How Do You Like Your Gamism?

[Snarf Zagyg]

They should use "come at me bro!"

Real gamists play lax, brah.

 

[MGibster]

I don't want to brag, but I went to graduate school for history where I engaged in various schools of thought, i.e. theories, and on occasion wrote papers where I interpreted the past through the lens of those theories even when I didn't personally agree with them. What I'm saying is that I'm used to wading through jargon and applying theories in an academic setting. All this Forgeworld stuff makes my eyes glaze over. I find it very difficult to follow. And I want to follow! I love talking about this kind of stuff. But I feel like I'm a foreigner trying to suss out some strange language.

 

[kenada]

That said, there has always been very little focus on the "game" aspects of RPGs. Especially in comparison to other fields (boardgames, videogames).

Oh, I also found Edward's thesis that there is some special kind of Gamism related appeal that's unique to TTRPGs and not other games quite weak. I don't necessarily disagree that there is such a unique appeal, but I don't think he actually makes a case for it and doesn't do any real work toward explicating how and why such a thing might exist uniquely in the TTRPG space.

I think these things are related, and it’s not just Edwards who does this. While there is something special about RPGs, it seems common to forget or neglect that they’re also still games. Until that changes, it’s going to be difficult to bridge that gap and cross-pollinate ideas from other types of games.

My homebrew system takes inspiration from various RPGs but also from video (Diablo¹, Final Fantasy XIV²) and board games (Middara³). If someone doesn’t like that, then that’s their problem.

---

1: While the main influence was Torchbearer, my system uses an inventory grid. It’s similar to Diablo in that you manage your inventory by laying out items (e.g., a 2-handed sword would be written across two boxes). Encumbrance is handled not by doing math but by putting something in the box labeled as increasing your encumbrance. It’s quick and easy to visually organize your stuff. There is an equip phase in combat where you assign things to your hands. Monsters do this for their weapons but also special abilities, which lets me (theoretically) do tells like a video game.
2: Even if it can be a little repetitive, FFXIV’s does crafting as another class using the same interface as the rest of the game for performing actions on your character. In an RPG, you can do it with the same action economy as you would other activities. Having to manage durability, progress, and quality (if you want an HQ item) should provide more gameplay in an RPG than just rolling repeatedly to determine how long it took you to make something.
3: Middara handles movement by having you pay to leave the square. For grid-based play, this is an (obvious in hindsight) improvement over the common approach in RPGs of paying the cost to enter a square instead. Special cases are basically a non-issue. If you have 3m of movement left, and it costs 4m to exit, you don’t exit. I also use this for hex movement. Terrain type can increase the cost to leave. If you don’t have the movement to do it in one day, it takes multiple days. You can also pay movement to move about inside the hex (e.g., searching for things).

 

[Pedantic]

I think these things are related, and it’s not just Edwards who does this. While there is something special about RPGs, it seems common to forget or neglect that they’re also still games. Until that changes, it’s going to be difficult to bridge that gap and cross-pollinate ideas from other types of games.

Yes, and to take it a step further, I think there's a certain hostility to gameplay in TTRPGs in general, that tends to masquerade as either a disdain for complexity, or through an implicit argument that allowing players to gain advantage through their decision making prohibits certain narratives.

3: Middara handles movement by having you pay to leave the square. For grid-based play, this is an (obvious in hindsight) improvement over the common approach in RPGs of paying the cost to enter a square instead. Special cases are basically a non-issue. If you have 3m of movement left, and it costs 4m to exit, you don’t exit. I also use this for hex movement. Terrain type can increase the cost to leave. If you don’t have the movement to do it in one day, it takes multiple days. You can also pay movement to move about inside the hex (e.g., searching for things).

This is absolutely genius. I'm reminded of Fantasy Craft's simple solution to the opportunity attack problem: moving adjacent to a foe consumes all of your remaining movement for the action. You can leave, but doing so will cost your second action, thus preventing you from attacking. The rule is even more practical when combined with your model, because creatures can simply modify the movement cost to leave spaces inside their threatened zone, something that could further be changed through actions or other features.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, and to take it a step further, I think there's a certain hostility to gameplay in TTRPGs in general, that tends to masquerade as either a disdain for complexity, or through an implicit argument that allowing players to gain advantage through their decision making prohibits certain narratives.

While this will be the subject of a later (and lengthier) post I have been procrastinating writing for some time now, I think it goes even deeper and negatively impacts a lot of the game experiences.

At the most basic level, when we think of TTRPGs, we often only discuss the most basic mechanics only in terms of how we can adjust them to more closely align with, say, advancing a story.

