I'd like to raise a couple of questions here about Gamism (among purposes).
Two crucial concepts in playing game as game are tempo and initiative. Together, they produce a sense of gameflow, which is intense and satisfying. Some mix it up with mastery, and although it is typically found where mastery is found, the two are not identical. 4e in particular had payoffs in this direction.
Two further powerfully engaging concepts in playing game as game are collection and development (or construction.) Players express themselves by collecting that which displays their values, and by developing distinctively. This could be thought quite close to define skill, display it, but it is not skill that is on display. It is values and concepts. (Skill may be on display at the same time.) Earthdawn thread-weaving was supplemented by attractive cards players could collect and slowly develop (front was an image of the item, back was formatted for recording weaving). Optimisers often point out that they are not seeking to show power or even skill especially, but an articulation in the game system of a concept.
Should these factor into purposes (as they are purposes for some players)?
These strike me as characteristics that should show up regardless of the design purpose for the game. Other than maybe "collection," but even then. That is, I can't really see a way to argue that (for example) tempo wouldn't apply to all possible purposes, whether or not my list is comprehensive. Likewise, "development" is so broad it seems to apply to anything that might claim to be a "roleplaying" game. If "development" is something that is necessary to the design of all TTRPGs, to whatever variable extent, then that would be something coming
before my taxonomy, as opposed to the player motives, which come
after.
Think of it like this: a "car" has to have
wheels in order to be, y'know, a
car. There is no conception of "car" that doesn't include "wheels" in it, at least not as the word is used in English. A framework intending to examine the classifications of cars is not going to give equal weight to the classifications of
wheels, except maybe in a rather limited sense by saying "for this type of car, wheel choice matters a lot, whereas for that type of car, wheel choice isn't very important." Wheel choice may be a relevant thing to consider, but if discussing car classifications, wheels are likely to be a minor point at best. Meanwhile, things like "buying sports cars in order to collect them" vs "...to race them" vs "...to display conspicuous consumption" would also be outside the framework for the opposite reason, as those things "come after" the design. Designers need to take both of those things into account when designing, but that doesn't mean a classification scheme of cars (or games) themselves needs to account for underlying tech or the things users desire to
do with the product.
This actually seems to be an ongoing issue, here: your interests seem to go quite a bit beyond what I'm talking about. I have plenty of my own ideas about what elements "role-playing games"
should contain, as in, what are the critical things that make something a "roleplaying" game and not some other kind of game, but those thoughts necessarily come
before asking, "what are RPGs designed to do? What
could they be designed to do?" You can't ask what something is (or could be) designed to do if you can't actually identify the thing in question first. Conversely, "what do players
want to do with RPGs?" is a completely different question, and frankly one I don't feel remotely qualified to answer.
Tempo, initiative, and development sound (to me) like necessary elements for making something one could validly call "an RPG." Collection I'm iffy on (as noted above), but am at least open to putting it in that same bucket. Hence, I don't really have much to say about them (...these many words notwithstanding) because they just aren't part of what my taxonomy is focused on.
---
I had suspected some of my pithy terms would raise eyebrows. When I said "define skill," I mean very specifically (as I've said) defining a
metric of grading success. It does not
need to be numeric, but it usually will be. Things like "collecting," in and of themselves, reflect no skill in this definition. Merely
possessing expensive MtG cards does not say anything about one's
skill as an MtG player, other than perhaps analytical skill in knowing what cards are worth keeping (but the existence of the Internet and being able to look up card values kinda weakens that).
"Optimization" that isn't actually seeking
success but rather exploring a concept, has nothing really to do with Score-and-Achievement design. Instead, from the context you've described here, this form of "optimization" sounds like either Groundedness-and-Simulation (that is, following an asserted fact through all of its logical consequences) or Conceit-and-Emulation (that is, starting from something like an archetype or concept and seeking to portray or fulfill it). But I've never said (nor intended to imply) that "optimization" is exclusively an S&A thing. That said though, I do want you to unpack what it means to "optimize" "an articulation...of a concept" in a way that has
nothing whatsoever to do with "succeed more often." Usually, I
do understand "optimization" (in the generic, not-specifically-games sense) to mean pushing numbers as high (or as low) as they can possibly go, though that may be my math background talking. In what sense does one "optimize" a concept while assiduously avoiding any grading or metric of "this will succeed more often"?
Incidentally, part of the above is why I separate these categories. G&S design seeks to enable, as much as possible, such rational analysis, hence upthread someone mentioned wanting to play something that's
like a "supers" game (which would normally be C&E), but instead ends up more like a
deconstruction of a "supers" game, seriously examining the (often negative) consequences that would be expected in a world where superpowered individuals exist. C&E design instead proposes a tone or theme, and seeks to take what actions are necessary to portray or fulfill that thing. A "G&S supers" game would be designed to examine the
consequences and
results of living in a world where superheroes exist. A "C&E supers" game would be designed to
portray classic superheroes, encouraging superheroic behavior and, if necessary, actively enforcing classic supers tropes (e.g. secret identities are mostly kept secret, catching someone falling off a building won't break their spine, etc.)
Both things can, at a really abstract and superficial level, be summarized as "articulation of a concept," but the former treats the concept as immutable fact and then procedurally determines what else
has to be true based on what is
known to be true, even if the consequences might be undesirable (consider how most folks feel about the Tippyverse, if you're familiar with that). The latter, meanwhile, treats the concept as
the target to shoot for, and takes what steps are necessary to bring that about, even if some of those steps involve doing irrational or foolish things "in-universe." Simulation
derives. Emulation
imitates. There are similarities between deriving new truths from known ones and attempting to match the form or structure of something, but they move in extremely different directions.
