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

[innerdude]

Good points, pemerton, though I think maybe you've taken the logical conclusion a step farther than I intended.

I'm not saying you should create any RPG without "rules," as such; I'm merely commenting that the form and essence of Narrativism and Simulationism at least support it as a possible agenda, whereas Gamism does not.

As for how you can defeat something like Tomb of Horrors without "pretending," I stated further on that you can "pretend," but that it's not particularly relevant to the purpose OR outcome of Gamism. The "pretending" in pure Gamism means you're only "pretending" for the sake of engaging with the challenge. It's merely one of the mechanisms that defines the challenge, and its possible outcomes. From a purely Gamist perspective, the only reason you'd choose being an Elf over a Dwarf, or choose one weapon proficiency over another, for example, is the way it changes your tactics and strategy toward the challenge (again, talking about pure Gamism here).

It has nothing to do with why the player wants to "be an Elf," or "explore" what it means to be "dwarfish," or try and understand the world in which those characters inhabit. It's merely a means to creating strategy to defeat a particular challenge.

 

[pemerton]

The "pretending" in pure Gamism means you're only "pretending" for the sake of engaging with the challenge. It's merely one of the mechanisms that defines the challenge, and its possible outcomes. From a purely Gamist perspective, the only reason you'd choose being an Elf over a Dwarf, or choose one weapon proficiency over another, for example, is the way it changes your tactics and strategy toward the challenge (again, talking about pure Gamism here).

It has nothing to do with why the player wants to "be an Elf," or "explore" what it means to be "dwarfish," or try and understand the world in which those characters inhabit. It's merely a means to creating strategy to defeat a particular challenge.

Sure, I agree with that. There's no broader aesthetic point to the pretending. But the shared imaginary space can still shape this gamist pretending (ie it's not just mechanics/boardgaming). For example, if I'm a gamist play, and I know my GM loves bullettes, then I have a reason not to build a halfling - but that reason isn't mechanical, it's because of the nature of bulettes in the SIS (I hope I've got my bulette lore right!).

Personally, I've found this a pretty common way to play D&D - someone will choose Dwarf because they want to be tough, Elf because they want to be an F/MU, etc. I've seen it in other games with mechanically differentiated racial options too.

 

[LurkAway]

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.

Or perhaps...?

Gamism - Let's kick pretend orc butt
Simulation/Immersion - I'm pretending to be a fighter trying to kick orc butt
Narrativism - We're pretending these heroes have/are/will kick orc butt

Still not sure that any of this theory as is is actually useful. I suspect that Monte and Mearls are more interested in practical matters than strictly defining Gamism/Simulationism/Narrativism, and the next edition of D&D will be incredibly popular. Meanwhile, over at the Forge, is all their GNS theorizing producing games that a significant number of other people are playing? The list of indie RPGs shown on Wikipedia produced by The Forge all seem to have been published back in 2002 to 2004.

 

[pemerton]

Still not sure that any of this theory as is is actually useful. I suspect that Monte and Mearls are more interested in practical matters than strictly defining Gamism/Simulationism/Narrativism, and the next edition of D&D will be incredibly popular.

Six-and-a-half years ago, Mearls said this:

The simple truth is that few in the gaming industry put any real, useful thought into their work. The Forge is really the crucible for a lot of the real examination and exploration of the underlying structure of RPGs. Outside of the Forge, there are few other designers who think of games in a useful, interesting way.

The RPG "industry" doesn't exist to produce good games. It exists to produce a network where game creators can compete for social prestige. There are pockets of real design work, but they're the exception, not the rule. . .

The Forge might be useful. It's the sort of thing that you have to go look at and judge for yourself. I find it a bit too steeped in jargon, but a lot of the end ideas are useful to think about in terms of my work.​

As I understand it, Mearls first game to prominence at the Gaming Outpost, which (again, as I unerstand it) was also a sort of precursor to the Forge.

Meanwhile, over at the Forge, is all their GNS theorizing producing games that a significant number of other people are playing? The list of indie RPGs shown on Wikipedia produced by The Forge all seem to have been published back in 2002 to 2004.

Well, Edwards "shut down" the Forge a year or so ago, didn't he, declaring that his work there was done.

But I also think it would be a mistake to dismiss (for example) modernist movements in art, literature or music just because only a cultural minority admire, read or listen to those works. Their effect on popular works is nevertheless pervasive, even if unnoticed.

 

[LurkAway]

But I also think it would be a mistake to dismiss (for example) modernist movements in art, literature or music just because only a cultural minority admire, read or listen to those works. Their effect on popular works is nevertheless pervasive, even if unnoticed.

