I dislike the GDS and GNS definitions of gamism. I think the GDS definition is actually problematic in that it’s clearly set up as a containment policy for gamists. GNS at least recognizes that problem, but I’m still not fond of the definition it provides. I don’t like the axes of competition and challenge (or the other commentary regarding performance). For me, gamism is about your skill as a player and overcoming the challenges you set. Those challenges need not necessarily be fair either because “fair” in the RPG space usually comes with an expectation the players should win, and a rigged game is not much of a game.
Circling back to the actual question in the OP, I describe my homebrew system and my campaign as “gamist”. There is an attrition and resource model you have to manage. If you aren’t careful and smart with your play, you will be worn down. That can eventually necessitate a retreat, but it takes time to recover, and the world continues on regardless (with structures and procedures for handling that sort of thing). The problems the player face are not necessarily tuned to their capabilities.
Last session, the party ended up having to deal with a bulette. It’s 9th level while they’re only 5th. It will kill most PCs of their level in one round, though the barbarian is a bit sturdier and should be able to survive the first to die in the second. They’ve been able to lure it away a few times, but eventually they needed to take it out. That required working with allies (because it was too risky doing it on their own), which came with its own costs (because the vampire friend they asked for help wanted more from them after they got a mixed Success on a negotiation skill check).
I guess that’s #1 on the above list, but the description after the enumeration would also suggest #1 and #2. I don’t like how mushy and imprecise that is. It doesn’t really resonate with me at all. I think a major problem with this article is it wasn’t written by a gamist, and it didn’t provoke any discussion among gamists to refine it. Instead, RPG discourse seems focused mostly on GDS-style gamism or on other styles indirectly (such as OSR-style play focused on player skill) where proponents of that style may not recognize it as gamist due to hostility and assumptions inculcated towards gamism.
I've also been pretty disappointed with Edward's take, for two reasons.
First, It's so focused on social hierarchy and reward structures, which I think can be a function of games, but is not the only or even the primary one. I play a lot of no-randomness, quite heavy board games, ranging from con-sims to 18XX to assorted euros. I mostly play with the same people, and we have a pretty solid understanding at this point of our win percentages, which don't really vary that much from game to game, and follow similar patterns. E tends to win in early plays, I tend to win once when I find a previously unexpected strategy and exploit it, N and C tend to win more often the longer we play the same game.
The reason we'd give for playing would involve describing novel board states, and/or "interesting decisions." Competition isn't a goal, it's a means to produce the thing that's actually engaging. Games essentially serve to magnify the impact of decision making. You submit to a system that limits your choices, proscribing what actions can and cannot be performed, and you agree to a victory condition (usually mandated by the game itself, but sometimes by personal or mutual agreement) against which your choices can be evaluated, and by doing so you ensure that each decision you make will have a greater impact than most decisions we make in or normal lives, and that the impact of that decision will be understood in a knowable way and the consequences felt in a reasonable timeframe.
The point isn't to win, it's to chew on those decisions. In order to ensure they can be evaluated, you agree to trying to win as a condition to play at all. The appeal of TTRPGs in this space is that they provide a clear, sensible mechanism to link what would otherwise have to be multiple games into a contiguous experience, and have the potential to provide a much wider set of action declarations than most games can really handle.
Secondly, I think it's a mistake to lump the thrill of gambling in with gaming. Those are two things that I think can happen at the same time, but are not intrinsically connected or even necessarily related in the way Edwards proposes. Risks are interesting in games, but only when they're knowable, and are subject to analysis. Picking between risks, deciding when it's more advantageous to put more at risk in exchange for husbanding resources and so. In discussing a game after the fact, one might point to a risk and either defend it as the best choice given the information, or concede that given the downside that emerged, a different choice would have made more sense. The actual thrill of reveal, of giving up control and finding out whether or not things worked out as you wanted, isn't compelling on the same axis. It's a totally different kind of enjoyment that one doesn't need the rest of games to enjoy.