That's not what gamist means!

[Doug McCrae]

Yet 4e D&D seems primarily Gamist in design

Yeah, it is. It's just like Gygaxian D&D in that respect. The text of 1e can be misleading because Gary sometimes gives simulationist justifications for elements that are really game-y or gamist.

When questioned about the whys and wherefores of D&D I sometimes rationalize the matter and give “realistic” and “logical” reasons. The truth of the matter is that D&D was written principally as a game — perhaps I used game realism and game logic consciously or unconsciously when I did so, but that is begging the question. Enjoyment is the real reason for D&D being created, written, and published.​

- Gary Gygax, “Role-Playing: Realism vs. Game Logic; Spell Points, Vanity Press and Rip-offs”, Dragon #16

4e is 1e, passed thru the coherence and simulationism of 3e, remolded to be gamist again. But it's mostly battlegrid gamism, as opposed to Gary's 'whole game' gamism.

A lot of people felt 1e D&D wasn't simulationist enough - most houserules at the time were probably intended to make it more realistic. Few would've houseruled 1e to make it more gamist, there wasn't room to do so as it was plenty gamist already. (Though there may have been tweaking to re-balance classes, etc.)

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.

Lots of elements of rpgs are probably there primarily because they are fun. Critical hits are the outstanding example, rpgers love 'em. One could argue in their favour from a simulationist perspective but I don't think that's why they exist. Gary argues against critical hits in the 1e DMG because they're not gamist enough - the PCs die too quick, so there's less opportunity for player decision-making.

Action points, and their equivalents in other systems, I think also exist mostly because they are fun.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Gamist- a design element that breaks immersion by reminding the player they are playing a game. When the OP in the thread I linked to talked about gamism as "abstraction" that "separates the player from their character," it sounds to me as though his problem with gamism is that it breaks immersion. When people say that 4e is very well balanced but is too gamist, I hear them say that as a game it works great, but that the visibility of the balanced mechanics make it harder to get into the game world (which by the way is a totally valid design concern that I am not at all criticizing).

This is pretty much identical to what The Alexandrian means by the term 'dissociated mechanic'. It's better though, because it's not pejorative. The Alexandrian's term was specifically chosen to make it sound like a mental disorder.

 

[Ariosto]

Maybe the rest of the world is not 'wrong' just because Mr. Edwards and his friends happen to like using words in odd ways.

Sorry, Ron & Co., but my friends and I are not about to call a style of play 'pervy'!

(Caveat: I understand that term is now outmoded among Forge-ites.)

 

[prosfilaes]

It's not a real word, as far as I know.

If "gamist" is not a real word, then English doesn't have real words. Unlike some other languages, the speakers of English have rejected defining academies, and a real word is one that English speakers use in English.

 

[El Mahdi]

If "gamist" is not a real word, then English doesn't have real words. Unlike some other languages, the speakers of English have rejected defining academies, and a real word is one that English speakers use in English.

To an extent, you're right. When it really comes down to it, Dictionaries are just guidelines as to how words are commonly understood (contemporarily), with extra information (like etymology, synonyms, antonyms, etc.).

It's kind of like music in that respect. What you see on the page is ultimately just a guideline to an advanced user. And also like music, it's constantly evolving and expanding.

Of course though, with both language and music, one has to remember your audience. If you deviate too far away from the commonly understood meaning, your audience can no longer follow you. Or it may make you appear "uneducated".

However, in this situation, I don't believe the various uses of the word "gamist" are that far outside the original usage or definition that it's overly confusing to an audience. Sure, if one wants to be pedantic about it, there's room to do so. But in common usage, I think most people get the point even if they are both using slightly different definintions. They're close enough to have a majority of commonality.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If "gamist" is not a real word, then English doesn't have real words. Unlike some other languages, the speakers of English have rejected defining academies, and a real word is one that English speakers use in English.

Sure, but most people don't use the word gamist, and most who do use it do not employ Edward's definition. The issue is, it is an obscure term, coined by an obscure website. The forge really cant expect people to adopt its lexicon. It is a small community of people with a shared aim, and when their language enters into the broader gaming community it is only natural that the definitions used will be more suited to that scope (since most gamers just dont have a whole lot of use for the narrow definition of gamist from the forge--which may work great for forge priorities, but not so much for broader concerns).

 

[Umbran]

The issue is, it is an obscure term, coined by an obscure website.

What is, is jargon - terminology defined in relationship to a specific activity, profession, group, or event.

That one group uses a term in jargon puts on onus on the rest of the world to use the term in the same way.

 

[the Jester]

What is, is jargon - terminology defined in relationship to a specific activity, profession, group, or event.

That one group uses a term in jargon puts on onus on the rest of the world to use the term in the same way.

No. Just because Joe Blow wants to redefine games as, by definition, having only two players, doesn't make it so, and in discussion with him, rather than ceding the definition of game to him, I'll tell him that I disagree.

That one group uses a term in jargon puts the onus on them to clarify what they mean when they are talking to the rest of us. Forgies tend not only not to clarify their terms, but to assume that everyone needs to adopt their terminology and that you're "doing it wrong" if you don't.

Screw that. If you fail to communicate with everyone around you because you insist on using words differently than everyone else, the problem is with you, not everyone else.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree with Jester on this (though based on Umbran's previous posts on the subject i think he may have been trying to make a different point than it seemed with his post). They can use specialized language all they want inside their own venue, but outside that venue the terms will be adopted and used to fit need.

 

[Umbran]

That one group uses a term in jargon puts the onus on them to clarify what they mean when they are talking to the rest of us. Forgies tend not only not to clarify their terms, but to assume that everyone needs to adopt their terminology and that you're "doing it wrong" if you don't.

Nonono. I'm agreeing with you! The Forge use of "gamist" is jargon, defined locally by them, for their use in their discussions. That they have a narrow definition puts no onus on us to use it that way. It is fine for them to use a jargon - jargon is a necessary part of technical talk. But it is still a jargon, and only accepted locally.

To be honest, our typical use of it out here is also jargon, but if we define it among ourselves, there's nothing wrong with that, either. Just so long as we remember that others won't understand our use of it, either.

I agree with Jester on this (though based on Umbran's previous posts on the subject i think he may have been trying to make a different point than it seemed with his post).

Exactly! Sorry for the confusion. I was agreeing with you, just attaching the non-jargon, commonly accepted term "jargon" to it. It had seemed like folks were dancing around what the term really qualified as, linguistically.