We (almost) never examine the game mechanics in terms of what makes for a fun game. I use the term "fun" advisedly given that some people do not seem to like that term- feel free to substitute "more competitive" or "more tactically engaging" as example.

One example of this that I've been thinking about is something as simple as D&D's much decried "binary" mechanics- the whole, "Roll a d20, if you roll above a certain target number you succeed, if you roll below a certain target number you fail."

While there are certainly good arguments for certain styles of TTRPGs to eschew this mechanic, I have long thought that the continued use of this mechanic reflects the fact that it is good from a purely gaming perspective; for many people, that success/failure instant reaction tickles a part of the lizard brain that enjoys games.

Eh, I'll develop this more at some point.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I think your first post was accurate.

It's been well-documented that the "G" in GDS was an afterthought.

Arguably, the "GS" in GNS is relatively non-existent for those who enjoy those playstyles; I have often thought that "GNS" is best viewed as a critique of prevailing play culture in an attempt to put forward a better foundation for "N" than it is a real attempt at explaining or understanding the other aspects of play.

That said, there has always been very little focus on the "game" aspects of RPGs. Especially in comparison to other fields (boardgames, videogames).

What always confused me was that the "simulationist" parts felt like, "the mechanics that support the roleplaying narrative or theme or setting," while the "gamist" parts felt like "the dice rolling that would be unreasonably difficult to fairly turn into narrative."

I guess I don't like categorizing things that way.

The more I think about TTRPGs, the more I think of them in terms of all the different modes of play. Not just the roleplaying, tactical combat, or hybrid modes of play at the game table. Honestly, I think the game session at the table is vastly overrated for what even constitutes gameplay.

The character building subgame is a part of the game. Some people just sit and build characters for some games. And that's playing the TTRPG. And the worldbuilding subgame. Some people fabricate worlds and never run a campaign in them. That's still playing a TTRPG. And the monster/adversary creating subgame. And the magic item subgame. And the class designing subgame. And the combat rules making subgame. That means that everyone is on the player spectrum, from the core game developers, the artists making pictures for the books, the DMs building worlds, the players playing at the table, or even the players sitting at home and making up characters.

The whole thing really bridges the lines between game, art, craft, and storytelling. It all fabricating to a framework that the other players (if there are any) validate and agree upon and build on top of. That's really what TTRPGs are. Creation, expression, collaboration, and agreement. And then starting over again and creating more. And there is no part of creative endeavor that isn't allowed in. It just has to be agreed upon.

TTRPGs are then a collection of minigames designed to create an experience that everyone agrees is the goal. The actual game is about sequencing and selecting the mode of play just as much as it is about executing the mode of play appropriately for... whatever it is you want to create. And fabricating the bridges between those modes of play sometimes on-the-fly.

It's like making chili. No matter how vehemently some people insist there can't be any beans in there... they keep showing up at a lot of tables without any complaints.

 

[Pedantic]

What always confused me was that the "simulationist" parts felt like, "the mechanics that support the roleplaying narrative or theme or setting," while the "gamist" parts felt like "the dice rolling that would be unreasonably difficult to fairly turn into narrative."

I guess I don't like categorizing things that way.

The more I think about TTRPGs, the more I think of them in terms of all the different modes of play. Not just the roleplaying, tactical combat, or hybrid modes of play at the game table. Honestly, I think the game session at the table is vastly overrated for what even constitutes gameplay.

The character building subgame is a part of the game. Some people just sit and build characters for some games. And that's playing the TTRPG. And the worldbuilding subgame. Some people fabricate worlds and never run a campaign in them. That's still playing a TTRPG. And the monster/adversary creating subgame. And the magic item subgame. And the class designing subgame. And the combat rules making subgame. That means that everyone is on the player spectrum, from the core game developers, the artists making pictures for the books, the DMs building worlds, the players playing at the table, or even the players sitting at home and making up characters.

The whole thing really bridges the lines between game, art, craft, and storytelling. It all fabricating to a framework that the other players (if there are any) validate and agree upon and build on top of. That's really what TTRPGs are. Creation, expression, collaboration, and agreement. And then starting over again and creating more. And there is no part of creative endeavor that isn't allowed in. It just has to be agreed upon.

TTRPGs are then a collection of minigames designed to create an experience that everyone agrees is the goal. The actual game is about sequencing and selecting the mode of play just as much as it is about executing the mode of play appropriately for... whatever it is you want to create. And fabricating the bridges between those modes of play sometimes on-the-fly.

It's like making chili. No matter how vehemently some people insist there can't be any beans in there... they keep showing up at a lot of tables without any complaints.

