What is "gamist"?

[Balesir]

GNS theory has, in my estimation, two basic and major flaws:

1) They speak as if G, N, and S are not merely convenient concepts to use as axes, but are The TRVTH!

There are those who claim that, sure. I treat their claims much as I do pretty much any group who claim to have a monopoly on "truth"; the claims are bunk, but that doesn't mean that what they are sold on doesn't have some value held in it.

2) In some of the literature, they explicitly state that a given player really follows only one of these things, and that any desire they may think they have is really a desire on their main agenda.

Well, other than that my personal experience suggests to me that it's extremely hard to impossible to address more than one agenda at the same time, it's pretty clear that this is rubbish. The suggestion that all individuals have a "preferred" or "naturally inclined" agenda also runs directly counter to my experience. So, someone may have written it, but that doesn't mean it's true. Then again, lots of things have been written about science, too - and many of them are also incorrect.

Personally, I view G,N, and S as simply being coordinate axes, and a player's actual desires can be imagined as a vector in that space. I could pick different axes (say, something more akin to the WotC market research Breakdown of RPG players), and look at the same player through a different framework.

I think this view is completely supportable; there are many potential sets of axes one can use. I have never found the ones used in the WotC survey analysis useful to really tell me things that help me run a game, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other axes I would find more useful - I just haven't found them, yet.

 

[prosfilaes]

Wrong tool. Try Google Groups and look at rec.games.frp.advocacy. Thousands of hits from the late 1990s, using the term gamist the way I and others use it.

And what gives them the right to define the word? We could say "How about instead [everyone] alike acknowledge that [rec.games.frp.advocacy] doesn't get to assume control over the English language".

Edwards was aware of these discussions, he just decided that everyone else's critical theories were wrong and he needed to redefine the words for some unfathomable reason.

That's why you write a critical theory; because you feel existing critical theory is wrong or at least incomplete.

He didn't make up the word. He doesn't get to redefine a word in use to support his theories anymore then I get to redefine the word blue so that I can say that the sky and the grass are the same color.

I don't see any evidence that he engaged in such semantic double-talk. Every theorists defines words for their theory to make it easier to talk about. Biologists steal the word "fish" and excludes whales from it; Freud stole the word "Ich" (I) and used it for just the id. (Pompous translators translating into English gave us the Latin id and ego instead of the more literal I and me.) They use existing words or variants on them, because nobody remembers made-up words.

Except that, there is an indirect route that obtains a meaning for "gamist":

Gamist as a contraction of "Gameist", then, gamist using the usual meaning of "ist" applied to "game".

...

-ist - Definition of -ist

That definition of -ist helps not at all; gamist could mean someone who likes gaming, or who hates it.

I don't know what the problems people have with Ron Edwards, but it seems some people want to throw the book at him. It's theorists' job to argue against other theories, and in doing so they regularly provide specialized definitions of existing words. Sometimes that word enters the standard vocabulary, like "fish" excluding whales, and sometimes it has an uneasy relation with it, like tomato being a "fruit", and most of the time it disappears. You can disagree that our primary definition of "gamist" should be the GNS one without acting as if it's an outrage that he should use the word.

 

[Libramarian]

Well, yes, but maybe not as you stated it. I'll try to explain what I mean, while avoiding Forgisms as much as possible.

Imagine a person who likes to play chess. When that person sits down at a chess board, they have a plan or goal - an agenda: to have fun playing a game of chess. They are not trying to simulate anything. They are not interested in dramatic narrative. They just want to play a game - they have a gamist agenda.

Now, imagine a gamer who really likes the tactical wargame aspect of D&D. A player who loves working on optimizations, who likes playing with the fiddly-bit rules at runtime - the player for whom this sort of rules-focused activity is a form of play they actively enjoy. When this player sets down at the table, he or she is not really worried about the plot of the session, or whether there's a reasonable monster ecology - the player is there to get to the fight scenes and kick some monsters around.

This player isn't much different form the chess player - there to play the combat game - and has a gamist agenda.

In general, that thing that you want to do when you sit down at the table, that's your agenda.

What's fun about chess though? This is where the GNS meaning of gamism comes into it: chess is gamist because it facilitates competition and the display and recognition of skilled play. That's gamism.

The GNS definition of gamism is superior to the "gamelike" definition of gamism, because the former identifies it with a psychologically valid agenda that a lot of games and sports outside of RPGs facilitate, while the latter just defines it negatively as the absence of story-mindedness and simulation-mindedness. That's why it seems to me to be pejorative. It doesn't explain what "gamists" are getting out of the experience. There's no actual psychological insight behind it; it's just a name for people who aren't interested in (don't "get") story or simulation.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Wrong tool. Try Google Groups and look at rec.games.frp.advocacy. Thousands of hits from the late 1990s, using the term gamist the way I and others use it. Before Edwards started redefining it as part of his pseudo-intellectual claptrap. Edwards was aware of these discussions, he just decided that everyone else's critical theories were wrong and he needed to redefine the words for some unfathomable reason.

