1            The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games

     2     [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles |

     3     Forge  [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums

     4 

     5 

     6     Gamism: Step On Up

     7     by [8]Ron Edwards

     8 

     9     I owe thanks to Clinton R. Nixon, Rob MacDougall, Gareth Martin, Mike

    10     Holmes, Gordon R. Landis, Ralph Mazza, Jonathan Walton, Paul Czege,

    11     Jared A. Sorensen, Grant Gigee, Christopher Kubasik, Jake Norwood, and

    12     Peter Adkison for their comments on the draft version of the manuscript.

    13     All errors, misattributions, inconsistencies, whatever, are mine.

    14 

    15     This is the second of three essays on the three modes of role-playing

    16     collectively referred to as GNS, as presented in my essay [9]GNS and

    17     related matters of role-playing theory. The first of the three "support"

    18     essays was [10]Simulationism: the right to dream. These essays' purposes

    19     are to clarify many aspects of their parent essay, to present the ideas

    20     that have always awaited a more general understanding of my basic

    21     points, and also to refine and develop the concepts based on the years

    22     of discussion and input from others at the Gaming Outpost, RPG.net, and

    23     the Forge.

    24 

    25     This one's about Gamist play.

    26 

    27     Gamism was originally identified in the RFGA Threefold Model of

    28     role-playing styles, and I think from its first mention, nearly everyone

    29     has said, "Oh, yeah, Gamism," with little debate about its qualities.

    30     Moving through my own reconstructions of the Threefold into GNS, whether

    31     early or late, and through the GENder model proposed by the Scarlet

    32     Jester, both Gamist play as an activity and people's instant, easy

    33     acceptance of its category have received little attention. Apparently,

    34     one just knows it upon sight.

    35 

    36     But do we really? References to Gamism tend to be dismissive,

    37     superficial, and often backhanded ("except for the Gamists," "my inner

    38     Gamist," etc). With respect to the members of the RFGA discussion group,

    39     I think they categorized Gamist play mainly in order to sweep it out of

    40     the realm of further dialogue, in order to concentrate on issues that I

    41     would now primarily identify within Simulationist play. I also think

    42     that most, although not all, subsequent discussion has been similar. Yet

    43     that exceptional bit, here and there over several forums, indicates far

    44     less consensus out there than might have been expected or assumed.

    45 

    46     I'm going for a real look at the category for its own sake. In some ways

    47     I'm kind of a case study of the problem, but I hope also part of the

    48     solution as well; my own views have changed immensely since I referred

    49     to Gamist players as "space aliens" years ago on the Gaming Outpost.

    50 

    51     Here's what I wrote for my big and admittedly dry essay, "GNS and

    52     related matters of role-playing theory":

    53 

    54       Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real

    55       people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both

    56       short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play

    57       strategies. The listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation,

    58       System, Color] provide an arena for the competition.

    59 

    60     And this needs revising for several reasons. First, "among the

    61     participants" is too vague, at least from the standpoint of most

    62     readers. I was thinking of anyone involved in the play of the game,

    63     permitting just who competes with whom to be customized, but most people

    64     seem to think I mean "players" in the widely-used, non-GM sense, and

    65     object to that. Second, the term "competition" gets right up people's

    66     noses. Lots of terms have cropped up: Struggle, Striving, Challenge, and

    67     more. Some of that debate seems to be procedural, some of it

    68     ideological, and some of it social. Although I can't hope for unilateral

    69     agreement about the fundamentals of Gamist play, I think I've managed to

    70     figure out where all of the consternation - and the hot emotions

    71     underlying it - comes from. It's not merely semantic. I hope this essay

    72     manages to clear up any confusions about my position on the matter and

    73     perhaps manages to set a better basis for continued debate.

    74 

    75     Some threads to check out include: [11]Gamism and Premise, [12]Gamism is

    76     not competition{/url], [13]All out for Gamism, and [14]Getting in touch

    77     with our inner Gamist. They include plenty of good points, but, my own

    78     posts included, I think they mainly illustrate the problems involved

    79     rather than offer anything concrete.

    80 

    81     So the first step is to renounce a judgmental and dismissive approach

    82     about "those awful Gamists." The second is to renounce the

    83     less-judgmental but equally-dismissive "those Gamists" attitude, which

    84     might be called the NIMBY view. And then, finally, to renounce the sort

    85     of guilty-liberal, halting, apologetic defensive line as well. Just

    86     bouncing among these, without ever coming to grips with the actual

    87     phenomenon itself, is enough to fill a few dozen thread-pages within

    88     days, so it's time to put all that aside and focus.

    89 

    90     Every reader of the first draft wanted me to define Gamist play right

    91     here, in this spot. I refused, to the wrath of Lit-101 teachers

    92     everywhere. You gotta go through the next sections to get there.

    93 

    94     Back to Exploration

    95     Just as in the Simulationism essay, I'll start by considering the big

    96     picture in which GNS issues are embedded. It might be written out like

    97     this in a Venn diagram:

    98 

    99     [Social Contract [Exploration [GNS [rules [techniques [Stances]]]]]]

   100 

   101     Every inner "box" is an expression or realization of the box(es) it's

   102     nested in. For example, Exploration is a kind of Social Contract, and a

   103     given GNS mode is a kind (specifically, an application) of Exploration.

   104 

   105      1. Everything occurs embedded in the Social Contract, which includes

   106         many things about play and not-play, especially the Balance of

   107         Power.

   108      2. Exploration is the primary act of role-playing, composed of five

   109         parts with some causal relationships among them.

   110      3. The "modes" of play (because they have to be expressed via

   111         communication and play itself, not just "felt") are currently best

   112         described as Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist play. Play (as

   113         opposed merely to hanging out with friends) cannot occur without

   114         such an agenda. I'm now using the term "creative agenda" to refer to

   115         the three modes as a concept, replacing the small-p "premise" term

   116         in the older essay.

   117      4. Techniques of play include many different relationships among rules,

   118         people's decisions, announcements, and similar. "System" (or rather

   119         textual system) interacts with Techniques all the time, in terms of

   120         things like Currency, Resolution (including DFK, IIEE; see

   121         Glossary), and Reward systems. Which of these is inner or outer is

   122         debatable and probably variable, although I've diagrammed it in

   123         keeping with the idea that techniques are applied within a framework

   124         of rules. In keeping with the Venn concept, techniques are local

   125         expressions of Social Contract, Exploration, and GNS modes, just as

   126         rules are.

   127      5. Actual play shifts quickly among Stances. Stances, unsurprisingly,

   128         are very local applications of rules and techniques, all in the

   129         service of Exploration and the larger-scale GNS mode in action.

   130 

   131     So to talk about any GNS category, the place to start is that box.

   132     Exploration is composed of five elements, no sweat: Character, Setting,

   133     Situation, System, and Color ... but it's not a hydra with five equal

   134     heads. These things have creative and specific dependencies among one

   135     another, and now's the time to reveal a filthy secret about them.

   136 

   137     It's this: Situation is the center. Situation is the imaginative-thing

   138     we experience during play. Character and Setting are components that

   139     produce it, System is what Situation does, and Color can hardly be done

   140     without all this in place to, well, to color. Situation is the 400-lb

   141     gorilla of the five elements, or, if you will, the central node. It's

   142     central regardless of how much attention it's receiving relative to the

   143     other components.

