That's not what gamist means!

[Jhaelen]

Well 'gamey' would describe the feeling of a game (or else the taste of wild meat!), whereas 'gamist' to me describes a person.

Nah, that's just a 'gamer'.

Gamist- a design element that breaks immersion by reminding the player they are playing a game.

Not knowing much about this GNS stuff (and not being interested in learning more about it), that's how I always understood 'gamist'.

In 4e entering combat often feels to me as if we switched to playing a completely different game. It's a tactical puzzle with elaborate rules embedded in a roleplaying scenario. Roleplaying is definitely taking the back-seat during combat. It's more important to play your character efficiently than to emphasize your personality traits, at least until the situation is somewhat under control.

 

[Hautamaki]

Nah, that's just a 'gamer'.
Not knowing much about this GNS stuff (and not being interested in learning more about it), that's how I always understood 'gamist'.

In 4e entering combat often feels to me as if we switched to playing a completely different game. It's a tactical puzzle with elaborate rules embedded in a roleplaying scenario. Roleplaying is definitely taking the back-seat during combat. It's more important to play your character efficiently than to emphasize your personality traits, at least until the situation is somewhat under control.

Well a 'gamist' is a specific type of role-player. A 'gamer' to me more refers someone who likes and plays computer/video games. As in; I used to be a big gamer, but now I'm more of a gamist RPGer =p

I'd say that 4E is a 'gamey' type of system for the reason you mention: for example the per-encounter/per-day limits on martial powers have no real explanation or justification other than that it would be imbalanced if those powers could be used at-will, and their existence at all is justified mainly in that they make for more interesting strategic and tactical choice in combat.

 

[S'mon]

4e D&D has a lot of Gamey elements, so does Savage Worlds. Yet 4e D&D seems primarily Gamist in design, whereas Savage Worlds has a much more genre-Simulationist (not world-sim) design.

I think Savage Worlds is a good example of a game with lots of feels-like-a-game Gamey elements, included for fun ('wild cards', 'raises', 'aces', 'bennies' et al), but not centred on player-challenge Gamist design.

 

[Bedrockgames]

4e D&D has a lot of Gamey elements, so does Savage Worlds. Yet 4e D&D seems primarily Gamist in design, whereas Savage Worlds has a much more genre-Simulationist (not world-sim) design.

I think Savage Worlds is a good example of a game with lots of feels-like-a-game Gamey elements, included for fun ('wild cards', 'raises', 'aces', 'bennies' et al), but not centred on player-challenge Gamist design.

I think all the game elements in savage worlds go toward the genre simulation, so they don't disrupt immersion as much as some of the 4E mechanics do (at least for me).

I also think a losing battle is being fought here. People have picked up the word gamist to refer to style of design or feel of play and it seems to have very broad meaning the way it is used. It means gamey but it also means metegamey, focus on challening the player, balance, etc. The prpblem with insisting on GnS definitions is they are highly specific, frequently obtuse (in that they can be difficult to grasp) and they are terms used by a small community of gamers with their own lexicon. Expecting people to use Gamist the way edward's intends is similar to expecting any specialized language to remain intact outside its field. I think one is much better off qualifying the word if they mean it in the GnS sense.

And lets not forget, many word in the English language carry multiple meanings.

 

[the Jester]

I get that people don't like Edwards, and I don't ask that anyone accept him. But even if you don't, there are still a lot of people that find his terminology useful, and there's no reason to impart different meanings when there are other unambiguous words that have the meaning you want. It's about clarity, awareness, and in a small way, respect.

Except, as this thread should make obvious, Edwards' definitions are in no way clear; nor are they ones that most people, even in our small hobby, are aware of.

It is far better to define what you're talking about at the start of the discussion and far less likely to end up in flames if you just leave Edwards' name out of it, IMHO.

As to respect, it has to go both ways, and when so many Forge folks have shown such disrespect to those that don't agree with their analysis over the years... not so much.

 

[Morrus]

As far as using Gamist to mean "feels like a game": well we already have a word for that - "gamey". Using Gamist to mean Gamey would mean that you have two words to mean the same thing. There would be a superfluous word for Gamey and no longer any single word for Step-On-Up game design or Challenge-focused player agenda. This would be a reduction in total vocabulary and thus a Bad Thing.

Gamey is the taste of pheasant.

 

[El Mahdi]

When I first read that I thought it said "gamey is the taste of peasant."


Man! I've been DM'ing monsters for far too long!

 

[Argyle King]

Whatever it means, I find that I don't prefer it.

 

[Kannik]

Given we are talking about D&D, it is worthwhile to remember what Gary Gygax said on this very subject in the 1st printing of the AD&D PHB:

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.

He used "game" school rather than gamist, yet I think its valuable to inject into the conversation.

peace,

Kannik

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I would think the GDS (gamist/drama/simulation) folks would have prior claim, if we are going by chronological categorization. (Not that "gamist" doesn't predate them, too. But no claim you can make on those grounds for Edwards can totally ignore the prior, GDS claim on the term.)

In any case, if we are to tilt at language purity windmills, I would think the gross narrowing of "narrative" would be a better topic for ire.