What is "gamist"?

[Li Shenron]

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"?

 

[Lwaxy]

To me it means that someone is fixed on one style of game play, or one rule set that should be strictly adhered to. Even when, in their preferred style of game, it means there may be less creativity allowed because everything should be by the rules.

 

[Enkhidu]

I like to think in terms of "gamer tendencies" more than strict labels, but would say a good definition of gamist is "tending to select traditional game elements over elements of plot, character, or simulation."

 

[Yora]

It is a term that you should never try to adopt and use.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I never liked those words. They seems stupid. English is not my language and they feel really fake and forced.

 

[Harlock]

Gamist is something I read and my mind glosses over it. I have no idea what it really means, so it pretty much makes communicating about it impossible because I am not starting with a language in common with whomever uses it. Same for simulationist. I like fantasy roleplaying games. I'm a gamer. I have many sets of dice, and I like to roll them from time to time in between making up a story with other people. The more vernacular and definitions we create, the more we divide the gaming community.

 

[Umbran]

The more vernacular and definitions we create, the more we divide the gaming community.

Yes, but given that we aren't all the same, it can sometimes help to have a framework for discussion. It is terribly important to remember the points of similarity when we discuss differences, yes. But ignoring the differences has it's own pitfalls.

 

[chaochou]

The way the GNS essays describe it is that it means the primary goal of play is peer recognition.

Who can do the coolest attack, craziest stunt, die in the most spectacular way - etc - to the approval of the rest of the table. Gamism, in those terms, is a vehicle for a kind of socialising - the same way that, say, a regular poker night can be - with the high fives, bragging rights, wind-ups, cameraderie, etc, being the aim.

 

[Krensky]

When I use the term it's from the meanings I learned before Edwards and the Forgies started redefining them for their silly theory shenanigans.

Gamist: Focused on being a game. Mechanics and play are often strong abstractions, condensing many different elements into simple mechanics. Not because it makes the rules easier or fade behind some other element, but because it makes it a better game. Promoting pawns or lots of chess fiddle bit are gamist.

 

[Yora]

Yes, but given that we aren't all the same, it can sometimes help to have a framework for discussion. It is terribly important to remember the points of similarity when we discuss differences, yes. But ignoring the differences has it's own pitfalls.

Framework yes. But I think quite a lot of people share the oppinion that the GNS categories are completely arbitrary and don't mirror the actual reality at all.
By using its terminology, people create the appearance that this is how things really are, and then they and others will attempt to classify the things they observe by them. Dividing what isn't really a difference and forcing together what is important to differentiate.
And then you end up with debates that are going nowhere and creating divides that don't need to be.

(Horay for a minor in intercultural communication!)