Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 1422796" data-attributes="member: 463">Well, the Gamist approach doesn't require a level playing-field the way a wargame does.&nbsp; In a game of Warhammer Battle, one expects the two sides to be roughly equal, so victory goes to the side with superior skill.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 'Winning', in the gamist sense, is like pornography in that you know it when you see it.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Winning, then, becomes about achieving something in the face of impossible odds - holding out long enough &amp; dying heroically that your deeds become legend and act as a rallying cry so that Texas be free.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the GM makes achievement of victory conditions difficult-but-possible and determined primarily by player skill, that's a Gamist approach.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 1422796, member: 463"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification