That's not what gamist means!

[jonesy]

"Gamist" does not mean what you likely think it means..

I find this inconceivable...

I do not think that word means what you.. oh. Memeception.

 

[1Mac]

I have never seen "gamist" used to mean "like a video game" until the OP just now.

I assure you I wouldn't have started this thread if it wasn't something I noticed before . Check out the OP of this thread for starters:

Encounter/Daily restrictions and "gamist" supposition ("once you use it, its gone"); general abstraction that removes players from their characters and discourages improvised, imaginative play (outside of the power structure).
...
Of course the problem with this idea is that it still retains the "gamist" approach that separates players from their characters.

He's not talking about encounter powers as a challenge for characters to overcome in game, but as an abstract metagame resource. Other posters in that thread are using the term in the same way.

The whole point of the term is to describe the point of games: the players are supposed to step-on-up and try to win. To defeat the challenge.

Fair enough, but it also requires that the characters confront a challenge in the game world. To requote Edwards from my OP:

The in-game characters, armed with their skills, priorities, and so on, have to face a Challenge, which is to say, a specific Situation in the imaginary game-world. Challenge is about the strategizing, guts, and performance of the characters in this imaginary game-world.

No in-game characters, no gamism; therefore, board games like Risk are not gamist.

 

[Doug McCrae]

... except that wargames ("strategically moving miniatures") and WoW are both emphatically focused on addressing and overcoming challenges. To the exclusion of all other factors.

Don't wargames also have a strong simulationist element, in contrast with more abstract games such as chess? Indeed, I thought wargames usually emphasised sim above all, with game coming in second place.

 

[jonesy]

The biggest problem with using contested terms like GNS is that the moment you do the thread becomes about their definitions, and not what you were really trying to talk about.

So how about instead of using them as shorthand for something your audience won't agree on simply say what it is you are trying to say.

 

[S'mon]

Don't wargames also have a strong simulationist element, in contrast with more abstract games such as chess? Indeed, I thought wargames usually emphasised sim above all, with game coming in second place.

None of the board wargames I have prioritise simulation over gamist challenge, eg they aim to create a level playing field. I do recall some discussion in a Donald Featherstone miniatures wargame book about limiting players of historical armies to tactics those armies would actually have used. The players would still be trying to win though, just handicapped.

 

[S'mon]

Fair enough, but it also requires that the characters confront a challenge in the game world. To requote Edwards from my OP:

No in-game characters, no gamism; therefore, board games like Risk are not gamist.

No. Edwards is talking about RPGs. No in-game characters, no RPG.

 

[El Mahdi]

Part 1: The Pedantry

"Gamist" does not mean what you likely think it means; that is, it does not mean "like a boardgame," or "reminiscent of a video game." "Gamist" is a term from Ron Edwards' infamous GNS theory and refers to playing a game with the intention of addressing and overcome challenges:

"The players, armed with their understanding of the game and their strategic acumen, have to Step On Up. Step On Up requires strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real world. This is the inherent "meaning" or agenda of Gamist play...

The in-game characters, armed with their skills, priorities, and so on, have to face a Challenge, which is to say, a specific Situation in the imaginary game-world. Challenge is about the strategizing, guts, and performance of the characters in this imaginary game-world."

I know GNS isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the point is that "gamist" has nothing to do with strategically moving miniatures, or how much your least favorite RPG is like World of Warcraft.

Part 2: The Soapbox

Yes language evolves, but the reason to resist shifts in meaning is when the word in question has a unique meaning that is at risk of being lost. "Gamist" is a useful word that describes a particular playstyle and design goal, and if it becomes another synonym for "gamelike" or "gamey," then our ability to express that meaning is severely compromised.

See also "literally" coming to mean "figuratively."

I think you are confusing things as to this word also. Ron Edwards used the word "Gamist" to describe a "Concept". A "Concept" is not an absolute defined "thing", like say a "cat" or a "table". As a concept, it's open to broad interpretation, and posesses abstract defining elements. That's not necessarily an evolution away from the true meaning, but an accepted way to view and discuss a concept describing an aspect of the game. In other words it's undefined, fluid, and evolving.

It would also stand to reason though, that if there is a concept of "Gamist Play", then "Gamist Design" must also exist.

I have never seen "gamist" used to mean "like a video game" until the OP just now.

I have, though not very often. And when such comparisons have occured here at ENWorld, usually the mods shut it down due to the inflammatory and derogative tendency of such characterisations.

However...

I assure you I wouldn't have started this thread if it wasn't something I noticed before . Check out the OP of this thread for starters.


He's not talking about encounter powers as a challenge for characters to overcome in game, but as an abstract metagame resource. Other posters in that thread are using the term in the same way...

...I find this confusing, as "video gamey" is never mentioned in the OP of that thread. In fact nothing concerning Video games period (video gamey, video games, console games, MMORPG, etc.) are mentioned at all. And, although I haven't read every single word of the thread, I haven't seen endemic characterisations of equating gamist to video gamey in any other posts either...

What they are talking about is trying to avoid an exclusively "Gamist Design" in the next edition of D&D. One more balanced to all the design and play aspects of RPG's.

I believe that's a legitimate line of discussion, and a proper use of the concept.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Also, keep in mind that GNS was built on the back of GDS (which I like so much more), which doesn't have "gamist" but does have "game":

Game is concerned with the amount and kind of challenge that the players face in the course of the game. Ideas such as 'balance' and 'fairness' and 'victory' belong here.

This would extend to video games, board games (Risk and Chess alike), RPGs, etc. It's player-oriented, and not reliant upon characters, to my knowledge. It values placing the playability of the game over the "D" or "S" in GDS theory.

People could easily be saying "gamist" meaning "game" from GDS theory, and I can't really blame them for it. As always, play what you like

 

[the Jester]

Part 1: The Pedantry

"Gamist" does not mean what you likely think it means; that is, it does not mean "like a boardgame," or "reminiscent of a video game." "Gamist" is a term from Ron Edwards' infamous GNS theory and refers to playing a game with the intention of addressing and overcome challenges:

Not all of us let Ron Edwards define our vocabulary for us, thank you very much.

I know GNS isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the point is that "gamist" has nothing to do with strategically moving miniatures, or how much your least favorite RPG is like World of Warcraft.

...if you let Ron Edwards define your vocabulary for you.

If you don't, it might very well have everything to do with strategically moving minis or how much a given game resembles WoW.

Part 2: The Soapbox

Yes language evolves, but the reason to resist shifts in meaning is when the word in question has a unique meaning that is at risk of being lost. "Gamist" is a useful word that describes a particular playstyle and design goal, and if it becomes another synonym for "gamelike" or "gamey," then our ability to express that meaning is severely compromised.

Except that "gamist" is not a useful word describing playstyles and design goals whatsoever if you don't let Edwards define your vocabulary.

See also "literally" coming to mean "figuratively."

No, "literally" does not mean "figuratively," and I'd argue that- since literally actually has an accepted meaning whereas gamist doesn't- you're comparing apples to bicycles here.

Regardless, someone who doesn't know the difference between "literally" and "figuratively" is literally ignorant and figuratively dumb as a stump.

 

[Yora]

It's not a real word, as far as I know. So I guess it means whatever someone wants it to mean.

To me, it clearly means something different to what it means to you. I don't think Mr. Edwards coined the term, because I'm pretty sure I remember hearing and using it long before I discovered teh intrawebs. And the above description isn't how we used the word.

That's gamist!