   144 

   145     Gamist play, more than any other mode, demands that Situation be not

   146     only central, but also the primary focus of attention. You want to play

   147     Gamist? Then don't piss about with Character and/or Setting without

   148     Situation happening, or about to.

   149 

   150     The definition at last

   151     A few paragraphs back, I promised a definition for Gamism and here it

   152     is. It operates at two levels: the real, social people and the

   153     imaginative, in-game situation.

   154 

   155      1. The players, armed with their understanding of the game and their

   156         strategic acumen, have to Step On Up. Step On Up requires

   157         strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real

   158         world. This is the inherent "meaning" or agenda of Gamist play

   159         (analogous to the Dream in Simulationist play).

   160 

   161         Gamist play, socially speaking, demands performance with risk,

   162         conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually

   163         at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social,

   164         real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem.

   165         The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key -

   166         it's analogous to committing to the sincerity of The Dream for

   167         Simulationist play. This is the whole core of the essay, that such a

   168         commitment is fun and perfectly viable for role-playing, just as

   169         it's viable for nearly any other sphere of human activity.

   170      2. The in-game characters, armed with their skills, priorities, and so

   171         on, have to face a Challenge, which is to say, a specific Situation

   172         in the imaginary game-world. Challenge is about the strategizing,

   173         guts, and performance of the characters in this imaginary

   174         game-world.

   175 

   176         For the characters, it's a risky situation in the game-world; in

   177         addition to that all-important risk, it can be as fabulous,

   178         elaborate, and thematic as any other sort of role-playing. Challenge

   179         is merely plain old Situation - it only gets a new name because of

   180         the necessary attention it must receive in Gamist play. Strategizing

   181         in and among the Challenge is the material, or arena, for whatever

   182         brand of Step On Up is operating.

   183 

   184     Gamist play and design is very diverse, partly due to the relative

   185     emphases of these two layers, as well as how they are best met in that

   186     particular game. At the crudest lens-setting, one can contrast those who

   187     emphasize Challenge and drop the Step On Up to a faint roar, as opposed

   188     to those who diminish the Challenge - it's always there, though - and

   189     focus on the Step On Up.

   190 

   191     Terms 'til you squeak

   192     The game to the Gamist

   193     What does "game" mean, anyway? Wouldn't that be good to know before

   194     talking about Game-ist? As it turns out, not really, no more than

   195     "simulation" helps with discussing Simulationist play. The term "game"

   196     is good enough for our purposes (as a root for the "ist"), but not

   197     especially rigorous or interesting. So many different things get called

   198     games that it's hardly worth considering a blanket definition. To call

   199     all of role-playing a "game," the term must be so broadly defined that

   200     it excludes any agenda beyond socializing.

   201 

   202     There's one specific aspect of the term that needs some scrutiny, though

   203     - its judgmental content. Phrases like "It's a game," or better, "It's

   204     just a game," or, "It's the game" illustrate that the term tells us

   205     nothing; the meaning lies in the inflection. The phrase might be saying

   206     that "it" is utterly trivial: "it's just a game." Or it might be saying

   207     that "it" demands our constant and committed attention: "that's the

   208     game."

   209 

   210     So, I think more sensibly, it's good to look inside Gamism to see the

   211     game there - what is it? It's a recreational, social activity, in which

   212     one faces circumstances of risk - but neither life-threatening nor of

   213     any other great material consequence. All that's on the line is some

   214     esteem, probably fleeting, enough to enjoy risking and no more. Think of

   215     a poker game among friends with very minor stakes, or a neighborhood

   216     pickup basketball game. Taking away the small change or the

   217     score-counting would take away a lot of the fun, because they help to

   218     track or prompt the minor esteem ups-and-downs. This is Step On Up. It

   219     is "just a game," yes, but "it's the game," too.

   220 

   221     With any luck, now that I'm claiming two things are being labeled rather

   222     than one, perhaps some of the debate about the label in question can

   223     settle down. At the Step On Up level, what's at stake? A bit of esteem,

   224     as stated above. But what about? Here's point #1: what's really at stake

   225     can be totally overt (the basketball score), or it can nonverbal or

   226     otherwise subtle (who sinks the best single hoop, regardless of which

   227     team wins). All that matters is that it must exist embedded in the

   228     real-life social interaction.

   229 

   230     Think of the following:

   231 

   232       * how performance is assessed, including a range of severity for

   233         joshing, praise, and criticism

   234       * the parameters of engagement - rules you do not break, in order to

   235         enjoy playing changes in the field of play, whether in space or

   236         time, making it impossible to stay with a single approach

   237 

   238     The competition boogeyman

   239     Competition is best understood as a productive add-on to Gamist play.

   240     Such play is fundamentally cooperative, but may include competition.

   241     That's not a contradiction: I'm using exactly the same logic as might be

   242     found at the poker and basketball games. You can't compete, socially,

   243     without an agreed-upon venue. If the cooperation's details are

   244     acceptable to everyone, then the competition within it can be quite

   245     fierce.

   246 

   247     Role-playing texts never get this straight. For them, it's always either

   248     competition or cooperation, one-other, push-pull, and often nonsensical.

   249     The following is from Fantasy Earth, Basic Rules (1994, Zody Games,

   250     author is Michael S. Zody):

   251 

   252       ... while board games and wargames have winners and losers,

   253       role-playing games do not. Rather than being competitive, role-playing

   254       games are cooperative. The players all work together and win and lose

   255       as a team.

   256 

   257     I consider the above text to be inherently contradictory. Versions of it

   258     can be found in quite a few role-playing games, especially those with

   259     fantasy settings and a fairly high risk of character death.

   260 

   261     So what is all this competition business about? It concerns conflict of

   262     interest. If person A's performance is only maximized by driving down

   263     another's performance, then competition is present. In Gamist play, this

   264     is not required - but it is very often part of the picture. Competition

   265     gives both Step On Up and Challenge a whole new feel - a bite.

   266 

   267     How does conflict of interest relate to Step On Up and to Challenge? The

   268     crucial answer is that it may be present twice, independently, within

   269     the two-level structure.

   270 

   271       * Competition at the Step On Up level = conflict of interest regarding

   272         players' performance and impact on the game-world.

   273       * Competition at the Challenge level = conflict of interest among

   274         characters' priorities (survival, resource accumulation, whatever)

   275         in the game-world.

   276 

   277     Think of each level having a little red dial, from 1 to 11 - and those

   278     dials can be twisted independently. Therefore, four extremes of

   279     dial-twisting may be compared.

   280 

   281      1. High competition in Step On Up plus low competition in Challenge =

   282         entirely team-based play, party style against a shared Challenge,

   283         but with value placed on some other metric of winning among the real

   284         people, such as levelling-up faster, having the best stuff, having

   285         one's player-characters be killed less often, getting more Victory

   286         Points, or some such thing. Most Tunnels & Trolls play is like this.

   287      2. Low competition in Step On Up plus high competition in Challenge =

   288         characters are constantly scheming on one another or perhaps openly

   289         trying to kill or outdo another but the players aren't especially

   290         competing, because consequences to the player are low per unit

   291         win/loss. Kobolds Ate My Baby and the related game, Ninja Burger,

   292         play this way.

   293      3. High competition in both levels = moving toward the Hard Core (see

   294         below), including strong rules-manipulation, often observed in

   295         variants of Dungeons & Dragons as well in much LARP play. A risky

   296         way to play, but plenty of fun if you have a well-designed system

   297         like Rune.

   298      4. Low competition in both levels = strong focus on Step On Up and

   299         Challenge but with little need for conflict-of-interest. Quite a bit

   300         of D&D based on story-heavy published scenarios plays this way. It

   301         shares some features with "characters face problem" Simulationist

   302         play, with the addition of a performance metric of some kind. Some

   303         T&T play Drifted this way as well, judging by many Sorcerer's

   304         Apprentice articles.

   305 

   306     Things get more complex than this, because different roles for GM and

   307     players lead to combinations of the above categories within a single

   308     game. For instance, players can cooperate as a party and compete with

   309     the GM, for instance, given a rules-set that limits GM options (a

   310     combination of #1 and #2). This shouldn't be confused with cooperating

   311     with one another, cooperating with the GM, and competing against the

   312     GM's characters (#4).

   313 

   314     Reality check

   315     I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games

   316     are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in

   317     the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately,

   318     include:

   319     "Eat me,"

   320     (upon winning) "I win," and

   321     "C'mon, let's play without these morons."

   322 

   323     I'm defining "winning" as positive assessment at the Step On Up level.

   324     It even applies when little or no competition is going on. It applies

   325     even when the win-condition is fleeting. Even if it's unstated. Even if

   326     it's no big deal. Without it, and if it's not the priority of play, then

   327     no Gamism.

   328 

   329     Textually, so many games say "it's not about winning" and then

   330     immediately provide extremely clear win/loss parameters for play.

   331     Sometimes I think it's because people believe that players are

   332     inherently Gamist and have to be appeased in some way. This uneasy

   333     waffling or endless qualifying shows up most often in fantasy games

   334     whose authors would like play to be about something else, but just can't

   335     quite believe that players would agree.

   336 

   337     From the introduction to RuneQuest, second edition (The Chaosium, 1978,

   338     1979, 1980; specific author for this text unknown; game authors are

   339     Steve Perrin, Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, and Warren James):

   340 

   341       The title of the game, RuneQuest, describes its goal. The player

   342       creates one or more characters, known as adventurers, and playes them

   343       in various scenarios, designed by a Referee. The Adventurer has the

   344       use of combat, magic, and other skills, and treasure. The Referee has

   345       the use of assorted monsters, traps, and his own wicked imagination to

   346       keep the Adventurer from his goal within the rules of the game. A

   347       surviving Adventurer gains experience in fighting, magic, and other

   348       skills, as well as money to purchase further training.

   349 

   350     Now all that's pretty Gamist stuff of a late 1970s vintage, right? Get

   351     this, which follows immediately:

   352 

   353       The adventurer progresses in this way until he is so proficient that

   354       he comes to the attention of the High Priests, sages, and gods. At

   355       this point he has the option to join a Rune Cult. Joining such a cult

   356       gives him many advantages, not the least of which is aid from the god

   357       of the cult.

   358 

   359       Acquiring a Rune by joining such a cult is the goal of the game, for

   360       only in gathering a Rune may a character take the next step, up into

   361       the ranks of Hero, and perhaps Superhero.

   362 

   363     All right, that bit about joining cults still seems kind of Gamist,

   364     right? About getting more effective and so on? Great ... except that the

   365     GM controls the High Priests and sages. Why would he, whose job was just

   366     stated to be to "keep the Adventurer from his goal," have them recognize

   367     the Adventurer in the first place? Either they do, and the GM must

   368     abandon the stated goal, or they don't, and that whole paragraph becomes

   369     gibberish.

   370 

   371     Bear in mind as well that "Hero" and "Superhero" are never defined, and

   372     indeed never again mentioned anywhere in the rulebook. See what I mean

   373     about waffly and uncertain text? Such text is the default explanation

   374     for role-playing, with very few exceptions, until the publication of

   375     Vampire in 1991. Even since, though, it's still the standard for fantasy

   376     games. The following is from Legendary Lives, second edition (1993,

   377     Marquee Press, authors are Joe Williams and Kathleen Williams):

   378 

   379       The players are impromptu actors within the scenes created by the

   380       referee ... The fun comes from interacting with the other characters

   381       and with the imaginary world created by the refereee. For the duration

   382       of the game, try to immerse yourself in the role. [Sim so far - RE]

   383       ...

   384       The first goal of a player is survival. Yes your character can die

   385       during an adventure, and a dead character is completely gone. If your

   386       character is smart enough, bright enough, or lucky enough, he or she

   387       will survive to reap the benefits of becoming older, wiser, and more

   388       powerful.

   389       [Wowsies, eh? Then text follows which backpeddles rapidly and tries to

   390       explain why character death isn't losing. -RE]

   391 

   392     As a contrast, some texts make no bones about this issue and indeed leap

   393     in with both feet, as in Kobolds Ate My Baby! third edition (2001, Ninth

   394     Level Games; authors are Christopher O'Neill and Daniel Landis):

   395 

   396       How to win!

   397       ... unlike your average role-playing game, KOBOLDS ATE MY BABY! Third

   398       Edition has winners (and losers). Truth be told, it mainly has losers!

   399       Anyway, the winner is the player who, at the end of the game, has the

   400       most Victory Points. Most games continue until a certain condition is

   401       met, generally when all the babies are gone ...

   402 

   403     Yee-ha! But that's a recent example. To get back to the dark and

   404     steaming roots of the first wave of role-playing innovation, check this

   405     out from The Basic Game chapter in Tunnels & Trolls, 5th edition (1979,

   406     Flying Buffalo Inc; author is Ken St. Andre, with possible edits or

   407     additions by Liz Danforth):

   408 

   409       Every time your character escapes from a tunnel alive, you may

   410       consider yourself a winner. The higher the level and the more wealth

   411       your character attains, the better you are doing in comparison to all

   412       the other players.

   413 

   414     From the Adventure Points chapter in the same text:

   415 

   416       As long as a character remains alive - regardless of how many

   417       adventures he or she participates in - you are "winning." If ill fate

   418       befalls the character, or if you overextend yourself in playing your

   419       character's capabilities, the character dies and it is your loss. Of

   420       course, these games allow you to play any number of characters

   421       (sometimes referred to as a "stable of characters") and some will

   422       survive and advance, and everyone wins in the end.

   423 

   424     This seems a bit softer, until one notices that although winning is

   425     qualified by quotes and extra text, loss significantly is not.

   426 

   427     Further text in the Adventure Points chapter of the same game repeatedly

   428     provides big payoff for rash, risky, but tactically-imaginative action,

   429     if the character survives. One small part rewards role-playing, but:

   430 

   431       Any points awarded in this category should be given to those players

   432       who are doing an exceptionally good job only, thus making the game

   433       more of a challenge to all.

   434 

   435     In other words, "challenge" is the first priority and immersion (for

   436     lack of a better word), cooperation with the GM or his story-plans, or

   437     in-character consistent play, are to be conducted and evaluated in that

   438     context. They are, as well as anything else like character survival or

   439     achievement, to be competed about.

   440 

   441     I love the T&T and Kobolds texts. They are refreshing, spunky, and even

   442     inspiring: "Step on up, buddy!" Open Gamism is completely accessible,

   443     completely functional, and extremely fun. You see, it all goes back to

   444     how the Step On Up social stuff is perfectly capable of enjoying the

   445     in-game Challenge, Situation stuff, and how they're not the same thing.

   446     In these games, the idea is to keep the Challenge whimsical enough that

   447     its occasionally-extreme consequences don't reflect proportionally on

   448     the player's emotional stakes of the moment.

   449 

   450     T&T is not the be-all and end-all of Gamism, although it was probably

   451     the first utterly explicit Gamist role-playing text. Not all Gamist play

   452     is alike! It ranges across a great deal of structural, social, and

   453     imaginative diversity, which is why this essay still has a long way to

   454     go.

   455 

   456     Structural basics

   457     Grant Gigee provided some comments that I think speak more closely to

   458     the issue than anything I could come up with:

   459 

   460       Conflict and choice: Clearly, both terms can also be applied to

   461       Narrativism, but I think they are very evocative and, combined with

   462       challenge, concisely convey the important values of Gamism. Conflict

   463       is crucial to narrative, but while one can explore the back-story or

   464       the setting, or whatever, and while one can explore the moral

   465       ramifications of those choices, folk like myself would rather get

   466       right to the high points - the points of greatest tension which lead

   467       to the greatest accomplishment. [emphasis mine; that's where the Step

   468       On Up lives, right there - RE]

   469 

   470     Choice is important because only through choice can there be

   471     consequences. The reason most Gamists play wizards over fighters lies

   472     not in avoiding conflict but in having choices. The fighter's choices

   473     are all front-loaded - which sword (the best one), which armor (the best

   474     one), etc - while the wizard's are more immediate: which spell at what

   475     time.

   476 

   477     Valid Gamist conflict and valid Gamist choice lead directly to strategy

   478     and tactics, which I like to think of in two ways. The first way is the

   479     interplay of resources, combined arms, either-or decisions,

   480     effectiveness, point-husbanding, and similar game-mechanics acumen. Two

   481     articles to review regarding these sorts of strategy and tactics in

   482     Gamist play are [15]Elements of tactics and [16]Elements of strategy by

   483     Brian Gleichman. The second way is all about bending parameters, lateral

   484     thinking, and occasional banzai, which is to say, one's ability to shape

   485     the actual play, or the importance of its parts, through sheer

   486     interaction with it and with other people.

   487 

   488     In trying to back up a little and look at things more generally than

   489     individual moments of successful tactics, I came up with two new terms.

   490     I'm not sure whether they're profound or just obvious, so consider'em

   491     informal at this point.

   492 

   493     The Gamble and the Crunch

   494     Challenge is the Situation faced by the player-characters with a strong

   495     implication of risk. It can be further focused into applications, which

   496     individually tend toward one of these two things:

   497 

   498     The Gamble occurs when the player's ability to manipulate the odds or

   499     clarify unknowns is seriously limited. "Hold your nose and jump!" is its

   500     battle-cry. Running a first-level character in all forms of D&D is a

   501     Gamble; all of Ninja Burger play is a Gamble. More locally, imagine a

   502     crucial charge made by a fighter character toward a dragon - his goal is

   503     to distract it from the other character's coordinated attack, and he's

   504     the only one whose hit points are sufficient to survive half its

   505     flame-blast. Will he make the saving roll? If he doesn't, he dies. Go!

   506 

   507     The Crunch occurs when system-based strategy makes a big difference,

   508     either because the Fortune methods involved are predictable (e.g.

   509     probabilities on a single-die roll), or because effects are reliably

   510     additive or cancelling (e.g. Feats, spells). Gamist-heavy Champions play

   511     with powerful characters is very much about the Crunch. The villain's

   512     move occurs early in Phase 3; if the speed-guy saves his action from

   513     Phase 2 into Phase 3 to pre-empt that action, and if the brick-guy's

   514     punch late on Phase 3 can be enhanced first by the psionic-guy's

   515     augmenting power if he Pushes the power, then we can double-team the

   516     villain before he can kill the hostage.

   517 

   518     The distinction between Gamble and Crunch isn't quite the same as

   519     "randomness;" it has more to do with options and consequences. Fortune

   520     can be involved in both of them, and it doesn't have to be involved in

   521     either (see Diplomacy for a non-RPG example). Also, look out for jargon:

   522     "Crunchy" is a gamer term for detailed and layered rules; "crunching" is

   523     a long-standing term for maximizing Effectiveness by manipulating a

   524     system's Currency. Neither of these are Crunch as I'm defining here.

   525 

   526     Who vs. whom: the source of adversity

   527     Adversity is necessary to role-playing; without it, nothing happens. The

   528     term requires two analyses.

   529 

   530      1. Who's the source of adversity in Gamist play? This is a layered

   531         question based on the Step On Up and Challenge levels. Step On Up

   532         adversity simply means demanding high attention to System operation

   533         and the responding emotional "on-button" from the person. It's the

   534         "social heat," if you will, as well as whatever cognitive demands

   535         are imposed by the System. Optionally, as described above,

   536         person-on-person conflict of interest might be involved as well,

   537         bringing in competition at this level. Without the competition, the

   538         adversity needs to come from some extra-player source, whether a GM

   539         or a publication or some confluence of both. With it, of course, the

   540         source of adversity arises among the players; this is usually an

   541         add-on to the GM/publication adversity rather than a substitute.

   542      2. What are its imposed dangers? This seems more straightforward at

   543         first, as Challenge adversity means risk to the characters in some

   544         way. But about what? Options range from character survival to

   545         abstract Victory Points, with a huge range of possibilities in

   546         between. Also, optionally, character-on-character conflict of

   547         interest may be involved as well, again setting up the possible

   548         inclusion of competition as a "heater-up" for adversity.

   549 

   550     Clearly, these are not really independent! The Challenge adversity sets

   551     up all sorts of System demands and risks to the characters, which in

   552     turn can provide the motor for the Step On Up adversity to kick into

   553     action. That's a powerful phenomenon; arguably, it was the core of D&D

   554     play becoming a popular hobby at all in the mid-1970s, based on

   555     organized tournaments.

   556 

   557     But all the possible combinations are overwhelming - whose strategizing

   558     is opposed to whose? If a GM is the source of adversity, to what extent

   559     is he or she a potential competitor as well? What are the differences

   560     between GM as referee, as judge, and as player of opponents? Is

   561     player-effort a team thing or an "every man my enemy" thing? The general

   562     answer to these and similar questions can only be "Yes," then parsed

   563     very specifically both by game design and by group preferences. Social

   564     Contract issues such as whether maps, notes, and dice-rolls are hidden

   565     or open all rely on the answers. But those are only some of the possible

   566     questions. Here are others.

   567 

   568      1. How long is a "go"? Which is to say, what are the units of reward

   569         and loss, and how are they distributed through the time of play?

   570         Compare losing a round in a video game with loss in a football game,

   571         and consider whether a fight scene in a role-playing session is a

   572         piece of a very long conflict called a Delve, or whether it's the

   573         moment of truth, right there. Is player-character death, for

   574         example, like losing the ball for a first down for the other side,

   575         or missing a touchdown, or losing the whole game?

   576      2. How is Fortune involved, and when? Oh, there are so many ways:

   577         player-character creation, the typical resolution mechanics, any

   578         sudden-death resolution mechanics, reduction of abilities or

   579         resources, preparation for a crisis, the crisis itself ... To flip

   580         to the other side, what's the role, if any, of

   581         allocation-strategizing points or resources?

   582         Neither of the above can be considered without thinking about the

   583         relative importance of Effectiveness and Resource, and how they

   584         relate to one another, or, on a more imaginative/scenario level, the

   585         relative distribution and positioning of the Gamble and the Crunch.

   586 

   587      3. To what degree is conflict-of-interest involved, for both the Step

   588         On Up and Challenge levels? Similarly, and this of course is mainly

   589         a social question, what degree of ruthlessness is involved?

   590      4. What is the Challenge about? Further, how imaginatively committed to

   591         it, moment by moment, are people expected to be? I suggest with

   592         great fervor that combat is only one form of conflict, and character

   593         survival is only one in-game metric for success.

   594 

   595     A look at reward systems

   596     I generally refer to Stakes in Gamist play to discuss what's at risk and

   597     what stands to be gained at both the Step On Up and Challenge level. I

   598     think successful Gamist play needs to include both the loss and gain

   599     conditions for the Stakes, not just gain. This gets really tricky,

   600     because the "metric" of what's being assessed at the Step On Up level is

   601     only sometimes overt. Add to that the concept of Stakes relative to the

   602     competition within each level, if present, and things suddenly get

   603     complicated.

   604 

   605     So what constitutes "success" at the Step On Up and/or Challenge level

   606     during play? Is it the right to keep playing? Improving one's

   607     character's effectiveness, begging the question of what for? Getting

   608     some kind of "victory points"? The metagame/game relationship between

   609     these is phenomenally important. I think that, in Gamist play, the

   610     metagame-part is the key one - a completely informal Social Reward

   611     (e.g., "Killed more goblins than you!", even in a game-system which

   612     confers no consequence for doing so) can easily outweigh an in-game one.

   613 

   614     In taking this idea to design, my mind kind of balks at the tricky mix

   615     of Exploration and Competition, and how to keep them from being at

   616     cross-purposes. It is really hard to conceive of Gamist reward

   617     mechanisms that are both consistently satisfying across long-term play

   618     and meaningful at the Step On Up level. Abstract victory points are

   619     arguably quite weak; "you win" means nothing if it, well, doesn't do

   620     anything. The more-commonly seen metric of character survival is badly

   621     broken, in a variety of applications. If character death is temporary,

   622     it's not much of a loss condition, but if it's not, the game is often

   623     forced to abandon the loss condition such that people can continue to

   624     play.

   625 

   626     Character improvement ("advancement") is even more problematic. The

   627     basic issues it raises are:

   628 

   629       * How tough and effective should a starting character be? If it's too

   630         high, then there's no reason to improve; if it's too low, the early

   631         stages of play depend far too much on GM mercy.

   632       * What kind of rate is involved, relative to the challenges as time

   633         goes by? The effectiveness-increase can form an exponential

   634         interaction with the character's ability to increase further, which

   635         in most cases breaks the game or reduces all confrontations to

   636         statistical grinds rather than Step On Up crises.

   637 

   638     Reward systems remain the current most challenging sector of game

   639     design, for many reasons, not the least of which is no clear idea of for

   640     how long or at what scale "successful play" should be rated. I look

   641     forward to experimentation and debate that can help resolve some of the

   642     issues for Gamist play.

   643 

   644     The joys of Gamism

   645     It is way cool, in a game which utilizes point-construction of

   646     characters, to allocate them such that the character "hums" - that is,

   647     he (or she or it, henceforth "he") can do what you'd like him to do

   648     without running out of energy too fast, can go where he needs to go, and

   649     take a hit without crumpling - or, in games which are less about moving

   650     places and hitting one another, the character can actually get X done in

   651     a way which makes anyone else say, "Whoa, good one!" Nocturne, my

   652     Champions super-hero, steps through the wall and freezes the villain The

   653     Crippler in his tracks with a burning blue look. He glides straight to

   654     the uber-villain, the Blood Queen, where she stands before the

   655     technological cross (on whom is crucified Nocturne's buddy, Warp),

   656     ignoring the zots and shots of the henchmen, and says, in deadly tones,

   657     "Where ... is ... our ... son?" Presence attack roll!

   658 

   659     It is totally cool, in a game with a well-constructed IIEE component, to

   660     strategize one or more characters' actions such that their effect and

   661     timing delivers a phenomenal wallop, or more generally, has a

   662     distinctive and exciting effect on play. Demon-boy's acrobatic attack

   663     provides the diversion, as Hurricane-girl's wind-storm scatters the

   664     henchmen, opening up a channel for Metal-guy to hurl Claw-man straight

   665     into the Menace. As expected, Claw-man takes it on the chin, but that

   666     removes the Menace's saved action (which we all knew he had; he had that

   667     smirk), and that's when Eyebeam-man's blast hits, shattering the tank

   668     behind the Menace to release the wave of radioactive fluid and to wake

   669     the sleeping alien within ...

   670 

   671     The very meaning of cool beans is to husband resources intelligently,

   672     such that when you really need that Endurance, or the story points, or

   673     those hit points, or that final charge in the magic staff, they're

   674     there. Yzorn, the young mage, dodges once, twice, and again, eluding the

   675     jaws of the summoned wolf, costing Engarad more and more energy until

   676     the animal fades into smoke. Then, "Catch this!" he cries, at last

   677     loosing the lightning bolt and crisping his foe into an ashy column,

   678     which slowly fragments under its own weight.

   679 

   680     Nothing is more cool than putting the character or whatever at risk,

   681     whether in Gamble or Crunch circumstances, and seeing the system deliver

   682     its punch relative to your tactics. Roichi, my Blue Islands ninja,

   683     reaches into the folds of his black gi to produce, rattle-rattle the

   684     dice, a packet of Hot Sauce! Shimatta!

   685 

   686     It is the essence of coolness to see the legitimately avoidable twist be

   687     avoided, or fail to be avoided. "Boy, that troll was a lot easier to

   688     kill than I expected," says the player. I, the GM, smirk. "You're

   689     growing ... turning hairy ... your armor and clothing crack and stretch

   690     off of your body ... horns sprout on your -" "Hey! I'm turning into a

   691     troll, aren't I?" "Yup ... cursed to clean up the first level, just like

   692     your predecessor, who's turning into a dead human, by the way." "Shit!

   693     That makes sense! We should have figured that out!" Heh, heh, heh ...

   694 

   695     All of the above are fun during any role-playing, but from a Gamist

   696     perspective, the point is for one's acumen to be acknowledged - it's a

   697     matter of pure pride. You grokked the system just right for that

   698     particular situation; you took into account all the possible variables

   699     of the moment. If such a perspective, and all these events, are combined

   700     together and experienced as part and parcel of the Exploration - which

   701     is to say, the social, imaginative "scene" - then Gamist play is under

   702     way. I maintain this experience cannot be achieved through any physical

   703     sport, through any virtual interface, or through any medium whatever

   704     aside from table-top role-playing. The rush is, I think, unique to the

   705     medium.

   706 

   707     The Hard Core

   708     So far I haven't mentioned any negative connotations to Gamist play,

   709     despite my hints in the beginning of the essay. The time has come to

   710     explain why many people hate and fear any sign of Step On Up, let alone

   711     competition, in and among the adversity-situations of their

   712     role-playing. It's due to a possible application of Gamist principles to

   713     their "perviest" extreme, which is to say, the highest degree of

   714     person-to-System contact during play. When you sacrifice Exploration to

   715     get to this degree of contact in Gamist play, you have entered the Hard

   716     Core.

   717 

   718     The Hard Core occurs when Gamist play transmogrifies into pure metagame:

   719     Exploration becomes minimal or absent, such that System and Social

   720     Contract contact one another directly, and, essentially, all the

   721     mechanics become metagame mechanics. It's usually, although not always,

   722     the result of high competitive actions at the Step On Up level, which

   723     then "eats" the Challenge level such that it is literally and nakedly an

   724     extension of Step On Up and nothing else. Role-playing in the Hard Core

   725     is very much like playing competitive video games or, for that matter,

   726     like playing that old junior high school favorite, Smear the Queer, with

   727     egos rather than bones and blood on the line.

