What's the object of the game?

[Bendris Noulg]

To have fun.

 

[dreaded_beast]

To get to Epic Level

In my opinion, the object of the game is to have fun, whatever the definition of fun is for your gaming group.

Some may enjoy games that are very light on the rules and focus mainly on role-playing, while other groups prefer very action intense hack-and-slash sessions.

While these playing styles may be different, just as long as that playstyle is fun for the group, that all that matters. There is no correct way to play the game.

 

[Silver Moon]

Well, I'll add my voice to the chorus of the "Have Fun" crowd, but I'll also add "To spend time with friends". Our group began back when I was in college and wanted to maintain regular contact with my friends from high school. Some 21+ years later that still holds.

We're now on our 124th module over nearly 900 games, so we do get in a lot of gaming, but the social time and out-of-game conversations are also important. A little over a year ago the father of one of our player's died, and at the next game it became obvious that he needed to talk to friends rather than game, so that's what we did for those three hours. I consider that one of my group's finest moments.

 

[S'mon]

I have not posted since I originally started this thread, though I have enjoyed the contributions very much. Quite stimulating.

S'mon's summary of the three approaches helps me to reformulate my original question and also to take a position on the matter.

One of my fundamental questions can be put in this way: If you approach D&D with the gamist approach strictly, does it in fact work as a game?

My answer to that question would be NO. There is too much depending upon the arbitrary or whimsical judgment of the DM for it to be considered a pure game, like chess or risk, or baseball. I think that even those who think of their approach to rpgs as a gamist approach probably in actuality have other reasons as well. I would say that most of the FUN of gaming comes from identification with the character that one plays and/or enjoying the creation of a narrative.

Well, the Gamist approach doesn't require a level playing-field the way a wargame does. In a game of Warhammer Battle, one expects the two sides to be roughly equal, so victory goes to the side with superior skill. RPG scenarios are commonly weighted, most often so that the players' team (the PCs) have an advantage over the GM's team (the NPC opponents). I think the essence of the Gamist approach is, rather, the existence of Challenge both to the PCs AND, most importantly, to the abilities of the players. Edwards calls this 'Step on Up' - the players have to step up and take the bat, with a real risk of failure. There is an element of risk, they can succeed, or they can fail, with the result stongly influenced by the abilities of the players as game-players. 'Winning', in the gamist sense, is like pornography in that you know it when you see it. In an easy game you can kill all the baddies, win every fight, and still lose the game, by clearly failing to have done as well as you ought to - maybe you fireballed the friendly NPCs, you killed the princess while trying to rescue her or you broke the magic item that was the object of the quest. Or the GM may put you in a hopeless situation - if you're playing the defenders of the Alamo in an historical game, you know you're not likely to get out of there alive. Winning, then, becomes about achieving something in the face of impossible odds - holding out long enough & dying heroically that your deeds become legend and act as a rallying cry so that Texas be free. At the end of Cross of Iron, the German soldiers know they're going to die - victory is achieved in dying well and with honour, failure with dying on your knees begging for mercy.

If the GM makes achievement of victory conditions difficult-but-possible and determined primarily by player skill, that's a Gamist approach. So, I don't think Gamism requires a level playing field or is an inherently absurd style, if anything it's the style I prefer.

 

[Drow Jones]

This would be an apt place for the Conan quote ending about the "lamentations of their women." Alas, I have had too little caffeine today and I cannot recall it fully.

DMs! What is best in life?!

To TPK adventurers, see their character sheets torn before you, and to hear the lamentation of the players!

Sorry... I failed my will save...

- DJ

 

[Bendris Noulg]

My gawds, folks, is your Conanisms that off?

It's "da wemin".

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I'd rather comfort the lamenting women, personally, if ya know what I mean

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Well, the Gamist approach doesn't require a level playing-field the way a wargame does. In a game of Warhammer Battle, one expects the two sides to be roughly equal, so victory goes to the side with superior skill. RPG scenarios are commonly weighted, most often so that the players' team (the PCs) have an advantage over the GM's team (the NPC opponents). I think the essence of the Gamist approach is, rather, the existence of Challenge both to the PCs AND, most importantly, to the abilities of the players. Edwards calls this 'Step on Up' - the players have to step up and take the bat, with a real risk of failure. There is an element of risk, they can succeed, or they can fail, with the result stongly influenced by the abilities of the players as game-players. 'Winning', in the gamist sense, is like pornography in that you know it when you see it. In an easy game you can kill all the baddies, win every fight, and still lose the game, by clearly failing to have done as well as you ought to - maybe you fireballed the friendly NPCs, you killed the princess while trying to rescue her or you broke the magic item that was the object of the quest. Or the GM may put you in a hopeless situation - if you're playing the defenders of the Alamo in an historical game, you know you're not likely to get out of there alive. Winning, then, becomes about achieving something in the face of impossible odds - holding out long enough & dying heroically that your deeds become legend and act as a rallying cry so that Texas be free. At the end of Cross of Iron, the German soldiers know they're going to die - victory is achieved in dying well and with honour, failure with dying on your knees begging for mercy.

If the GM makes achievement of victory conditions difficult-but-possible and determined primarily by player skill, that's a Gamist approach. So, I don't think Gamism requires a level playing field or is an inherently absurd style, if anything it's the style I prefer.

The "difficult-but-possible" principle is the tricky part. To a degree, one can depend on this being achieved if the encounters are matched to the party's level. On the other hand, however, there is a lot that depends on the judgment of the DM. A DM can easily make things too hard (without meaning to) simply by allowing the PCs too not enough time to rest up, not enough opportunity to acquire necessary items, giving not enough information, etc.--all without posing them against something of a very high CR. Likewise, it is easy for a DM to make things too easy.

