What is "gamist"?

[NN]

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.

 

[S'mon]

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.

 

[Deset Gled]

gamism (noun) [GEYM - iz - uhm]:

1. A philosophy focused on abstract structure formed by the written rules of a game, often characterized by minimizing the value of external or preconceived ideas that are not directly defined within the rules.

2. (Informal) Any philosophy of gameplay or interpretation of rules that is not based on simulationism.

3. The practice of interpreting rules of a game based on literal, mathematical, or statistical principles.

4. The practice of creating or implementing rules for a game focused on ease of use and entertainment, especially when it would contradict historical, literal, or statistical norms.




gamist (noun, adjective) [GEYM - ist]:

1. (noun) A person who plays a game based on a philosophy of gamism.

2. (adjective) Of or like a gamist or principles of gamism.

3. (adjective) (Informal) Of or like a video game.

 

[haakon1]

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"?

I think that's a precisely accurate definition.

Some uses would be:
-- Gamist highest value is "balance", as they worry if one build might somehow outstrip the value of another build, in DPS or some other measure. The engineers of the gaming world. They want an efficient and fair set of game mechanics.

-- Storytellers highest value is that "stuff makes sense". It's fine for high level Wizards to be scary powerful, and low level Wizards to be more easily killed than low level Fighters, because that just FEELS RIGHT -- the balance argument does not appeal to them. The liberal arts majors of the gaming world. For them, rules are not an end at all, but a means for a rough approximation of the kind of fantasy story they want to tell.

My example: In 3e context, a pure gamist trying to decide whether a new feat in the Net Book of Feats was a good add to their campaign would look primarily at the Balance rating.

A pure storyteller would look at whether what was described was an historical accurate combat manuever or had occured in a fantasy book/movie he had seen.

As a storytelling-oriented DM, I actually looked at both, but in an evaluation the "Shield and Spear" feat, the definitive reason I let it in was an illustration of that tactic being used, in a scholarly book about ancient Greek warfare. The fact that was historically REAL easily trumped any consideration of game balance for me.

I think a lot of bitter arguments here come down to "gamist-oriented" versus "storytelling-oriented" (which I think is to some degree the classic Sensing v. Intuitive divide in Myers Briggs personality types -- one of the hardest divides for people to understand each other on).

I see echoes of that divide in:

-- Combat-as-Sport (follow the rules and seek balance) versus Combat-as-War (creative solutions are fine, beating a scenario with a tricky idea is fine, monsters should be role-played to do what's sensible from the monsters POV not just as a brainless tool to "challenge" for the PC's and shouldn't fight to the death for no reason, etc., and scenarios where the PC's could get killed are fine too).

-- Balanced scenario building tailor to the PC's classes and levels versus old school "sandbox" setting design where "it is what is" and if you choose to take on the ancient dragon's lair at 1st level, or to challenge the tomb of the undead army without a cleric, you can, but you will die.

-- 4e feel (stat blocks for your powers, and a little bit of minor fluff in italics) versus old school feel (a lot of what the spell does in the text)

 

[haakon1]

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.

I can never remember the GNS/Edwards/Forge theory, so I have to look it up when people discuss it. Here it is:
GNS Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the record, this is definitely not what I mean by "gamist", just as by "drama", I would mean:
-- a play
-- overacting at the table like you're William Shatner
-- interplayer hijinx causes by non-game-related romance or conflict

Not whatever the heck GNS/Edwards/Forge redefined the word to mean.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

"Gamist" is just RPG play/rules/mechanics/whatever divorced from game fiction. An example I just saw today is the idea that in some edition big monsters have a higher reflex save because because they're supposed to be a challenge for higher level PCs even though it doesn't make much sense that a hill giant can dodge quicker than an orc. Any mechanic that is used because it's mechanically simple or fun rather than because it makes sense in the game universe can reasonably be called gamist. Hit points are a prime example.

Some folks have a hate on for the term because Ron Howard used it in GNS theory. It actually predates GNS by quite a bit (search for "GDS Theory" to see where), and IIRC the original meaning was a bit different than Ron's.

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.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Two things:

1) Breakdown of RPG Players I prefer this to GNS theory - GNS is theoretical and anecdotal, while this has at least a bit of empirical data behind it. However, there are echoes from this to GNS. So, it isn't *completely* off base.

2) It ultimately doesn't matter what framework you use - *every* measuring stick or coordinate system you use has some arbitrary assumption behind it. What matters isn't what framework you use, but what you get out of using the framework. Of course, it pays to remember that your coordinate system is arbitrary, and not "The TRVTH!!1!", or you end up sticking to a model that has the Earth at the center of the Universe, and forgetting to look at other systems that make the math so much more elegant...

 

[Li Shenron]

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 didn't know the term comes from a theory, but even if it does I am more interested in how gaming people actually use it. There might be an "official" definition or an entry in the dictionary, but if people use it in another way, it's not the people who are all wrong, it's the dictionary which is outdated, because language is a living thing.

But you may disagree, particularly if you have a very "gamist" view on languages!