   728 

   729     I perceive four distinct Hard Core applications. They all very easily

   730     become dysfunctional, but, contrary to popular belief, quite a bit of

   731     Hard Core play may be functional if the Social Contract is being

   732     reinforced rather than broken. None of them combine well with secondary

   733     Simulationist or Narrativist priorities, which is one reason that people

   734     often confound the Hard Core with playing Gamist at all. That's an

   735     error, though, because the Hard Core is just as incompatible with

   736     high-Exploration Gamist priorities as well.

   737 

   738     It's time to introduce the "M" word too. The term "munchkin" gets thrown

   739     around a lot in reference to Gamist play, and one of the big points of

   740     this essay is to show that it applies to too many different things to be

   741     useful. I'll discuss this further in the Troubles with Gamism section

   742     below, but for now, just bear in mind that Hard Core role-players are

   743     often called munchkins by others, including non-Hard Core Gamists.

   744 

   745     Turnin' on each other

   746     Gamist play already presupposes some pressure among members of the

   747     group. Now add to that not only conflict-of-interest at the Challenge

   748     level, but open acknowledgment of one another's player-characters as the

   749     only engaging source of Challenge - and given the absence of

   750     Exploration, directly applying to a Step On Up struggle for dominance.

   751     So now you have both little red dials up to 11, and the arena of

   752     resolution is simply whose characters survive mutual attacks.

   753 

   754     Turnin' often arises from when the "official" Challenge parameters are

   755     shown to be uninteresting for one reason or another, such as when losing

   756     one's character to GM-run foes turns out not to mean much in Step On Up

   757     terms - i.e., when the GM kills characters at whim. It's typically

   758     dysfunctional when it arises from this or similar sources.

   759 

   760     However, I also think Turnin' is the least threatening Hard Core

   761     application, because when it's integrated into other enjoyable aspects

   762     of a system, it can actually be a wonderful addition to play, as

   763     illustrated by the wizard-economy of spells for rogues in T&T or the

   764     magic items rules in Elfs. After all, character conflict-of-interest is

   765     not necessarily Hard Core, nor is it even necessarily a Gamist issue at

   766     all. However, given that its extreme form is dysfunctional, many game

   767     texts have mistakenly urged various ways never ever ever to permit

   768     inter-character conflict of interest, in order to stave it off.

   769 

   770     Powergaming

   771     This technique is all about ramping a system's Currency, Effectiveness,

   772     and reward system into an exponential spiral. As a behavior, it can be

   773     applied to any system, but most forms of D&D offer an excellent inroad

   774     for it: after a certain number of levels achieved, the ability to

   775     deliver damage and remain invulnerable itself provides ever-increasing

   776     ability to achieve yet higher degrees of damage-delivery and hit-point

   777     resources.

   778 

   779     Like Turnin', Powergaming doesn't necessarily destroy the enjoyment of

   780     play, and unlike Turnin', it may even remain functional in full-blown

   781     Hard Core form. Some Exploration may well be maintained, at least

   782     minimally, and the effectiveness-spiral might play a strategic role

   783     rather than to dominate fellow players. However, it's fair to say that

   784     Powergaming is only functional if everyone is committed to it, and it

   785     carries dangers of leading to Breaking (see below).

   786 

   787     To prevent Powergaming, many game designers identify the GM as the

   788     ultimate and final rules-interpreter. It's no solution at all, though:

   789     (1) there's no way to enforce the enforcement, and (2), even if the

   790     group does buy into the "GM is always right" decree, the GM is now

   791     empowered to Powergame over everyone else.

   792 

   793     Calvinball

   794     This is the famous "rules-lawyering" approach, which is misnamed because

   795     it claims textual support when in reality it simply invents it.

   796     Calvinball is a better term: making up the rules as you go along,

   797     usually in terms of on-the-spot interpretations disguised as "obvious"

   798     well-established interpretations. It basically combines glibness and

   799     bullying to achieve moment-to-moment advantages for one's character. A

   800     Calvinballer may also be adept at bugging the GM about some rules-detail

   801     often enough that a goodly percentage of the time yields a reward for

   802     it, but not often enough to tip everyone else off to what's going on.

   803 

   804     The big trick of Calvinball is pretending to be still committed to the

   805     Exploration. That makes it especially well-suited to disrupting

   806     Simulationist play from the older traditions, because the other players'

   807     commitment to the integrity of the Dream can be co-opted into one's

   808     Calvinball strategy, exploiting the others' willingness to enter into

   809     the rules-debate in hopes of a compromise, which of course is not

   810     forthcoming. Calvinball then quickly transforms into a struggle for

   811     control over what is and is not happening in the imaginative situation.

   812 

   813     One mistaken solution to this tactic is to hide the rules from the

   814     players in some kind of laughably-secure "GM book" or "GM section," as

   815     well as to enforce the ideal of Transparency. The other, more common

   816     solution is simply to continue adding rules forever and ever, amen, in

   817     order to account unambiguously for any and all imaginable events during

   818     play.

   819 

   820     Breaking the game

   821     Here's the most extreme form of the Hard Core; it's the only one that I

   822     can't imagine is functional in any circumstances. Breaking the game is

   823     defined as rendering others' ability to play ineffective in terms of any

   824     metric that happens to be important in that group. Theoretically, any

   825     and all games are breakable: one can always sweep the pieces off the

   826     board. But I'm talking about doing so in the context of identifying

   827     internal inconsistencies or vulnerable points in the design, breaking

   828     the game by playing it and rendering the Exploration nonsensical.

   829 

   830     Here's the key giveaway in terms of system design: it is Broken (i.e.

   831     Breaking consistently works) if repetitive, unchanging behavior garners

   832     benefit. The player hits no self-correcting parameters and is never

   833     forced to readjust his or her strategy. The principle can be applied in

   834     multiple ways, both two common ones include:

   835 

   836       * Exploiting point-based games which rely on layered Currency, such

   837         that points may be spent cheaply for disproportionately high gain,

   838         often in a self-sustaining fashion. The classic example is the

   839         Recovery attribute in Champions, which was increased by spending

   840         points on Constitution and Strength, but could be bought down, and

   841         the points thus gained could be pumped back into Strength, thus

   842         raising REC to levels beyond the original value. Champions also

   843         featured a means of decreasing powers' cost by increasing a divisor

   844         value, and strategizing the relationship to this divisor with other

   845         means of point-reduction became an art form in many groups.

   846       * Exploiting announcement/order-of-action systems to acquire perfect

   847         can't-hit-me-I-hit-you combinations, multiple-action combinations,

   848         and similar. Most games which feature powers or advantages that the

   849         order of action are vulnerable to unforeseen stacking with these

   850         effects.

