Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5860825" data-attributes="member: 59506">I think you are confusing things as to this word also.&nbsp; Ron Edwards used the word &quot;Gamist&quot; to describe a &quot;Concept&quot;.&nbsp; A &quot;Concept&quot; is not an absolute defined &quot;thing&quot;, like say a &quot;cat&quot; or a &quot;table&quot;.&nbsp; As a concept, it's open to broad interpretation, and posesses abstract defining elements.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; In other words it's undefined, fluid, and evolving.&nbsp;It would also stand to reason though, that if there is a concept of &quot;Gamist Play&quot;, then &quot;Gamist Design&quot; must also exist.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I have, though not very often.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;However...&nbsp;&nbsp;...I find this confusing, as &quot;video gamey&quot; is never mentioned in the OP of that thread.&nbsp; In fact nothing concerning Video games period (video gamey, video games, console games, MMORPG, etc.) are mentioned at all.&nbsp; 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...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />&nbsp;What they are talking about is trying to avoid an exclusively &quot;Gamist Design&quot; in the next edition of D&amp;D.&nbsp; One more balanced to all the design and play aspects of RPG's.&nbsp;I believe that's a legitimate line of discussion, and a proper use of the concept.&nbsp;<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses&nbsp; &nbsp; B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 5860825, member: 59506"] I think you are confusing things as to this word also. Ron Edwards used the word [I]"Gamist"[/I] to describe a [I]"Concept"[/I]. A "[I]Concept[/I]" is not an absolute defined [I]"thing"[/I], like say a [I]"cat"[/I] or a [I]"table"[/I]. 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 [I]"Gamist Play"[/I], then [I]"Gamist Design"[/I] must also exist. 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 find this confusing, as [I]"video gamey"[/I] 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...:erm: 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. B-) [/QUOTE]

Verification