Action card stacks in a game of Dominion. I immediately perk up, and get excited; in my mind, I'm making connections between the available actions and how they synergize, plotting future moves, and generally engaging with the "Game" in front of me.

Here's another example--I thoroughly dislike playing a game of Settlers with my mother-in-law, because her approach is decidedly non-Gamist. She deliberately goes out of her way to create boards where "everyone has a chance," she's liberal with the 5s, 6s, 8s, and 9s on resources. She is totally non-competitive in using the robber and soldier cards. She'll avoid cutting off other players with roads, and so on.

And when I play with her, it sucks all of the fun out of playing Settlers. Why? Because she's completely removed the "Step On Up!" challenge from the game. Even if I win, I get zero satisfaction from the result, because I know it was largely pure luck--my numbers just happened to get rolled slightly more often than someone else's. I know exactly what Gamism is, because I feel it. And when I want to have a Gamist experience (Like Settlers of Catan), I really do want it to be Gamist; it's why the game is fun at all.

I also recognize that I have definitely had moments in RPG sessions where Gamism was evident. Calculating movement so a character can slip in behind an enemy to get the +2 flanking bonus. Setting up the perfect trip attack. Taking weapon finesse for a rogue, so that my attack bonus could go up to +4 for DEX, instead of +1 or +2 for STR. I get that all of that is part and parcel of the RPG experience, and that it's possible to gain that sense of "Step On Up!" accomplishment from an RPG. The GM creates the challenge, the players leverage their "Game" resources to defeat it, everyone derives satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment.

But in reading and re-reading Ron Edward's ideas on Gamism, reflecting on my own play experiences as well as those shared here and elsewhere, more and more Gamism seemed to be an agenda one pursued while in the midst of the one of the other two. That for an RPG to be purely "Gamist," it sacrifices much of the purpose, sensibility, and "liveliness" that RPGs produce.

To be honest I have no more proof than anyone else, other than my own observations. But if there's one question I keep coming back to it's this: given the choice as GM, would you rather have a "purist" for Gamism in your group, or Narrativism or Simulationism? I'd argue that deep down . . . most of us want a player willing to engage in something more than pure "Step On Up!"

So maybe I'm asking the wrong questions, here. I asked earlier why RPGs were uniquely suited for Gamism, and the most common replay I got was flexibility. That a GM can respond to more situations in more unique, interesting ways than a simple AI program can. That makes sense, and I can see the appeal to a Gamist in that situation.

But what does the GM get out of that situation, especially if they're a Gamist themselves? Is it all about "setting up cool scenarios" for them? Is it the satisfaction of knowing that they challenged their players? Is that enough for a Gamist? To me that's a different sort of "social contract" than "Step On Up!" for the GM.

That seems to be a difficulty to me in "pure" Gamism--if EVERYONE at the table is Gamist, doesn't someone have to ultimately sacrifice their "Gamism" for a higher goal? And if the "RPG" at that point becomes nothing more than series of encounters, with a rotating "challenge arbiter," where players create the "Step On Up!" challenges, is that still a full-blooded RPG? Or is it, as I see it, more of a fusion of the Castle Ravenloft boardgame with very minor adjudicative control handed to one of the players?

And maybe this is a potential problem with GNS itself--that logically extended, GNS can be problematic in reconciling player perspective with GM designs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I too am enjoying the discussion Pemerton. Instead of engage in an endless back and forth I will give you the lastvword on my last post your quoted and respond to the apple cart essay (which, full disclosure, I read very quickly because I am in the middle of a number of things).

I think Edwards is romanticizing the designer in that essay. I run a small indie company, but I am also a professional writer in my daily life. The truth is, being a one man show doesn't make you a craftsman In fact it often leads to bad writing and bad design. Most major rpg companies are still small compared with other industries. But like publishing it helps the writer make a better finisshed manuscript if he must go through the editorial process. When an rpg company is set up so there is a manager of the process with editors, designers and writers beneath him, I think you usually end upnwith a superior end product than the designer making and producing his own game (and again I say that as an indepedent designer). The things edwards says in the essay are the same thing you hear from failed writers who resort to vanity press. A one man show is his own crrative director, editor, designer, etc. That can lead to a lot of bad habits.

I would also add that big rpg companies spending large amounts on advertising, which ron discusses, is a good thing for their games and the hobby. We can barely afford 200 dollars in ads for each of our games, but marketing is critical if you want people to know about your game and hive it a chance.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So maybe I'm asking the wrong questions, here. I asked earlier why RPGs were uniquely suited for Gamism, and the most common replay I got was flexibility. That a GM can respond to more situations in more unique, interesting ways than a simple AI program can. That makes sense, and I can see the appeal to a Gamist in that situation.

But what does the GM get out of that situation, especially if they're a Gamist themselves? Is it all about "setting up cool scenarios" for them? Is it the satisfaction of knowing that they challenged their players? Is that enough for a Gamist? To me that's a different sort of "social contract" than "Step On Up!" for the GM.

