--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/gamism_step_on_up.txt Mon Mar 20 13:28:17 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,1962 @@
+ The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games
+ [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles |
+ Forge [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums
+
+
+ Gamism: Step On Up
+ by [8]Ron Edwards
+
+ I owe thanks to Clinton R. Nixon, Rob MacDougall, Gareth Martin, Mike
+ Holmes, Gordon R. Landis, Ralph Mazza, Jonathan Walton, Paul Czege,
+ Jared A. Sorensen, Grant Gigee, Christopher Kubasik, Jake Norwood, and
+ Peter Adkison for their comments on the draft version of the manuscript.
+ All errors, misattributions, inconsistencies, whatever, are mine.
+
+ This is the second of three essays on the three modes of role-playing
+ collectively referred to as GNS, as presented in my essay [9]GNS and
+ related matters of role-playing theory. The first of the three "support"
+ essays was [10]Simulationism: the right to dream. These essays' purposes
+ are to clarify many aspects of their parent essay, to present the ideas
+ that have always awaited a more general understanding of my basic
+ points, and also to refine and develop the concepts based on the years
+ of discussion and input from others at the Gaming Outpost, RPG.net, and
+ the Forge.
+
+ This one's about Gamist play.
+
+ Gamism was originally identified in the RFGA Threefold Model of
+ role-playing styles, and I think from its first mention, nearly everyone
+ has said, "Oh, yeah, Gamism," with little debate about its qualities.
+ Moving through my own reconstructions of the Threefold into GNS, whether
+ early or late, and through the GENder model proposed by the Scarlet
+ Jester, both Gamist play as an activity and people's instant, easy
+ acceptance of its category have received little attention. Apparently,
+ one just knows it upon sight.
+
+ But do we really? References to Gamism tend to be dismissive,
+ superficial, and often backhanded ("except for the Gamists," "my inner
+ Gamist," etc). With respect to the members of the RFGA discussion group,
+ I think they categorized Gamist play mainly in order to sweep it out of
+ the realm of further dialogue, in order to concentrate on issues that I
+ would now primarily identify within Simulationist play. I also think
+ that most, although not all, subsequent discussion has been similar. Yet
+ that exceptional bit, here and there over several forums, indicates far
+ less consensus out there than might have been expected or assumed.
+
+ I'm going for a real look at the category for its own sake. In some ways
+ I'm kind of a case study of the problem, but I hope also part of the
+ solution as well; my own views have changed immensely since I referred
+ to Gamist players as "space aliens" years ago on the Gaming Outpost.
+
+ Here's what I wrote for my big and admittedly dry essay, "GNS and
+ related matters of role-playing theory":
+
+ Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real
+ people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both
+ short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play
+ strategies. The listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation,
+ System, Color] provide an arena for the competition.
+
+ And this needs revising for several reasons. First, "among the
+ participants" is too vague, at least from the standpoint of most
+ readers. I was thinking of anyone involved in the play of the game,
+ permitting just who competes with whom to be customized, but most people
+ seem to think I mean "players" in the widely-used, non-GM sense, and
+ object to that. Second, the term "competition" gets right up people's
+ noses. Lots of terms have cropped up: Struggle, Striving, Challenge, and
+ more. Some of that debate seems to be procedural, some of it
+ ideological, and some of it social. Although I can't hope for unilateral
+ agreement about the fundamentals of Gamist play, I think I've managed to
+ figure out where all of the consternation - and the hot emotions
+ underlying it - comes from. It's not merely semantic. I hope this essay
+ manages to clear up any confusions about my position on the matter and
+ perhaps manages to set a better basis for continued debate.
+
+ Some threads to check out include: [11]Gamism and Premise, [12]Gamism is
+ not competition{/url], [13]All out for Gamism, and [14]Getting in touch
+ with our inner Gamist. They include plenty of good points, but, my own
+ posts included, I think they mainly illustrate the problems involved
+ rather than offer anything concrete.
