That's not what gamist means!

[Bedrockgames]

It's not a real word, as far as I know. So I guess it means whatever someone wants it to mean.

To me, it clearly means something different to what it means to you. I don't think Mr. Edwards coined the term, because I'm pretty sure I remember hearing and using it long before I discovered teh intrawebs. And the above description isn't how we used the word.

What is more, it doesn't really matter if he coined it or not. Whatever definition has the most utility for gamers will be the one that wins out. Gamist=gamey seems to be overtaking the Edward's def and I think it is because it is broader (gamey includes edward's ideas but extends to other things as well) and just more functinal. Edward's def is narrow and rather unclear to lots of people.

 

[1Mac]

No. Edwards is talking about RPGs. No in-game characters, no RPG.

He's using character behavior as part of his definition of "gamist", so the fact that there happen to be characters in RPGs is not incidental to the definition. If I'm talking about different guitar tunings, you can't tell me I'm talking about guitars but not strings*.

I think you are confusing things as to this word also. Ron Edwards used the word "Gamist" to describe a "Concept". A "Concept" is not an absolute defined "thing", like say a "cat" or a "table".

"Democracy", or "nihilism," or "French cooking" are all concepts, and while I agree that there is some leeway in how these terms can be used, there are still some limits; otherwise they'd be useless. An autocratic democracy is oxymoronic (Lord Vetinari's "One Man, One Vote"), while "French cooking seismology" is nonsensical.

...I find this confusing, as "video gamey" is never mentioned in the OP of that thread. In fact nothing concerning Video games period (video gamey, video games, console games, MMORPG, etc.) are mentioned at all. And, although I haven't read every single word of the thread, I haven't seen endemic characterisations of equating gamist to video gamey in any other posts either...

Understandable, as I was focusing on the specific and not the general parts of the competing definition. So to generalize, let's try: Gamist- a design element that breaks immersion by reminding the player they are playing a game. When the OP in the thread I linked to talked about gamism as "abstraction" that "separates the player from their character," it sounds to me as though his problem with gamism is that it breaks immersion. When people say that 4e is very well balanced but is too gamist, I hear them say that as a game it works great, but that the visibility of the balanced mechanics make it harder to get into the game world (which by the way is a totally valid design concern that I am not at all criticizing).

I hear them say this, but it clangs against this other common meaning of the word that has nothing to do with too-visible game mechanics. I get that people don't like Edwards, and I don't ask that anyone accept him. But even if you don't, there are still a lot of people that find his terminology useful, and there's no reason to impart different meanings when there are other unambiguous words that have the meaning you want. It's about clarity, awareness, and in a small way, respect.

*When flailing for an analogy, the first thing I saw was a guitar. Sorry if the analogy lags.

 

[S'mon]

He's using character behavior as part of his definition of "gamist", so the fact that there happen to be characters in RPGs is not incidental to the definition.

That there are characters is not part of the definition, it's part of the premise. The premise that he's talking about RPGs, not some other sort of game.

 

[El Mahdi]

"Democracy", or "nihilism," or "French cooking" are all concepts, and while I agree that there is some leeway in how these terms can be used, there are still some limits; otherwise they'd be useless. An autocratic democracy is oxymoronic (Lord Vetinari's "One Man, One Vote"), while "French cooking seismology" is nonsensical.

Well of course diametrically opposed concepts or obviously different concepts don't fall inside that leeway. But I believe, just as it seems plenty of other people do also, that the uses and definitions that gamers give for "gamist" are similar enough that they all fall inside the same fluid definition of the concept.

You may disagree. And that's your perogative. But I highly doubt you have the ability, especially as nobody has ever had the ability, to stop the evolution of a word or concept. One can add to the evolution, but stop it...?...not a chance.

Resistence is Futile, Man!

Understandable, as I was focusing on the specific and not the general parts of the competing definition. So to generalize, let's try: Gamist- a design element that breaks immersion by reminding the player they are playing a game. When the OP in the thread I linked to talked about gamism as "abstraction" that "separates the player from their character," it sounds to me as though his problem with gamism is that it breaks immersion. When people say that 4e is very well balanced but is too gamist, I hear them say that as a game it works great, but that the visibility of the balanced mechanics make it harder to get into the game world (which by the way is a totally valid design concern that I am not at all criticizing).

