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

[innerdude]

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 agree. My original idea was not to denigrate Gamism as a play style, only to assert the primacy of Simulation and Narrative ahead of Gamism as a defining quality of the table-top RPG as a genre.

When I say "subordinate," I don't mean it in the sense of, "These play styles should take preference over Gamism," though re-reading my original post it comes across that way. I mean subordinate in the sense that Gamism only naturally arises as a consequence of creating a framework to support the other two first. There is no Gamist framework in RPGs without deferring at the very least to the needs of Narrativism ("Let's all pretend together, and here are the stories we want to tell").

In fact, I strongly suspect that the real hierarchy of importance in RPGs is likely

1. Narrativism
2a. Simulationism
2b. Gamism

where 2a and 2b are interchangeable and mutable depending on group and circumstance.

The point of an RPG is, really, to "tell a story." The other two arenas are more about creating the "purpose" of the story, or defining the "reward" for successfully engaging with the narrative. "In this context, what inherent properties of the narrative milieu have brought about the current situation, and how do we manage it?"

Simulationism looks at the answer as more of an "observational state," and tries to work backwards and forwards to produce "The Dream."
Gamism looks at it as more of an opportunity to explore the nature of the challenge itself, and find satisfaction in its conclusion.
Narrativism doesn't care either way about the resolution, so long as it contains a core human emotional "truth."

For RPG game design purposes, then, I think the first question comes down to, "What kinds of stories do you want to tell?" The mechanics you use to support the stories will then create the opportunities to engage in either of the other two.

In other words, you can't have a "Gamist" (or "Simulationist") RPG without first actually having an RPG. The nature of the genre demands that something else be in place before you have "Gamism" (or "Simulationism") within it. To me, that's the real core of the RPG "social contract."

 

[pemerton]

I mean subordinate in the sense that Gamism only naturally arises as a consequence of creating a framework to support the other two first. There is no Gamist framework in RPGs without deferring at the very least to the needs of Narrativism ("Let's all pretend together, and here are the stories we want to tell").

This seems to be a version of Edwards' claim that exploration of a shared imaginary space is intrinsic to all RPGing, but that simulationism is distincitve in treating that exploration as an end in iteslf ("Let's all pretend and see what happens") whereas gamism and narrativism treat the exploration as a starting point for something else ("Let's all pretend that we're fighters and see who's strongest!", or "Let's all pretend and see whether honest folk really can triumph over evil").

Here is a sample quote:

It has rightly been asked whether Simulationism really exists, given that it consists mainly of Exploration. I suggest that Simulationism exists insofar as the effort and attention to Exploration may over-ride either Gamist or Narrativist priorities.
​

 

[pemerton]

It shows. I'm a legal academic myself.

Law (primarily legal and constitutional theory) and philosophy (primarily social and political philosophy) in my case.

 

[Gentlegamer]

The point of an RPG is, really, to "tell a story."

The point of a role-playing game is to play a game.

Participants may layer other goals on top of this, or make other objects the subject of the game, but these are not inherent to the game-form.

To illustrate: D&D from the beginning was gamist, through and through. The Dragonlance series of modules was an attempt to create more of a narrativist campaign, but ultimately failed due to how unsuited D&D as a rule-set is to this goal. The Saga game-system was developed for Dragonlance to facilitate narrative/story game-play, and it was much more successful to this end.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The point of a role-playing game is to play a game.

Participants may layer other goals on top of this, or make other objects the subject of the game, but these are not inherent to the game-form.

To illustrate: D&D from the beginning was gamist, through and through. The Dragonlance series of modules was an attempt to create more of a narrativist campaign, but ultimately failed due to how unsuited D&D as a rule-set is to this goal. The Saga game-system was developed for Dragonlance to facilitate narrative/story game-play, and it was much more successful to this end.

If this were true 4E would have been much more succesful. For a very long time now, D&D has been much more than just playing a game. I think any definition of role playing games that ignores the "role playing" component is flawed.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This seems to be a version of Edwards' claim that exploration of a shared imaginary space is intrinsic to all RPGing, but that simulationism is distincitve in treating that exploration as an end in iteslf ("Let's all pretend and see what happens") whereas gamism and narrativism treat the exploration as a starting point for something else ("Let's all pretend that we're fighters and see who's strongest!", or "Let's all pretend and see whether honest folk really can triumph over evil").

