NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5792289" data-attributes="member: 85870">Don't want to interrupt the train of thought, but it seems that the thread has kind of diverged into several separate yet related questions: <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Does GNS theory actually present valid, significant, hypotheses surrounding the way RPGs are used/formed/interpreted?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If it does, how accurate is it within each of its "3-fold" structures?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Are the three playstyles in GNS as "pure" as Ron Edwards describes them to be, or are games necessarily a mixture?</li> </ol>Obviously, my original idea--that Gamism as such, when pursued in its purest distillation, ultimately leads to play styles, systems, and social "contracts" that fall outside the common genre purview of "roleplaying" generally--hinges on answering some of those questions. If GNS theory is all bunk to begin with, then obviously I'm wasting my breath (and a LOT of keystrokes). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Clearly there are vagaries within GNS that are highly undefined and fluid, but when I read the material I connected with it. Taken individually, I recognized each of the three GNS concepts, and could picture situations and game sessions where each had taken place. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I "get" Gamism. I know EXACTLY the feeling of "Step On Up!"; it happens every single time someone lays out a board to play a game of Settlers, or lays out the Action card stacks in a game of Dominion. I immediately perk up, and get excited; in my mind, I'm making connections between the available actions and how they synergize, plotting future moves, and generally engaging with the "Game" in front of me. Here's another example--I thoroughly dislike playing a game of Settlers with my mother-in-law, because her approach is decidedly non-Gamist. She deliberately goes out of her way to create boards where "everyone has a chance," she's liberal with the 5s, 6s, 8s, and 9s on resources. She is totally non-competitive in using the robber and soldier cards. She'll avoid cutting off other players with roads, and so on. And when I play with her, it sucks all of the fun out of playing Settlers. Why? Because she's completely removed the "Step On Up!" challenge from the game. Even if I win, I get zero satisfaction from the result, because I know it was largely pure luck--my numbers just happened to get rolled slightly more often than someone else's. I know exactly what Gamism is, because I feel it. And when I want to have a Gamist experience (Like Settlers of Catan), I really do want it to be Gamist; it's why the game is fun at all. I also recognize that I have definitely had moments in RPG sessions where Gamism was evident. Calculating movement so a character can slip in behind an enemy to get the +2 flanking bonus. Setting up the perfect trip attack. Taking weapon finesse for a rogue, so that my attack bonus could go up to +4 for DEX, instead of +1 or +2 for STR. I get that all of that is part and parcel of the RPG experience, and that it's possible to gain that sense of "Step On Up!" accomplishment from an RPG. The GM creates the challenge, the players leverage their "Game" resources to defeat it, everyone derives satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment. But in reading and re-reading Ron Edward's ideas on Gamism, reflecting on my own play experiences as well as those shared here and elsewhere, more and more Gamism seemed to be an agenda one pursued while in the midst of the one of the other two. That for an RPG to be purely "Gamist," it sacrifices much of the purpose, sensibility, and "liveliness" that RPGs produce.To be honest I have no more proof than anyone else, other than my own observations. But if there's one question I keep coming back to it's this: given the choice as GM, would you rather have a "purist" for Gamism in your group, or Narrativism or Simulationism? I'd argue that deep down . . . most of us want a player willing to engage in something more than pure "Step On Up!" So maybe I'm asking the wrong questions, here. I asked earlier why RPGs were uniquely suited for Gamism, and the most common replay I got was flexibility. That a GM can respond to more situations in more unique, interesting ways than a simple AI program can. That makes sense, and I can see the appeal to a Gamist in that situation. But what does the GM get out of that situation, especially if they're a Gamist themselves? Is it all about "setting up cool scenarios" for them? Is it the satisfaction of knowing that they challenged their players? Is that enough for a Gamist? To me that's a different sort of "social contract" than "Step On Up!" for the GM.That seems to be a difficulty to me in "pure" Gamism--if EVERYONE at the table is Gamist, doesn't someone have to ultimately sacrifice their "Gamism" for a higher goal? And if the "RPG" at that point becomes nothing more than series of encounters, with a rotating "challenge arbiter," where players create the "Step On Up!" challenges, is that still a full-blooded RPG? Or is it, as I see it, more of a fusion of the Castle Ravenloft boardgame with very minor adjudicative control handed to one of the players?And maybe this is a potential problem with GNS itself--that logically extended, GNS can be problematic in reconciling player perspective with GM designs.</blockquote>

Verification