   851 

   852     Breaking the Game isn't quite the same thing as Powergaming, because

   853     once a game is Broken, the group rarely continues to play. However, the

   854     latter often leads to the former, because Powergaming reveals vulnerable

   855     points in game design that are then Broken. Trying to prevent this

   856     one-two combination of behavior has led many game designers mistakenly

   857     to provide endless patch rules, full of exceptions to cover the

   858     exceptions, none of which accomplishes anything except to open up even

   859     more points of vulnerability.

   860 

   861     Diversity of Gamist design

   862     Considering all these different concerns, perhaps finally the variety of

   863     Gamist role-playing design can get its long-awaited, long-denied day in

   864     the sun. I've taken a few variables from the Structural Basics section,

   865     mainly the ones that can be ascribed to specific game texts rather than

   866     the less-tangible, more locally-defined ones.

   867 

   868       * The degree of Exploration relative to Step On Up

   869       * The role of Fortune in resolving Stakes-relevant conflict in the

   870         game

   871       * How much Gamble vs. how much Crunch

   872       * The length of a "go," or unit of play necessary to see how well

   873         someone does

   874       * The local units of local loss - how you can tell when someone

   875         doesn't do well

   876       * The degree of metagame mechanics available

   877 

   878     Mano a mano

   879     These are duelling games. They're generally written as self-governing,

   880     which is to say, no GM necessary, although sometimes a gentleman's

   881     agreement about some things is necessary. For instance, in Wizard duels,

   882     a player is expected to be truthful when his character's illusion spell

   883     is disbelieved. Also, sometimes a Referee or "monster player" is

   884     recommended if people want to play in teams rather than against one

   885     another.

   886 

   887     Melee/Wizard - Exploration is low, role of Fortune medium, Gamble even

   888     with Crunch, "go" length = one fight, units of local loss = PC death,

   889     degree of metagame is nil

   890 

   891     Lost Worlds - Exploration is low to medium, role of Fortune medium,

   892     Crunch slightly higher than Gamble, "go" length = one fight, units of

   893     local loss = PC death, degree of metagame is nil (or high if choosing

   894     the character in the first place is considered)

   895 

   896     Dungeon crawl

   897     The classic Exploration paradigm, and arguably the progenitor of the

   898     multi-bezillion dollar computer-game industry. The characters must

   899     traverse and navigate a dangerous environment and reap the rewards of

   900     their discoveries and combat acumen relative to the spiralling risk.

   901 

   902     Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition - Exploration is medium, role of Fortune

   903     is high until after 10th level, fair Gamble and later mainly Crunch,

   904     "go" length = a delve, units of local loss = death, degree of metagame =

   905     nil

   906 

   907     Deathstalkers (System & Setting) - Exploration medium-to-high, Fortune

   908     high at low levels especially, Gamble at lower levels with more Crunch

   909     at higher ones, "go" length unknown, units of local loss = character

   910     death, degree of metagame is nil

   911 

   912     Forge: Out of Chaos (Character & System), - Exploration is a solid

   913     medium, role of Fortune is medium, Gamble mixed evenly with Crunch, "go"

   914     length = expedition, units of local loss = PC death or lack of

   915     levelling, degree of metagame is nil

   916 

   917     Rune - Exploration is low, role of Fortune is medium to high, Gamble

   918     mixed evenly with Crunch, "go" length = expedition, units of local loss

   919     vary across several variables, degree of metagame is nil (or high if the

   920     GM-round-robin is considered)

   921 

   922     Donjon - Exploration high, role of Fortune is high, high Gamble vs. low

   923     Crunch (almost all Abilities are really the same thing - a mechanical

   924     way to win), "go" length is a delve, and individual "Donjon Levels",

   925     units of local loss = destruction of equipment and character

   926     inconvenience (death is extremely rare), degree of metagame = quite high

   927 

   928     Elaborate setting

   929     This brand of Gamist play evolved almost instantly, beginning with maps

   930     and supplements like the World of Greyhawk. It offers a few special

   931     problems, the main one being an ongoing Simulationist "creep" in the

   932     evolving texts, edition by edition, which can trip up the Gamist

   933     priorities of special interest ... in other words, GNS-based

   934     Incoherence. One reader even proposed the term "Power Simulationism" for

   935     such games, and stated, "These games are the least rewarding to me

   936     because they feel like kicking a man when he is down."

   937 

   938     Stormbringer 1st edition - Exploration is high, role of Fortune is

   939     extreme, both Gamble and Crunch at different instances of play, "go"

   940     length = adventure scenario, units of local loss = death, degree of

   941     metagame = nil (perhaps a bit in demon creation)

   942 

   943     Rifts (with some Simulationist design as hybrid support) - Exploration

   944     is medium-low, role of Fortune high at low levels, low at higher levels,

   945     mixed Gamble and Crunch, "go" length = firefight, units of local loss =

   946     death (or perhaps loot), degree of metagame = nil

   947 

   948     Shadowrun (also a Simulationist hybrid) - Exploration is high, medium to

   949     high Fortune, mixed Gamble and Crunch (higher Crunch in longer-term

   950     games), "go" length = a black-ops mission (a "shadowrun"), units of

   951     local loss = character death, loss of profit, degree of metagame varies

   952     by edition

   953 

   954     Age of Heroes - Exploration is high, role of Fortune is strong but

   955     easily assessed, mainly Crunch, "go length = set pieces, loss =

   956     characters' agenda per set piece, degree of metagame = nil [note: This

   957     game is not based on a canonical setting, but rather on procedures and

   958     rules-categories corresponding to a setting type, relating to "adventure

   959     fantasy" much as early Champions relates to comics; as such, it is

   960     probably the single representative in the category without Coherence

   961     problems]

   962 

   963     Deadlands - Exploration is high, Situation, role of Fortune is medium,

   964     mainly Crunch, "go" length = adventure scenario, units of local loss

   965     aren't well defined, degree of metagame is minor but consistently

   966     present

   967 

   968     Whimsical whackiness

   969     These are usually humorous spinoffs of dungeon crawls.

   970 

   971     Tunnels & Trolls - Exploration medium, role of Fortune high, emphasis on

   972     Gamble, "go" length = level, units of local loss = PC death or

   973     diminishment of abilities, degree of metagame is low except for some

   974     whimsy

   975 

   976     Kobolds Ate My Baby / Ninja Burger (Situation & System) - Exploration

   977     low-to-medium, role of Fortune is extreme, extreme emphasis on Gamble,

   978     "go" length = one dinner/mission, units of local loss = victory points

   979     (less so, PC death), degree of metagame is medium (often obstructive to

   980     others)

   981 

   982     Elfs - Exploration is medium, role of Fortune is high, mixed Gamble and

   983     Crunch, "go" length = adventure scenario, units of local loss =

   984     immediate advantage, degree of metagame = medium.

   985 

   986     Gimme some story

   987     These games shift the venue of Step On Up from in-game character action

   988     resolution to metagame narration rights, which may or may not entail

   989     greater character effectiveness.

   990 

   991     The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen - Exploration = medium, role of

   992     Fortune is nil, mainly Crunch, "go" length = one tale, units of local

   993     loss = control of the narrative, degree of metagame is total. Arguably,

   994     this game is more appropriately placed in the "almost role-playing game"

   995     category along with Bedlam, De Profundis, and Once Upon a Time.

   996 

   997     Pantheon - Exploration = high, role of Fortune is minor, mainly Crunch,

   998     "go" length = one story, units of local loss = points, degree of

   999     metagame fairly high

  1000 

  1001     Is d20 Gamist?

  1002     D&D3E is certainly strongly oriented toward Gamist play, but as for d20,

  1003     what is it, structurally?