This is a bit broad. I don't characterize the "what game do you want to play on Sunday?" text chain that happens before each of my board game days as a part of gameplay. While I appreciate the description of the TTRPG endeavor as a whole, I don't think it's reasonable to describe the person doing book layout as playing a game, nor particularly helpful to articulating how and why gameplay is appealing as a part of TTRPGs.

 

[Lanefan]

I like my narrativism to be "enjoying a roleplaying game because of the story it generates"
I like my simualtionism to be "enjoying a roleplaying game because I enjoy seeing events play out in a realistic fashion"
I like my gamism to "enjoying a roleplaying game because it challenges me to use the rules in creative ways"

Very much agree with all this.

The forge model is old, and we've moved on; assuming that a "game" MUST be about competition is a bit old-fashioned and does not reflect a lot of people's enjoyment of crunchy systems and complex rulesets.

Note however that all three of your points in the first bit I quoted are neutral as regards the presence or absence of competition.

Case in point: you seem not to like competition, where I do like it, and yet we can still agree on the three points above.

 

[Bacon Bits]

This is a bit broad. I don't characterize the "what game do you want to play on Sunday?" text chain that happens before each of my board game days as a part of gameplay. While I appreciate the description of the TTRPG endeavor as a whole, I don't think it's reasonable to describe the person doing book layout as playing a game, nor particularly helpful to articulating how and why gameplay is appealing as a part of TTRPGs.

What makes you think book layout can't be part of the game? Books like Volo's Guide to Monsters or AD&D's Elminster's Ecologies are written as if from in-game characters. And the book layouts are presented with trappings of an in-game work. They might have art that evokes an illuminated manuscript, or feature gothic writing. Hell, Mork Borg is at least 80% book presentation. If that game were sold in an Unearthed Arcana-like PDF with Calibri font, Heading 1, Heading 2, Heading 3, and Normal style in two columns per page and a PDF title of "Word Document"... nobody would be playing that game at all. Mork Borg is a thing because the people who wrote it were playing it as they created it.

Is it a broad definition? Absolutely. However, the game is about collaboratively fabricating a realistic game world within which we play a series of minigames from character play-acting to tactical wargames to puzzles to a storytelling minigame. That's an incredibly broad range of ideas each with a variably complex set of tasks required to execute. And since at every level (if you'll excuse the term) everyone is, in their own way, encouraged to take as big a part of that job as they can, I don't feel like it's worthwhile to necessarily exclude anyone who does take part in it.

In short, I would rather risk including the roles of people who might not be at the game table in the discussion of what an RPG is, rather than risk excluding any form of true gameplay by assuming that my participation is gameplay while others must not be. I think it's totally valueless to draw a box around the game table and say, "Everything in this box is the game, and nothing outside this box is the game." Mostly because that doesn't make sense to me on its face. At least 50% of my enjoyment and at least 50% of my time with the game as a DM is the prep I do when I'm not even sitting at that table. I don't think ignoring that is useful or valuable to understanding what the hobby is at all, and I don't think it's useful to say, "X is the game, but Y is the hobby." No. TTRPGs are a game and a hobby, both at once. We need to start looking outside of Plato's Cave if we're going to really try to understand what a TTRPG is.

Yes, it's often not going to be valuable to talk about Kate Irwin when talking about gameplay, but that doesn't mean her contributions should be discarded when talking about the kind of game you actually play in 5e D&D. Similarly, we don't often need to talk about the rules for addition and subtraction when discussing the game or hobby. Both of those things are important to how the game actually gets played. They are a part of gameplay even if it's not the part of gameplay you're interested in talking about. However, excluding them out-of-hand because their contributions are relatively immutable is inevitably forcing your discussion to be about a subset of what's actually going on. The whole game is about design and creation. Why would we ever want to exclude parts that are designed and created?

If it's gameplay for me as a DM to make a monster, design a class, draw a map, build a city, design an adventure, write a campaign, build a world, draw my characters, paint my miniatures, create combat rules, etc., etc., etc..... If everything I would have to do to play a TTRPG is the gameplay for the TTRPG, and I think it absolutely is, then why does it stop being gameplay just because I've contracted part of it out.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I was reading some old Forge articles and came across this one. In it, I found a very interesting method of roughly identifying gamist playstyles:


I thought it might be fun to talk about these as they relate to our individual preferences.

I think I am generally a #1. I enjoy acknowledging the way play happens at the table more than in the world, and it is fun to try and out-do your fellow players and/or the GM.

What about you?

Looking at his dials, I vary as to what I want on 1 and 4, but am really uninterested (at least routinely) by the needs of 2 and 3 to have inter-player competition. I just end up finding that stressful, and if I'm going to play a player-versus-player game its not going to be in an RPG context.