 

[haakon1]

FYI, here's a shortened version of what Umbran linked to. I find it easier to read stuff in line than jump to other sites, so others may too.

This WOTC research does seem quite rationale to me, and pretty typical of professional consulting work (a four box diagram!).

. . .

Imagine two axes.

The horizontal axis is Strategic Focused to Tactical Focused.

"Strategic" means "a perspective larger than the immediate future and surroundings". "Tactical" means "a perspective limited to the immediate future and the immediate surroundings."

"Invade the Normandy beaches on D-Day" is Strategic. "Take out that bunker before the machine gun kills us all!" is Tactical.

The vertical axis is Combat Focused to Story Focused.

"Combat Focused" means "Conflict resolution is interesting to me." "Story Focused" means "The world and the interaction of the characters is intersting to me."

"Kick this door down and kill anything that moves" is Combat focused. "This door has the Mark of Malvena; the space within should be safe for us to rest in" is Story focused.

This creates four quadrents. Starting in the upper left and moving clockwise, label these quadrents Thinkers, Power Gamers, Character Actors, and Storytellers

A Thinker is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers Strategic/Combat Focus. This kind of person is likely to enjoy min-maxing a character, spending hours out of game to find every conceivable advantage available in the system to deliver maximum damage from behind maximum protection, even if the min-maxing produces results that are seemingly illogical/impossible. This kind of person wants to solve puzzles and can keep track of long chains of facts and clues.

A Power Gamer is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers a Tactical/Combat Focus. This kind of person is likely to enjoy playing a character that has a minimum of personality (often, this kind of person plays a character that is simply an extension of the player). This kind of player enjoys short, intense gaming experiences. The consequences of a failed action are minimized for this player, who will roll up a new character and return to the fray without much thought for the storyline implications of that action.

A Character Actor is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers a Tactical/Story Focus. This kind of person is likely to enjoy the act of theater; using voice, posture, props, etc. to express a character's actions and dialog. This player will have a character that makes sub-optimal choices (from an external perspective) to ensure that the character's actions are "correct" from the perspective of the character's motivations, ethics, and knowledge.

A Storyteller is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers a Strategic/Story Focus. This kind of person finds enjoyment from the logical progression of the narrative of the scenario. There should be a beginning, a middle and an end. Characters should develop over time in reaction to their experiences. This player will look for a non-rules answer to inconsistencies or anachronisms in the game experience.

There is a fifth type of player, who does not express a preference along any of the four axis. This person is a "basic roleplayer", who finds enjoyment from strategy, tactics, combat and story in rough equilibrium.

Roughly, each of the four quadrents accounts for approximately 22% of the player community. About 12% fall into the fifth, centric position.

. . .

All of the people who indicated a strong interest in RPGs identified eight "core values" that they look for in the RPG experience. These 8 core values are more important than the segments; that is, if these 8 things aren't present in the play experience it won't matter if the game generally supports a given segment's interests - the players will find the experience dissatisfying. These 8 core values are:


Strong Characters and Exciting Story
Role Playing
Complexity Increases over Time
Requires Strategic Thinking
Competitive
Add on sets/New versions available
Uses imagination
Mentally challenging

. . .

I have used the analogy of fans of "the color blue" to discuss this effect. To the general population, blue is just blue. But to a true fan, there are many shades of blue, each with its own unique properties. RPG gamers have more in common with each other than they do with non-RPG gamers, but within their own community, there are noticable differences that can be categorized.

We think that there is data to support the idea that people who enjoy being GM/DMs tend to cluster into the Storyteller segment. Interestingly, based on our own internal profiling of the staff, there's some data to support the idea that good game designers tend to cluster into the "Thinker" segment. In other words, good DMs don't make the best game designers, and vice versa. As with all things though, there will be exceptions and special cases.

We also have data that suggests that most groups are made up of people who segment differently (that is, monolithic segmentation within a gaming group is rare), and in fact, having different kinds of players tends to make the RPG experience work better over the long haul.

. . .

Unlike some of the discussions which rage from time to time about the nature of game design paradigms, the above information was extracted from general market research data that had as much bias as possible removed. It reflects deep seated psychological aspects of the gamer mind and tells us some very interesting things about how we can make our products more interesting to our target consumers.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

2) It ultimately doesn't matter what framework you use - *every* measuring stick or coordinate system you use has some arbitrary assumption behind it. What matters isn't what framework you use, but what you get out of using the framework. Of course, it pays to remember that your coordinate system is arbitrary, and not "The TRVTH!!1!", or you end up sticking to a model that has the Earth at the center of the Universe, and forgetting to look at other systems that make the math so much more elegant...

This is an excellent point. It kind of takes me back to my business school days. In many of the classes we were taught to look at a problem through many "lenses." We'd learn a half dozen theories by different experts and try to see what each one of them told us about how to solve a problem. In many cases the best approach was to use a fusion of views.

This is how I see GNS. It makes a lot of sense to me, but it's only one way to look at the problem. The fact that it doesn't describe everything well doesn't make it useless, it just means you have to be smart about when and how to use it.