It seems to me that GDS Gamism is pretty similar to GNS Gamism.

This quote is from The Threefold Model FAQ -

"gamist": is the style which values setting up a fair challenge for the players (as opposed to the PCs). The challenges may be tactical combat, intellectual mysteries, politics, or anything else. The players will try to solve the problems they are presented with, and in turn the GM will make these challenges solvable if they act intelligently within the contract.​

And this is from the wikipedia entry for GNS -

Gamism: Prove Yourself

Gamist refers to decisions based on satisfying clear predefined goal conditions in the face of adversity: in other words, on the desire to win. As Ron Edwards mentions in Gamism, Step on Up:

I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately, include:

"Eat me",
(upon winning) "I win",
and "C'mon, let's play without these morons."

These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time dwelling on why the characters are facing them in the first place. Gamist RPG design tends to place a strong emphasis on parity in character effectiveness: that is, the idea that all player characters should be (at least when properly built or optimised over time) equally strong and capable of dealing with adversity.

Combat is frequently heavily emphasised, as is a diversity in options for short-term problem solving (i.e., long lists of highly specific spells or combat techniques). Randomisation (i.e., Fortune methods) exist primarily to provide a gamble and allow players to risk more for higher stakes (for instance, attempting a more effective hit in combat requires a penalty on the dice roll), rather than modelling strict probability.

Examples include, Magic: The Gathering, Chess, and most computer games.​

These definitions have a lot more in common with one another than they do with other proposed definitions, such as the OP's.


PS I hope you enjoyed the part where Ron says 'synecdoche'! He's almost as inimitable as Gary Gygax.

 

[Libramarian]

I enjoy Ron's use of synecdoche.

But I also enjoyed when a poster earlier in the thread called him Ron Howard.

 

[olshanski]

Gamist to me means a desire to have explicit rules, numbers that can be crunched, and calculations that can be made in order for someone to plan out how to gain an advantage using the rules as written.

A lot of the best eurogames (strategy games) are very gamist, in that everyone knows the rules, everyone knows the winning conditions, and everyone is free to come up with a strategy to attain those goals. It is important that there are mechanics that can be manipulated, so that it isn't a game of luck or diplomacy.

I don't think of "gamist" as a perjorative. It is similar to min-maxing or optimizing. 4E has a very "gamist" approach to its tactical combat. I'd say that 4E is the most gamist version of D&D available, and that is a great strength of the game.

When I play eurogames, I really enjoy strategizing. A lot if miniatures games are also very "gamist".

Roleplaying games also allow for some other sources of enjoyment, such as people who like to immerse themselves in the game world. Its possible to have a lot of fun roleplaying without caring about the mechanics or trying to use the rules to gain an advantage... the thrill is in the imaginary world. I might call these people "immersionists"

There are also some people who don't give a crap about the imaginary world or the rules of the game, they just like socializing with friends, drinking beer, eating pretzels, and enjoying the company. Since these people like socializing I will call them "Socialists".

There are several other things that people can enjoy when roleplaying... arguing with other people (rules-lawyering), or perhaps the escapist fantasy aspects... I don't think there is a right or wrong way to play, but it is good to know what you like and what your friends like so that you can make sure you accomodate them.

As a gamist, I get pretty frustrated if the GM is fudging dice rolls or changing the target numbers after-the-fact. I like to be able to consider things like "My character is down to 5HP, if I keep fighting there is a 20% chance I'll die, on the other hand, if I surrender I can probably talk my way out of the situation... thus I'll surrender." Knowing the target numbers and stats of my opponents helps inform my decision on how to play the character, and I feel good for having made decisions that take the math into account.

 

[olshanski]

double post

 

[Bedrockgames]

I enjoy Ron's use of synecdoche.

But I also enjoyed when a poster earlier in the thread called him Ron Howard.

I must admit, when I first read the infamous "brain damage" essay, I imagined it being penned by Ron Howard and that image has stuck anyime I see something by Ron Edwards. I don't have anything personally against the guy. GNS isn't for me, and sometimes i find its advocates overly aggressive, but I think he is just one of these larger than life internet personalities who probably would be much more down to earth and normal if you met him in real life. Internet debates have a way of transforming us all into caricatures.

 

[Krensky]

And what gives them the right to define the word? We could say "How about instead [everyone] alike acknowledge that [rec.games.frp.advocacy] doesn't get to assume control over the English language".

Because they used it first. Don't move the goal posts. You claimed he got to define the word because he made it up. You were wrong.

That's why you write a critical theory; because you feel existing critical theory is wrong or at least incomplete.

In my experience you write a critical theory, that is a theory of criticism, because you're a pretentious twit who can't get a real job in business, government, media, or academia so you're forced to sit on the sidelines and complain about how other people are reviewing and valuing creative work.

 

[Umbran]

...because you're a pretentious twit who can't get a real job...

Folks, let us avoid becoming insulting or personal. It is enough to consider the value of a statement. There's not much grounds to go on to make claims on the value of a person behind the statement. That's kind of rude.