For me, part of it is the challenge--though I frame more as "keeping the party on the edge without pushing them over" than straight adversarial play. Not that I play golf, but from the many friends that do, I think this is somewhat analogous. You may play in a foursome, but you are really playing against the course. If you happen to have a friendly wager on the side, that will increase the feel of playing against the other players, but it doesn't change the essential nature of the activity. You can get a similar feeling in any sport (you challenge yourself to be as good as you can be regardless of the competition), but my understanding is that the nature of "You versus the course" really brings this out in golf. In any case, RPGs scratch this particular itch for me in a way that a board game or card game never could.

Also, there is a sense in which pure gamism is a lesser form of this challenge than going for a blend. But that is true of pure anything. Whatever one thinks about the Forge dogma that the creative agendas cannot mix, it is true that succesfully mixing them is a challenge of your ability with all three agendas. That is, if all I have to do is provide room for the players to step up, or help them experience the world or their characters, or provoke them to pursue an immediate story--I can do that with one hand tied behind my back, half asleep. Heck, when the players really get going in one of those modes, sometimes I think I have done it half asleep. But blending all three (or rapidly switching between them, if you prefer); looking for cues; deflty poking here or prodding there, without taking over full control and steering the action--that's tough.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I also want to stress that this has nothing to do with my own personal RPGing preferences. Look at the class balance thread on the New Horizons subforum. Poster after poster tries to tell the OP that s/he is mistaken, or asking for the impossible, in wanting balance to be handled via GM adjudication and the exercise of force, rather than via mechanical means, without providing any discussion of the long tradition of RPG play - and especially a certain type of AD&D play - that proceeds in precisley such a fashion. I personally don't like that sort of play, but it exists, and I would say at one time was perhaps the mainstream approach to playing D&D (at least judging from Dragon magazines of the era, the way modules are written, etc).

In short: familiarity with a breadth of differing examples, which then breaks down a person's general inclination to generalise from his/her own experience, is central to constructing plausible and worthwhile interpretive theories.

I don't know how much the breadth of experience is critical to interpretive theory crafting, compared to other things one would presumably need to bring to the table for those theories to be plausible and worthwhile. (Presumably, insight, intuition, some kind of analytical framework, deep hands-on experience, etc. will all factor in.)

I do know that having all of those things is more likely to produce a theory that at least aspires to "interesting failure" if it falls short of plausible and worthwhile. Whereas, the lack of experience tends to produce theory that is either drek or even outright ridiculous--tempered only by insight and self-awareness of the lack of experience. That is, the breadth of experience, whatever else it may be, is an andidote to some obvious pitfalls. Whether a given theory crafter is then able to build on that good foundation is another question.

It's funny that innerdude brought up asking the "right question", because I was just thinking along those lines in this context. I get the impression with the Forge stuff that it may be mostly bunk, but if it is, it is bunk about something more real underneath. Whereas, my reaction to some of the things you mentioned in the quoted section is not so much that some people don't have the right question (on a particular aspect of games), but they don't even seem to be aware that there is question of some kind--however poorly we all may formulate it.

 

[S'mon]

...for an RPG to be purely "Gamist," it sacrifices much of the purpose, sensibility, and "liveliness" that RPGs produce.

I certainly agree strongly with this snippet. BUT that in no way means that Gamism is necessarily secondary or subordinate to Sim or Drama. IMO any real RPG has Gamism, Simulation, and Drama - the three poles upon which the RPG - the Role-Play-Game - rest.

Some players prioritise the simulation, others the game, others the drama (story-creation or story-experiencing). But any RPG needs elements of all three to be a good RPG.

 

[pemerton]

I think Edwards is romanticizing the designer in that essay.

Agreed. That was part of what I was trying to get at with my comparisons to Morris and Ruskin.

I am also a professional writer in my daily life.

Likewise, although probably in a slightly different sense - I am a humanities academic.

A one man show is his own crrative director, editor, designer, etc. That can lead to a lot of bad habits.

In my field - academic research and writing - I agree that this can be so. Some of my best work has been co-authored, and even sole-authored pieces benefit very much from critical scrutiny by colleagues, audiences, referees etc.

But I do have the privilege of writing in a field where commercial considerations (and the constraints these can impose) are secondary at best.

 

[pemerton]

But what does the GM get out of that situation, especially if they're a Gamist themselves? Is it all about "setting up cool scenarios" for them? Is it the satisfaction of knowing that they challenged their players?

For my part, yest. It's the satisfaction of putting together and adjudicating a successful challenge, a "cool scenario".

 

[BryonD]

I certainly agree strongly with this snippet. BUT that in no way means that Gamism is necessarily secondary or subordinate to Sim or Drama. IMO any real RPG has Gamism, Simulation, and Drama - the three poles upon which the RPG - the Role-Play-Game - rest.

Some players prioritise the simulation, others the game, others the drama (story-creation or story-experiencing). But any RPG needs elements of all three to be a good RPG.

I certainly am a big time simulation priority guy.
But I could simulate everything by ad hoc and fiat.
Having the mechanics driving the simulation is much more fun. And that is game.

Also, the little games of "kill the orc" buried within the simulation and narrative are fun in their own right as well.

(In other word: "yep")

 

[S'mon]

Likewise, although probably in a slightly different sense - I am a humanities academic.

It shows. I'm a legal academic myself.