I hear them say this, but it clangs against this other common meaning of the word that has nothing to do with too-visible game mechanics. I get that people don't like Edwards, and I don't ask that anyone accept him. But even if you don't, there are still a lot of people that find his terminology useful, and there's no reason to impart different meanings when there are other unambiguous words that have the meaning you want. It's about clarity, awareness, and in a small way, respect.

*When flailing for an analogy, the first thing I saw was a guitar. Sorry if the analogy lags.

Awesome! We're all in complete agreement then. If we use the generalized definition that you just stated: Gamist- a design element that breaks immersion by reminding the player they are playing a game."; then that is exactly what they are talking about in that thread. They're saying that the obviousness (visibility) of the game design elements of Xe, breaks their immersion of the game.

I Love It when we can all find consensus here, together, like this...

 

[was]

While I have frequently seen the term 'gamer' used, I have never before seen the term 'gamist' or 'gamism' used. A quick search in online dictionaries also gave me no results.
But, as I am not opposed to making up new words, let me suggest gamasm. Define it as you will.

 

[MerricB]

Don't wargames also have a strong simulationist element, in contrast with more abstract games such as chess? Indeed, I thought wargames usually emphasised sim above all, with game coming in second place.

It varies tremendously.

SPQR and Memoir '44 have famously unbalanced scenarios, so much so that SPQR suggests some scenarios are best for solo play, and in Memoir '44 a full game has players swapping sides afterwards and replaying the scenario, with the winner of the match being whoever does best overall.

Meanwhile, Advanced Squad Leader and Twilight Struggle do their best to provide *balanced* scenarios.

Despite this, ASL is a very complicated system, and Memoir '44 is very simple.

Cheers!

 

[Rogue Agent]

Literally doesn't mean "figuratively," even when misused. It's now just being used to emphasize something.

IOW, people who complain about this sort of thing literally don't understand how hyperbole works.

 

[S'mon]

As far as using Gamist to mean "feels like a game": well we already have a word for that - "gamey". Using Gamist to mean Gamey would mean that you have two words to mean the same thing. There would be a superfluous word for Gamey and no longer any single word for Step-On-Up game design or Challenge-focused player agenda. This would be a reduction in total vocabulary and thus a Bad Thing.

 

[Hautamaki]

The degree to which one is gamist to me just means how much fun the player derives specifically from overcoming challenges in the game.

This would be opposed to, for example, the simulationist; how much fun one has by simulating a world with detail and verisimilitude; and the role-player; how much fun one has by playing a role with detail and verisimilitude; and the story-teller; how much fun one has by contributing to an overall story.

A gamist will play the game in such a way as to try to 'win' by defeating monsters/completing quests in the most efficient way possible. A common straw man is to think of gamists as 'selfish' players who want to do 'better' than their fellow players but one is just as much a gamist if they play unselfishly, in such a way as to help the whole party 'win' together.

A simulationist is more concerned with the verisimilitude of the world as a whole and thus often times these players gravitate towards DMing. A simulationist player is happiest when everything 'makes sense'; even if it makes the most sense for his character to die under the present circumstances!

A role-player is most concerned with the 'escapist' nature of the game. He/She mostly just wants to immerse themselves in their role, whatever it may be, and often times is just as happy role-playing a clutzy idiot as they are a legendary hero.

A story-teller is most concerned with the creation of a coherent long-term plot, and thus, like the simulationist, often tends to gravitate to DMing. The danger with a story-teller as a DM is railroading the players, but generally 'good' story-teller DMs embrace story-telling as a collaborative effort. Story-tellers as players don't mind their characters dying or suffering set-backs so long as it serves a larger purpose in the plot they are creating.

 

[Hautamaki]

As far as using Gamist to mean "feels like a game": well we already have a word for that - "gamey". Using Gamist to mean Gamey would mean that you have two words to mean the same thing. There would be a superfluous word for Gamey and no longer any single word for Step-On-Up game design or Challenge-focused player agenda. This would be a reduction in total vocabulary and thus a Bad Thing.

Well 'gamey' would describe the feeling of a game (or else the taste of wild meat!), whereas 'gamist' to me describes a person.