Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Yeah, in my books that's usually bad-faith GMing even if-when done with the best of intentions.I’m pushing back on the idea that gamism needs the GM to provide challenges. All you need to play is a consistent and knowable board state, which a simulated world approach provides naturally. If the treasure is in a cave, and we have the means to burrow to it, then that should work because we’d expect that to work according to the rules of our world (following the simulation). In contrast are approaches that have hidden rules or state.
For example, if the GM wants to ensure certain narrative beats are hit or dramatic moments happen, then they’re going to adjust things to make sure the game works correctly. A clever ploy may or may not work depending on how it fits into things. That would be a hidden and unknowable board state. That approach to running is not bad, but it works against gamism because you don’t know necessarily what moves will be valid. Obvious things may work until they don’t. The incentive is to follow the cues.
So, tying gamism to in-character ceeative thinking?In a sense, yes. A gamist is going to look at the possibilities and try to find the optimal path to their goal. Some times that’s going to look like something a bit subversive (such as burrowing to the treasure instead of going through the dungeon properly). Other times it’s going to look like the seemingly impossible (eliminating the dragon threat that no one can even approach). However, I would be careful with the word “exploit” to avoid negative connotations. I don’t think it’s about taking advantage for its own sake.
To me, that's simulation (as role-play) all day long: the players think like their characters would and, using the resources and abilities those characters have available to them, come up with an unexpected solution to a problem posed by the setting. Digging or mining through a wall to bypass the door they otherwise can't open is an obvious one to me, though it's truly amazing how rarely it gets proposed as a solution when that issue arises and the party has a Dwarf or other means of getting through stone.
IMO this only becomes gamism (in a negative sense) if-when it drifts into metagaming and players using knowledge or information their characters wouldn't have; because at that point you've got players trying to beat the game rather than players roleplaying their way to a creative solution.