Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8646028" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, I think [USER=10812]@Pickaxe[/USER] uses 'gamist' in something close to the early meaning, which was some sort of mechanical concession to playability. There is also, as he says, an early definition of simulation, or 'realism' which defines the rules of the world as being the rules of the game. So the two are seen as virtually antithetical. Hit points are 'gamist' because they greatly abstract away from some hypothetical fictional reality in which there are wounds and whatnot. Gamist ALSO came to mean something closer to its current meaning in that it surfaced the agenda of &quot;how playable/fun is this?&quot; as a design consideration and you could then ask questions about a game based purely on that axis. It is also true that a certain level of realism was a core goal in TT Wargaming, which is how RPGs got their original notion of simulation and realism. That obviously went out the window when magic arrived, and when RP demanded interesting characters, but it has definitely lingered all these years in the psyche of D&amp;D. Guys like Edwards exploded all that completely with things like GNS and game process analysis techniques such as the ones [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] often references (his favorite is Vincent Baker). So GNS simulationism and gamism really owe very little to, and are not congruent (except accidentally) to the definitions [USER=10812]@Pickaxe[/USER] is using (though his are not pure old school either). GNS gamism for example is an orientation towards an RPG's character AS A GAME, and 'Step On Up' play (or something analogous). The old definition was a bit more modest &quot;the RPG is a game and as such it must have practical playable mechanics, which are more enjoyable on the whole to interact with than ridiculously elaborate realistic ones.&quot; with a side dose of &quot;realism seems to sometimes undermine the quality of game play in a competitive sense.&quot;So, we can see how old school gamist evolved into GNS gamism, sort of, but they're not the same thing, like a chicken is not Velociraptor.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8646028, member: 82106"] Right, I think [USER=10812]@Pickaxe[/USER] uses 'gamist' in something close to the early meaning, which was some sort of mechanical concession to playability. There is also, as he says, an early definition of simulation, or 'realism' which defines the rules of the world as being the rules of the game. So the two are seen as virtually antithetical. Hit points are 'gamist' because they greatly abstract away from some hypothetical fictional reality in which there are wounds and whatnot. Gamist ALSO came to mean something closer to its current meaning in that it surfaced the agenda of "how playable/fun is this?" as a design consideration and you could then ask questions about a game based purely on that axis. It is also true that a certain level of realism was a core goal in TT Wargaming, which is how RPGs got their original notion of simulation and realism. That obviously went out the window when magic arrived, and when RP demanded interesting characters, but it has definitely lingered all these years in the psyche of D&D. Guys like Edwards exploded all that completely with things like GNS and game process analysis techniques such as the ones [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] often references (his favorite is Vincent Baker). So GNS simulationism and gamism really owe very little to, and are not congruent (except accidentally) to the definitions [USER=10812]@Pickaxe[/USER] is using (though his are not pure old school either). GNS gamism for example is an orientation towards an RPG's character AS A GAME, and 'Step On Up' play (or something analogous). The old definition was a bit more modest "the RPG is a game and as such it must have practical playable mechanics, which are more enjoyable on the whole to interact with than ridiculously elaborate realistic ones." with a side dose of "realism seems to sometimes undermine the quality of game play in a competitive sense." So, we can see how old school gamist evolved into GNS gamism, sort of, but they're not the same thing, like a chicken is not Velociraptor. [/QUOTE]

Verification