Here is a sample quote:

It has rightly been asked whether Simulationism really exists, given that it consists mainly of Exploration. I suggest that Simulationism exists insofar as the effort and attention to Exploration may over-ride either Gamist or Narrativist priorities.
​

It seemsto me that Edwards (or at least GNS) is oblivious to that large subset of rpgs'ers that cannot achieve the "lets pretend " if they are forced to operate any metagame levers, The "Method" rpg'ers if you will.
I also believe that if that is his view, that simulationism is exploring hte simulation then it should get a new and different label, perhaps Exploration. That would have saved a lot of grief on these boards at least.

It seems to me that there is a population that prefer to explore the world and want to only opeate in character, they have strong preference for "purist for system" rules. Some want to explore the DM's story adding some colour to it, want to operate in character and some of these prefer purist for system and others prefer High Concept simulation.
People that are willing to operate (at least in part) in a more metagame way do not prioritize simulation as much but I do not think there is anyone that wants a system that simulates nothing, or is there?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

When I say "subordinate," I don't mean it in the sense of, "These play styles should take preference over Gamism," though re-reading my original post it comes across that way. I mean subordinate in the sense that Gamism only naturally arises as a consequence of creating a framework to support the other two first. There is no Gamist framework in RPGs without deferring at the very least to the needs of Narrativism ("Let's all pretend together, and here are the stories we want to tell").

It is perhaps the core of my disagreement with your point that I think that is a too expansive definition of Narrativism (or even little "n" narrative, divorced from Forge-speak). Telling the story is indeed "narrativism", if not always the more narrow Forge Narrativisim. But if the GNS tripod are the legs of the stool for all rolelplaying, then "Let's all pretend together" is the shared floor upon which the stool sits:

1. Gamism - Let's all pretend together and kick some orc butt.
2. Simulation - Let's all pretend together and explore this world or the characters.
3. Narrativism - Let's all pretend together and tell a story.

 

[innerdude]

The point of a role-playing game is to play a game.

Participants may layer other goals on top of this, or make other objects the subject of the game, but these are not inherent to the game-form.

I heartily disagree--there are definitive elements of the RPG game as a form and genre that differentiate it from other "games" (and hence other "Gamist" pursuits).

When a group sits down and agrees, "Let's play a roleplaying game," they're agreeing to play a particular type of game, one that at least marginally follows and inherits the aspects of a game that could be considered a "roleplaying game."

How far inside the genre convention the group wants to go is up to them, but it doesn't change the fact that the genre itself has real boundaries. And it's my observation that Gamism, when approached as its own "pure" pursuit, very, very quickly pushes up against the boundaries of the RPG genre in ways that Narrativism and Simulationism don't.

 

[innerdude]

It is perhaps the core of my disagreement with your point that I think that is a too expansive definition of Narrativism (or even little "n" narrative, divorced from Forge-speak). Telling the story is indeed "narrativism", if not always the more narrow Forge Narrativisim. But if the GNS tripod are the legs of the stool for all roleplaying, then "Let's all pretend together" is the shared floor upon which the stool sits:

1. Gamism - Let's all pretend together and kick some orc butt.
2. Simulation - Let's all pretend together and explore this world or the characters.
3. Narrativism - Let's all pretend together and tell a story.

That's an interesting point, though I think to some degree, the "kicking orc butt" could be a part of all of them.

I'd put it more this way:

1. Gamism - "Let's all play a game together, and do so to test our wits and abilities within the structure of the game's rules, and gain satisfaction by using our wit and knowledge to overcome structural challenges." Unlike the other two, the "pretending" part here is totally optional from the "game" part. If that challenge ends up as "pretending to be an alter-ego and kicking orc butt," so be it. The "pretending" part in Gamism is largely irrelevant, unless you're looking at some level to incorporate aspects from one of the other two "legs." (As a side note, any time you hear a complaint against GM fiat, it's generally coming from a gamist perspective--"You're 'unfairly' or 'arbitrarily' changing the challenge, and thus lessening my satisfaction!")

