Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5600929" data-attributes="member: 27160">If the particular 'flavour' of gamism was focussed on player riddle solving, and not use of the game systems, sure, this would fit.But, generally, I think care is needed in this context.&nbsp; The earlier (late 1990s) discussions of &quot;Gamism&quot;, &quot;Simulationism&quot; and &quot;Dramatism&quot; were centred around general gestalts; each a feeling or an 'atmosphere' connected with a specific aspect of the game.&nbsp; In this sense, certainly, encouraging as much as possible of each is beneficial.The Forge usage, though, is rather more specific, arguably more technical and in some people's eyes more anal <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; What defines the three &quot;agendas&quot; for the Forge definitions is the focus of social interaction besed on the events in play.&nbsp; If a group are giving kudos, going &quot;woo hoo!&quot; and maybe even high fiving at particularly good tactics, particularly nasty &quot;gotchas&quot; set up on bad guys and particularly good (or bad) die rolls, then, in Forge terms, the play is &quot;Gamist&quot;.&nbsp; If the same is going on for particularly thematically resonant actions - actions that plumb the nature of a moral quandry, say - then that is &quot;Narrativist&quot; play.&nbsp; Likewise for adding aesthetically matched and flavoursome objects or events to &quot;Simulationist&quot; play.This &quot;Forge&quot; usage is specifically where the comments about &quot;exclusivity&quot; come from.&nbsp; In these terms, it really makes no sense to describe a set of RPG rules, or an RPG player, as any specific one of the three &quot;agendas&quot;.&nbsp; The agendas relate to instances of play, not to game systems or even groups.That said, however, it does make sense to consider how well sets of game rules support play that is focussed on one or another of these agendas - and that is what is meant on the Forge by &quot;Gamist supporting rules&quot;, or &quot;Simulationist supporting rules&quot; or &quot;Narrativist supporting rules&quot;.&nbsp; Making a ruleset that supports more than one agenda is not impossible, but it is very difficult to do well.&nbsp; The very idea of &quot;supporting all three to the maximum extent possible&quot; doesn't really fly - a game where the players were genuinely trying to gain and give kudos for all three at all times would be pretty unfocussed and confused, basically.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5600929, member: 27160"] If the particular 'flavour' of gamism was focussed on player riddle solving, and not use of the game systems, sure, this would fit. But, generally, I think care is needed in this context. The earlier (late 1990s) discussions of "Gamism", "Simulationism" and "Dramatism" were centred around general gestalts; each a feeling or an 'atmosphere' connected with a specific aspect of the game. In this sense, certainly, encouraging as much as possible of each is beneficial. The Forge usage, though, is rather more specific, arguably more technical and in some people's eyes more anal ;) What defines the three "agendas" for the Forge definitions is the focus of social interaction besed on the events in play. If a group are giving kudos, going "woo hoo!" and maybe even high fiving at particularly good tactics, particularly nasty "gotchas" set up on bad guys and particularly good (or bad) die rolls, then, in Forge terms, the play is "Gamist". If the same is going on for particularly thematically resonant actions - actions that plumb the nature of a moral quandry, say - then that is "Narrativist" play. Likewise for adding aesthetically matched and flavoursome objects or events to "Simulationist" play. This "Forge" usage is specifically where the comments about "exclusivity" come from. In these terms, it really makes no sense to describe a set of RPG rules, or an RPG player, as any specific one of the three "agendas". The agendas relate to instances of play, not to game systems or even groups. That said, however, it [I]does[/I] make sense to consider how well sets of game rules [U]support[/U] play that is focussed on one or another of these agendas - and that is what is meant on the Forge by "Gamist supporting rules", or "Simulationist supporting rules" or "Narrativist supporting rules". Making a ruleset that supports more than one agenda is not impossible, but it is very difficult to do well. The very idea of "supporting all three to the maximum extent possible" doesn't really fly - a game where the players were genuinely trying to gain and give kudos for all three at all times would be pretty unfocussed and confused, basically. [/QUOTE]

Verification