Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5965241" data-attributes="member: 21169">It seems to me that GDS Gamism is pretty similar to GNS Gamism.This quote is from <a href="http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/faq_v1.html" target="_blank">The Threefold Model FAQ</a> -"gamist": is the style which values setting up a fair challenge for the players (as opposed to the PCs). The challenges may be tactical combat, intellectual mysteries, politics, or anything else. The players will try to solve the problems they are presented with, and in turn the GM will make these challenges solvable if they act intelligently within the contract. And this is from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory" target="_blank">wikipedia entry for GNS</a> -Gamism: Prove Yourself Gamist refers to decisions based on satisfying clear predefined goal conditions in the face of adversity: in other words, on the desire to win. As Ron Edwards mentions in Gamism, Step on Up:     I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately, include:     "Eat me",     (upon winning) "I win",     and "C'mon, let's play without these morons." These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time dwelling on why the characters are facing them in the first place. Gamist RPG design tends to place a strong emphasis on parity in character effectiveness: that is, the idea that all player characters should be (at least when properly built or optimised over time) equally strong and capable of dealing with adversity. Combat is frequently heavily emphasised, as is a diversity in options for short-term problem solving (i.e., long lists of highly specific spells or combat techniques). Randomisation (i.e., Fortune methods) exist primarily to provide a gamble and allow players to risk more for higher stakes (for instance, attempting a more effective hit in combat requires a penalty on the dice roll), rather than modelling strict probability. Examples include, Magic: The Gathering, Chess, and most computer games.These definitions have a lot more in common with one another than they do with other proposed definitions, such as the OP's.PS I hope you enjoyed the part where Ron says 'synecdoche'! He's almost as inimitable as Gary Gygax.</blockquote>

Verification