2. Simulationism - "Let's all pretend together and explore some aspect of a shared "world" and the characters that inhabit it." This may or may not even involve a structured set of "game" rules at all, beyond accepting that one person or persons is the "arbiter" of what happens and what doesn't--Rule 0. This "simulation" could also easily incorporate kicking orc butt--exploring the social ecology of orcs, the effects of lawless and reckless chaos on society, the nature of "tribalism," and more.

3. Narrativism - "Let's all pretend together, and tell a meaningful story that resonates, reflects, or assimilates aspects of human values and emotions." Once again, this may or may not involve any "game" rules other than Rule 0 (and could also easily incorporate kicking orc butt, especially if it was approached from the aspect of, "What makes humans different from orcs? What emotional responses and controls do we have that they lack, and why is that important?").

Note the difference--Only #1 absolutely requires there to be a formal, structured set of rules to be "gamed" for its premise to work at all. In a purely Gamist scenario, a player is only "pretending" to be an elf with magic or a dwarf with an axe because that's how the challenge is presented, and that's how the rules define the situation of the challenge. It has nothing to do with caring about any sense of simulation or narrative.

Obviously, RPGs started from war games, and I get the fact that anywhere there's rules to be gamed, someone's going to "game" them (the phrase "Don't hate the playa, hate the game" is eminently applicable here).

But the reason RPGs have continued to this day and evolved is because at some point, Gygax and Arneson had a "Whoah!" moment (think Keanu Reeves) when they discovered that there was something else, some other "kind" of game hiding underneath their miniatures battles in Chainmail.

That's the game I want to play. Not a highly refined, glorified Chainmail.

 

[pemerton]

It seemsto me that Edwards (or at least GNS) is oblivious to that large subset of rpgs'ers that cannot achieve the "lets pretend " if they are forced to operate any metagame levers, The "Method" rpg'ers if you will.

I would say not oblivious, but certainly not designing games for them!

I do not think there is anyone that wants a system that simulates nothing, or is there?

Well, everyone wants the system to deliver genre/world-appropriate outcomes. The difference is how this achieved, mechanically.

Overgeneralising slightly:

*simulationist play emphasises a correlation between mechanics and ingame causation - the "to hit" roll correlates to my weapon swing, the damage roll correlates to wear and how hard I hit, etc.

*narrativist and gamist play can more easily separate mechanics and ingame causation (going metagame, like you said) - and this opens the door to a different sort of mechanic, which sets parameters on outcomes, but leaves the details of how it comes about in the gameworld to be narrated by the players and GM.

Here are some passages from Edwards that draws the contrast:

Narrativism now appeared to be a mirror image or twin sibling of Gamism, counter to older impressions shared by me and anyone else who ever wrote about role-playing that Gamism was the odd man out. . .

Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things:

*Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.

*Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.

*More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.​

I see all that as elaborating your point about the metagame levers.

Skill challenge mechanics,in 4e, are an example of this sort of non-simulationist mechanic (except when used just as complex skill checks). And I know of two games that use that style of mechanic exclusively: HeroWars/Quest, and Maelstrom Storytelling. In those games, coherence, consistency and genre-appropriateness in the mechanics are delivered entirely by participant narration - the mechanics, though, set the parameters on what sorts of outcomes can be narrated.

Gamism - "Let's all play a game together, and do so to test our wits and abilities within the structure of the game's rules, and gain satisfaction by using our wit and knowledge to overcome structural challenges." Unlike the other two, the "pretending" part here is totally optional from the "game" part.

Why do you say this? For example, how can anyone use wit and knowledge to "beat" the Tomb of Horrors if they drop the pretending part?

Narrativism - "Let's all pretend together, and tell a meaningful story that resonates, reflects, or assimilates aspects of human values and emotions." Once again, this may or may not involve any "game" rules other than Rule 0

Well, this is controversial too.

I mean, a big driver of The Forge movement and GNS (maybe the most important driver) is to design RPGs that will reliably deliver story, (i) without the balance of power issues that come from Rule 0 "storytelling" - which tends to produce either dysfunction, or else player exploration of the GM's story if the players acquiesce, and (ii) without undermining player advocacy for their PCs and degenerating into insipid conch-passing.

As it happens, this is a non-trivial design challenge. Rule 0 is certainly not up to the task.