  1004 

  1005       * levels to describe character attack-options and hit points - but not

  1006         necessarily levelling-up as a major feature of play

  1007       * classes and possibly races, but these are meaningless on reflection

  1008         - a game can have one or twenty classes; they are strictly a method

  1009         for establishing resource categories

  1010       * Six attributes - but with any relationship to effectiveness that you

  1011         want; one can even tack on another system for primary Effectiveness

  1012         variables, as in D&D3E

  1013 

  1014     All one really has is a flat-curve resolution method in 5% increments

  1015     against target numbers, with (a) possible re-rolls (which is what "extra

  1016     attacks" are), (b) a resource mechanic relative to character survival,

  1017     and (c) lists of powers. I've concluded that d20 takes on a

  1018     game-identity to the extent that a designer customizes Resolution,

  1019     Currency, and Reward into a particular shape. Therefore to "use d20"

  1020     means one of the following:

  1021 

  1022       * to imitate or augment an existing form (supplemental material for

  1023         D&D3E)

  1024       * fundamentally to write your own game (Mutants & Masterminds)

  1025       * and I should mention some attempts at the latter which look more

  1026         like the former (Star Wars d20, Spycraft)

  1027 

  1028     No wonder it's impossible to discuss d20 sensibly! There's no game

  1029     there, not even a System. Therefore it passes out of the range of topics

  1030     for this essay; d20 presents a fascinating economics and marketing

  1031     phenomenon, but I think it's only meaningful in those terms.

  1032 

  1033     Historical perspective

  1034     How is Gamist design distributed across games throughout the hobby's

  1035     history? I'm now talking about explicit design features and facilitative

  1036     text in game-books, not play itself. My essay [17]A hard look at

  1037     Dungeons & Dragons addresses some of the factors that underlie this

  1038     section.

  1039 

  1040     The most striking feature across role-playing history is the astonishing

  1041     shift in the late 1980s from assuming that Gamist play was the default

  1042     to practically nothing - limited mainly to "old AD&D," various D&D

  1043     imitators, Shadowrun, or Rifts.

  1044 

  1045     I think this rarity is mainly a matter of rejection by texts that

  1046     facilitated other preferred modes of play. I specifically include AD&D2

  1047     to be included in this shift, as I consider it to be mainly incoherent

  1048     with various and sometimes-contradictory doses of Simulationist design

  1049     scattered throughout, going all the way back to the Wilderness Survival

  1050     Guide and the Dragonlance modules. I also think that the various

  1051     setting-derivative AD&D2 boxed sets of the early 1990s (Al-Qadim, Dark

  1052     Sun, Planescape, et al.) explicitly facilitate Illusionist Simulationist

  1053     play.

  1054 

  1055     A similar textual rejection can be found in the publications of Lion

  1056     Rampant and later (same company) White Wolf, many of which explicitly

  1057     condemned Gamist play in subcultural terms. In many ways, this can be

  1058     seen as a reclamation of "hip" for role-playing, or at least for a given

  1059     company's role-playing products.

  1060 

  1061     In spite of all the textual rejection, I also think that the dearth of

  1062     texts reveals nothing about the commonality of Gamist play - I suspect

  1063     that Drift has kept Gamist play alive and quite active, even in the

  1064     absence of coherent games to use it for, especially for AD&D2,

  1065     Champions, Amber, and Vampire (see the GNS section below). Discussing

  1066     why such an overt, accessible, and functional brand of play did not act

  1067     as a solid demand on the marketplace of game design must await more

  1068     discussion of game-industry economics.

  1069 

  1070     Then again, perhaps my surprise is a matter of my own subcultural

  1071     limitations, if related hobbies are considered. Gamism remained alive

  1072     and well among computer games like Rogue, Nethack, Ultima library (later

  1073     to become Ultima Online), Zork, Advent(ure), MUDs, MUSHes, MOOs,

  1074     Everquest, Amethyst, and many more. Unfortunately, I'm an ignoramus

  1075     about this entire hobby, and any insights into its history, play

  1076     preferences, economics, and what-all would be very welcome at the Forge.

  1077 

  1078     Oh, and let's not forget that card game that showed up at the game store

  1079     counters a decade ago. I think that Magic: the Gathering is best

  1080     described as a portable, customizable wargame - and that part of its

  1081     popularity may be ascribed to the fact that the customers of the day had

  1082     never seen a wargame before. Unsurprisingly, a whole sector of people

  1083     who were involved in role-playing suddenly discovered the hobby they'd

  1084     been looking for.

  1085 

  1086     From a role-playing design perspective, Magic and many other

  1087     customizable card games reminded people of a principle that had been

  1088     abandoned for almost a decade: (1) that competitive Step On Up is

  1089     actually fun, rather than automatically Broken; (2) that elegant and

  1090     highly-prioritized game design permits easier entry and more

  1091     satisfaction in play; and (3) that Exploration may be customized to

  1092     taste, rather than considered an all-or-nothing variable.

  1093 

  1094     Finally, Gamist play has also cropped up across many products which are

  1095     sometimes called role-playing games, but are just a little off my

  1096     personal undefined cognitive space for that label, mainly due to the

  1097     role of "character" and certain aspects of how resolution is addressed.

  1098     All of them utilize control over narration as one of the variables of

  1099     play, thus shifting around the privileges of a traditional GM role, and

  1100     all of them are explicitly about winning the game much as one wins a

  1101     traditional card game. They include Once Upon a Time, The Adventures of

  1102     Baron von Munchausen, and Bedlam, and many others seem to be on the way

  1103     as well. As with the customizable Magic-type games, already they've

  1104     prompted many changes in role-playing, most notably in terms of

  1105     formalizing and permitting shifts among who gets to narrate the outcomes

  1106     of a given resolution mechanic.

  1107 

  1108     GNS issues

  1109     Memetic power

  1110     Nothing beats Gamism - once you have Step On Up in action, it takes

  1111     over. The main reason is simple: Step On Up is a recognizable, common,

  1112     coherent, and rewarding aspect of human behavior, which is why we see it

  1113     all 'round the place. Role-playing is just another venue. So, basically,

  1114     everyone gets it, and once present, Situation becomes Challenge, and the

  1115     cognitive fascination with esteem relative to performance becomes the

  1116     order of the day. It doesn't rely on any particular game mechanic to be

  1117     present - consider that any metric for social esteem is a candidate for

  1118     Step On Up, and that any element of in-game content is a candidate for

  1119     Challenge. You're bound to find someone's own personal profile for these

  1120     in the game-content somewhere!

  1121 

  1122     It also takes over easily mechanically in many instances of game design,

  1123     especially in Simulationist-facilitating games, in two ways. The first

  1124     way is to perceive system-based opportunities for advantage: breakpoints

  1125     in point-allocation design, stacking of options into unique effects, and

  1126     similar. Such things are often offered as neat add-ons in

  1127     otherwise-Simulationist designs, but they take over fast when character

  1128     niche-protection switches into literal character-defense. The second

  1129     way, unsurprisingly, is through reward systems: a traditional

  1130     character-improvement system can switch to a fully-social Step On Up

  1131     reward system any time anyone wants, especially since it's

  1132     self-perpetuating.

  1133 

  1134     Clinton provided this example:

  1135