I personally dismiss the modernist movement in art because whenever I go to an art gallery I can't help but laugh at the unnecessarily pretentious Artspeak. The underlying message about the human condition or whatnot is buried under so much jargon, I can't help but think this is just another emperor without clothes. It is possible to communicate the purpose of an artwork in a clear and straightforward manner, or even to write something intentionally poetic, or just let the artwork speak for itself (or not), but it is the determined pretentiousness of artspeak that makes me suspect that all the bla bla bla verbiage is just a cover for something embarrassingly pedestrian.

/end rant (based partially on several years of art classes and art history)

 

[Yora]

Well, I know about the German literature scene where it's just the same. It appears that "big writers" are writing needlesly complicated so that the critics can praise it in the similar needlesly ways they prefer. The main reason for this is, that it hides from the public that it all is completely without substance. The insiders bath in each others radiance. The emperors new clothes may be just the right term.

The only great German author I've seen in the last 10 years is Walter Moers, whose work is 40% direct parody of this, and 30% hidden satire of it, with the last 30% being the actual plot of the book. And he easily makes parody and satire true high art.

 

[pemerton]

A lot of modern art is pedestrian, isn't it? I'm not much of an art historian, and am happy to be corrected by those who are, but I would say that Duchamp's "Fountain" has a lot to answer for!

It's one of the earliest works that I know of in which the idea is more important than the execution (although the aesthetic character of the urinal as a work of ceramics is also part of it - but important mostly, I think, for how it feeds into and reinforces the idea).

I personally think "Fountain" is brilliant, although board rules probably preclude explaining why. But once you set up an approach to art in which idea will trump execution, it's likely you're going to get a lot of duds, because not every artist's idea is going to be brilliant. And increasingly, especially in "found object" visual art works, there is not even a great aesthetic component to the idea.

But my comment upthread was about influence, not quality. Whether or not one likes Fountain and the work that has followed it, I think it's influence is utterly pervasive, in all sorts of ways. Whether that's a good or a bad thing might depend on whether or not you think that modern art and design is overwhelmingly ugly (and there can be subtleties here, because one might hate the stereotypical modern building and yet love The Simpsons or South Park, although arguably they are both grounded in a common foundation).

 

[Leatherhead]

To me, GNS seems backwards.

As if it was reverse engineered from "how" people play the game, instead of working with "why" people play the game, and building from there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

A lot of modern art is pedestrian, isn't it? I'm not much of an art historian, and am happy to be corrected by those who are, but I would say that Duchamp's "Fountain" has a lot to answer for!

It's one of the earliest works that I know of in which the idea is more important than the execution (although the aesthetic character of the urinal as a work of ceramics is also part of it - but important mostly, I think, for how it feeds into and reinforces the idea).

I personally think "Fountain" is brilliant, although board rules probably preclude explaining why. But once you set up an approach to art in which idea will trump execution, it's likely you're going to get a lot of duds, because not every artist's idea is going to be brilliant. And increasingly, especially in "found object" visual art works, there is not even a great aesthetic component to the idea.

But my comment upthread was about influence, not quality. Whether or not one likes Fountain and the work that has followed it, I think it's influence is utterly pervasive, in all sorts of ways. Whether that's a good or a bad thing might depend on whether or not you think that modern art and design is overwhelmingly ugly (and there can be subtleties here, because one might hate the stereotypical modern building and yet love The Simpsons or South Park, although arguably they are both grounded in a common foundation).

i had to google the fountain, but looking at it I think it is an example of what luraway means. Personally i don't find it brilliant at all. I recall there was an artist who pooped in a can and it was praise by critics. This is much the same. It is the emperors new clothes to me.

 

[pemerton]

I don't want to break board rules - but when thinking about The Fountain you have to remember that it is 1917. France, together with the rest of Europe - and especially England and Germany - who collectively regarded themselves as the pinnacle of human civilisation, with their art as part of that - is bleeding dry in perhaps the most pointless war in human history.

The First World War punctures modern Europe's illusory self-conception (although films like Warhorse seem designed to try and reestablish the illusion!). The Fountain is an expression of, and a reflection on, that point in the domain of the visual arts. It's a savage attack on what its author regards as a failed civilisation - and failed not due to external shock, but due to its own, radically conceited failure of self-understanding.

To use the "new clothes" analogy - the whole point of the Fountain is that European civilisation, c 1917, has no clothes on.

Anyway, I don't think I can say any more without blatantly breaking the rules of the board.