I agree that it is a wonderful thing when this "difficult-but-possible" criterion is met. I love it when half the party has been knocked out and those still standing are down to their last few hit points but still manage to bring down their foe. That's a beautiful moment. But you can't count on that happening all the time.

D&D, in its classic round-the-table format, is not like a video game. In a video game, you know how well you did by your score or your level that you reached. D&D may have many elements in common with such games, but the essence of the game is something else. And that's where I think the narrative and imaginitive part comes in.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Well, the Gamist approach doesn't require a level playing-field the way a wargame does. In a game of Warhammer Battle, one expects the two sides to be roughly equal, so victory goes to the side with superior skill. RPG scenarios are commonly weighted, most often so that the players' team (the PCs) have an advantage over the GM's team (the NPC opponents). I think the essence of the Gamist approach is, rather, the existence of Challenge both to the PCs AND, most importantly, to the abilities of the players. Edwards calls this 'Step on Up' - the players have to step up and take the bat, with a real risk of failure. There is an element of risk, they can succeed, or they can fail, with the result stongly influenced by the abilities of the players as game-players. 'Winning', in the gamist sense, is like pornography in that you know it when you see it. In an easy game you can kill all the baddies, win every fight, and still lose the game, by clearly failing to have done as well as you ought to - maybe you fireballed the friendly NPCs, you killed the princess while trying to rescue her or you broke the magic item that was the object of the quest. Or the GM may put you in a hopeless situation - if you're playing the defenders of the Alamo in an historical game, you know you're not likely to get out of there alive. Winning, then, becomes about achieving something in the face of impossible odds - holding out long enough & dying heroically that your deeds become legend and act as a rallying cry so that Texas be free. At the end of Cross of Iron, the German soldiers know they're going to die - victory is achieved in dying well and with honour, failure with dying on your knees begging for mercy.

If the GM makes achievement of victory conditions difficult-but-possible and determined primarily by player skill, that's a Gamist approach. So, I don't think Gamism requires a level playing field or is an inherently absurd style, if anything it's the style I prefer.

The "difficult-but-possible" principle is the tricky part. To a degree, one can depend on this being achieved if the encounters are matched to the party's level. On the other hand, however, there is a lot that depends on the judgment of the DM. A DM can easily make things too hard (without meaning to) simply by allowing the PCs too not enough time to rest up, not enough opportunity to acquire necessary items, giving not enough information, etc.--all without posing them against something of a very high CR. Likewise, it is easy for a DM to make things too easy.

I agree that it is a wonderful thing when this "difficult-but-possible" criterion is met. I love it when half the party has been knocked out and those still standing are down to their last few hit points but still manage to bring down their foe. That's a beautiful moment. But you can't count on that happening all the time.

D&D, in its classic round-the-table format, is not like a video game. In a video game, you know how well you did by your score or your level that you reached. D&D may have many elements in common with such games, but the essence of the game is something else. And that's where I think the narrative and imaginitive part comes in.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Well, the Gamist approach doesn't require a level playing-field the way a wargame does. In a game of Warhammer Battle, one expects the two sides to be roughly equal, so victory goes to the side with superior skill. RPG scenarios are commonly weighted, most often so that the players' team (the PCs) have an advantage over the GM's team (the NPC opponents). I think the essence of the Gamist approach is, rather, the existence of Challenge both to the PCs AND, most importantly, to the abilities of the players. Edwards calls this 'Step on Up' - the players have to step up and take the bat, with a real risk of failure. There is an element of risk, they can succeed, or they can fail, with the result stongly influenced by the abilities of the players as game-players. 'Winning', in the gamist sense, is like pornography in that you know it when you see it. In an easy game you can kill all the baddies, win every fight, and still lose the game, by clearly failing to have done as well as you ought to - maybe you fireballed the friendly NPCs, you killed the princess while trying to rescue her or you broke the magic item that was the object of the quest. Or the GM may put you in a hopeless situation - if you're playing the defenders of the Alamo in an historical game, you know you're not likely to get out of there alive. Winning, then, becomes about achieving something in the face of impossible odds - holding out long enough & dying heroically that your deeds become legend and act as a rallying cry so that Texas be free. At the end of Cross of Iron, the German soldiers know they're going to die - victory is achieved in dying well and with honour, failure with dying on your knees begging for mercy.

If the GM makes achievement of victory conditions difficult-but-possible and determined primarily by player skill, that's a Gamist approach. So, I don't think Gamism requires a level playing field or is an inherently absurd style, if anything it's the style I prefer.

The "difficult-but-possible" principle is the tricky part. To a degree, one can depend on this being achieved if the encounters are matched to the party's level. On the other hand, however, there is a lot that depends on the judgment of the DM. A DM can easily make things too hard (without meaning to) simply by allowing the PCs too not enough time to rest up, not enough opportunity to acquire necessary items, giving not enough information, etc.--all without posing them against something of a very high CR. Likewise, it is easy for a DM to make things too easy.

I agree that it is a wonderful thing when this "difficult-but-possible" criterion is met. I love it when half the party has been knocked out and those still standing are down to their last few hit points but still manage to bring down their foe. That's a beautiful moment. But you can't count on that happening all the time.

D&D, in its classic round-the-table format, is not like a video game. In a video game, you know how well you did by your score or your level that you reached. D&D may have many elements in common with such games, but the essence of the game is something else. And that's where I think the narrative and imaginitive part comes in.