Li Shenron
Legend
What do you mean or what do you have in mind, when you use or read the word "gamist" in a discussion? I think the term is used quite a lot, but not everybody means the same thing...
Personally with the word "gamist" I mean mostly the attitude of reasoning in terms of codified rules, rather than in terms of what those rules originally represented.
So for example, for me a "gamist" thing to do is to unconsciously forget or consciously refusing to acknowlege what a certain PC's ability/action represents and instead just focusing on what the written rule allows or disallows explicitly, and what it doesn't explicitly forbid, and perhaps ignoring an eventual mismatch with the non-rules part of the description.
To give a more concrete example, let's say the rules include a special action that represents widely swinging your weapon to catch multiple targets at once, but then the rule forgets to explicitly mention "in a line" or "one after the other". A "gamist" attitude would be to ignore the fluff (i.e. the description of what the rules represent) and focus on the crunch (i.e. the description of the mechanics, how using the action works) and declare that it's possible to use this action to strike targets in any order (e.g. in directions NE, SW, NW, SE).
What's your take on the word "gamist"?
Personally with the word "gamist" I mean mostly the attitude of reasoning in terms of codified rules, rather than in terms of what those rules originally represented.
So for example, for me a "gamist" thing to do is to unconsciously forget or consciously refusing to acknowlege what a certain PC's ability/action represents and instead just focusing on what the written rule allows or disallows explicitly, and what it doesn't explicitly forbid, and perhaps ignoring an eventual mismatch with the non-rules part of the description.
To give a more concrete example, let's say the rules include a special action that represents widely swinging your weapon to catch multiple targets at once, but then the rule forgets to explicitly mention "in a line" or "one after the other". A "gamist" attitude would be to ignore the fluff (i.e. the description of what the rules represent) and focus on the crunch (i.e. the description of the mechanics, how using the action works) and declare that it's possible to use this action to strike targets in any order (e.g. in directions NE, SW, NW, SE).
What's your take on the word "gamist"?