What is "gamist"?

[Balesir]

Somewhere on The Forge. Just follow the lunacy and turn left at the Shoggoth.

If memory serves it only costs $5. And a soul.
Can't remember if it has to be your soul or not.

My memory of everything needed to understand GNS is that I downloaded it free, I still have my soul and it wasn't even that hard to comprehend.

If it cost you $5 and your soul - and you still don't understand it? - then I think you were had.

Maybe you could ask for your money back?

 

[1Mac]

Prophecy fulfilled, I guess.

Another objection to "gamist" as it's typically used: If one means "like a game," why is "gamist" a better or more intuitive word choice than "gamelike"? I think it's for the patina of authority that using unclear jargon seems to lend. It's like when people say "utilize" instead of "use.": It's a heady-sounding word that does little to impart clarity or effective communication.

Jargon is important when you're talking about subjects that require precise concepts like GNS theory, but it's a distraction when you use it any old way.

 

[Umbran]

Another objection to "gamist" as it's typically used: If one means "like a game," why is "gamist" a better or more intuitive word choice than "gamelike"?

The word was intended more to describe the goals, desires, and gaming philosophy of people. So, technically, the "-ist" suffix is correct. As in, a player has a, "gamist agenda". A game is "gamist" if it fulfills a gamist player's desires.

Also, the term is part of a trio - with "simulationist" and "narrativist" (or "dramatist"). Do you want to start talking about a player with a "simulationlike agenda"? That's getting awkward.

 

[Libramarian]

I use it in the GDS/GNS sense of the player playing to win - to overcome the challenge posed by the game. Gamist game design presents a challenge to the player. Chess is Gamist; Snakes & Ladders is not.

This.

"Gamist" is just RPG play/rules/mechanics/whatever divorced from game fiction.

No, that's "metagaming".

I find the term highly useful both for thinking about RPGs and discussing them. You just have to keep in mind that "gamist" is a value-neutral word. All RPGs have gamist mechanics to a certain extent just because reality (and fantasy) is impossible to model with a high degree of fidelity and still have play be easy and fun. Most of the time I see someone unhappy about the term it's because they think a rule they like has been insulted.

This sense of gamist is pejorative, because to call someone a gamist is to say that they like metagaming mechanics in themselves for some perverse reason, irrespective of their function to drive and focus gameplay in a way that is impossible without them.

Metagame mechanics are a tool. They're not bad, if they're used well. They're clearly bad if they're used injudiciously -- why would anyone WANT to not be immersed in the gameworld? If you could consistently accomplish play focused on a particular metagame agenda without metagame mechanics, then they wouldn't have developed and no one would use them.

 

[Libramarian]

I prefer the GNS theory definition: a gamist element or tendency is geared toward achieving success in the game. Achieving goals, overcoming obstacles, that sort of thing.

For the more colloquial sense of the word—an element that is like a board game or video game, or an element that reminds the player they are playing a game—, I prefer "gamelike". I think people should use "gamist" for the former definition and "gamelike" for the latter to avoid confusion.

I've learned that advocating this attracts a lot of angry posts about how much people hate Ron Edwards.

Yeah gamelike I guess.

They're both useful ideas that should have a word for them.

What we don't need a word for is "gamelike-ism", because that's pejorative and misleading. Nobody likes gamelikeness in itself. They like some sort of play that is only reliably possible if gamelike mechanics are used.

 

[1Mac]

The word was intended more to describe the goals, desires, and gaming philosophy of people. So, technically, the "-ist" suffix is correct. As in, a player has a, "gamist agenda".

I could see that. Do people really have an agenda driven toward RPG's with deliberately or explicitly gamelike elements?

Also, the term is part of a trio - with "simulationist" and "narrativist" (or "dramatist"). Do you want to start talking about a player with a "simulationlike agenda"? That's getting awkward.

I believe the common meaning of these words are congruent to their GNS meanings, so I don't believe that's a problem.

 

[the Jester]

To me, "gamist" elements in rpgs focus on the way the game plays for the player over how the world looks to the character. For example, "Fully healed after a short rest" is a gamist element that promotes continued adventuring. The focus is on mechanics.

Gamism belongs to GNS theory. If you dont like GNS then use some other term in your analysis. Otherwise its all a pointless waste of time arguing over the definition of a word.

I disagree. 'Gamism' doesn't belong to GNS theory any more than the idea of "pieces" belongs to chess. And just because GNSers want to make custom definitions for common words doesn't persuade me either to use their definitions or to surrender pieces of the language. How about instead GNS-lovers and GNS-haters alike acknowledge that GNS theory doesn't get to assume control over the English language anymore than I can tell you that an "apple" is the stone in your wedding ring and expect everyone else adopt the term.

 

[Balesir]

Also, the term is part of a trio - with "simulationist" and "narrativist" (or "dramatist"). Do you want to start talking about a player with a "simulationlike agenda"? That's getting awkward.

I believe the common meaning of these words are congruent to their GNS meanings, so I don't believe that's a problem.

I actually don't think that's true. "Simulationist" is frequently used to mean "gritty or modelling/trying to model closely the real world" - or even just "having fiddly, granular systems intended to inject a feeling of verisimilitude" - and "narrativist" can (be intended to) mean "playing mainly in amateur dramatics mode, speaking and expressing 'as the character'" or "following a GM-scripted story, either via player acquiescence or by player "choices" only giving the illusion of real choice". None of those are the meanings ascribed by GNS.

As I said, I think we are left with no unambiguous jargon at all at this point, so all useful discussion has to rely on (re)defining what we mean every time we speak. Tedious, but that's what you get for the modern antipathy towards technical language.

 

[tomBitonti]

This immediately tells me that you are, by default, thinking of a roleplaying game as having "rules" that are not what is written down in the game system.

... sputters.

I think that statement goes a long way to explain different views on RPGs. I can see some folks who would say, reflexively, "of course", and can see other folks who would just as quickly say, "of course not".

TomB

 

[Sir Brennen]

When I use the terms, I'm usually referring to the feel of a particular rule, sub system or even entire RPG rule set, not necessarily players.

"Gamist" is a rule which looks more like a move in a chess game, abstact and having little to do with "the real world" or the current scene or overall story in the RPG.

"Simulationist" is a rule which is trying to reflect how something works in the real world, often looking more like a physics equation for acceleration or bank interest.

"Narrative" is a rule more akin to a direction in a movie script, designed to push the scene or overall story forward, or enable more improvisational roleplaying.

Any RPG includes all of these elements, to varying degrees. Applying the various labels to players just describes which of these elements they enjoy focusing more on (which, in my experience, can even change for a particular player during a single game session.)

Taken in order, GSN terminology kinda describes the evolution of RPGs. Take a game of chess, add rules to simulate factors like the pieces position on terrain, troop strength and a degree of uncertainty (typically via dice) for attacking the opponents pieces (like war games re-enacting famous battles), then add ways for players to narrate the interaction of their pieces with the game in detail, and you've got an RPG.