+
+ So the first step is to renounce a judgmental and dismissive approach
+ about "those awful Gamists." The second is to renounce the
+ less-judgmental but equally-dismissive "those Gamists" attitude, which
+ might be called the NIMBY view. And then, finally, to renounce the sort
+ of guilty-liberal, halting, apologetic defensive line as well. Just
+ bouncing among these, without ever coming to grips with the actual
+ phenomenon itself, is enough to fill a few dozen thread-pages within
+ days, so it's time to put all that aside and focus.
+
+ Every reader of the first draft wanted me to define Gamist play right
+ here, in this spot. I refused, to the wrath of Lit-101 teachers
+ everywhere. You gotta go through the next sections to get there.
+
+ Back to Exploration
+ Just as in the Simulationism essay, I'll start by considering the big
+ picture in which GNS issues are embedded. It might be written out like
+ this in a Venn diagram:
+
+ [Social Contract [Exploration [GNS [rules [techniques [Stances]]]]]]
+
+ Every inner "box" is an expression or realization of the box(es) it's
+ nested in. For example, Exploration is a kind of Social Contract, and a
+ given GNS mode is a kind (specifically, an application) of Exploration.
+
+ 1. Everything occurs embedded in the Social Contract, which includes
+ many things about play and not-play, especially the Balance of
+ Power.
+ 2. Exploration is the primary act of role-playing, composed of five
+ parts with some causal relationships among them.
+ 3. The "modes" of play (because they have to be expressed via
+ communication and play itself, not just "felt") are currently best
+ described as Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist play. Play (as
+ opposed merely to hanging out with friends) cannot occur without
+ such an agenda. I'm now using the term "creative agenda" to refer to
+ the three modes as a concept, replacing the small-p "premise" term
+ in the older essay.
+ 4. Techniques of play include many different relationships among rules,
+ people's decisions, announcements, and similar. "System" (or rather
+ textual system) interacts with Techniques all the time, in terms of
+ things like Currency, Resolution (including DFK, IIEE; see
+ Glossary), and Reward systems. Which of these is inner or outer is
+ debatable and probably variable, although I've diagrammed it in
+ keeping with the idea that techniques are applied within a framework
+ of rules. In keeping with the Venn concept, techniques are local
+ expressions of Social Contract, Exploration, and GNS modes, just as
+ rules are.
+ 5. Actual play shifts quickly among Stances. Stances, unsurprisingly,
+ are very local applications of rules and techniques, all in the
+ service of Exploration and the larger-scale GNS mode in action.
+
+ So to talk about any GNS category, the place to start is that box.
+ Exploration is composed of five elements, no sweat: Character, Setting,
+ Situation, System, and Color ... but it's not a hydra with five equal
+ heads. These things have creative and specific dependencies among one
+ another, and now's the time to reveal a filthy secret about them.
+
+ It's this: Situation is the center. Situation is the imaginative-thing
+ we experience during play. Character and Setting are components that
+ produce it, System is what Situation does, and Color can hardly be done
+ without all this in place to, well, to color. Situation is the 400-lb
+ gorilla of the five elements, or, if you will, the central node. It's
+ central regardless of how much attention it's receiving relative to the
+ other components.
+
+ Gamist play, more than any other mode, demands that Situation be not
+ only central, but also the primary focus of attention. You want to play
+ Gamist? Then don't piss about with Character and/or Setting without
+ Situation happening, or about to.
+
+ The definition at last
+ A few paragraphs back, I promised a definition for Gamism and here it
+ is. It operates at two levels: the real, social people and the
+ imaginative, in-game situation.
+
+ 1. The players, armed with their understanding of the game and their
+ strategic acumen, have to Step On Up. Step On Up requires
+ strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real
+ world. This is the inherent "meaning" or agenda of Gamist play
+ (analogous to the Dream in Simulationist play).
+
+ Gamist play, socially speaking, demands performance with risk,
+ conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually
+ at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social,
+ real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem.
+ The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key -
+ it's analogous to committing to the sincerity of The Dream for
+ Simulationist play. This is the whole core of the essay, that such a
+ commitment is fun and perfectly viable for role-playing, just as
+ it's viable for nearly any other sphere of human activity.
+ 2. The in-game characters, armed with their skills, priorities, and so
+ on, have to face a Challenge, which is to say, a specific Situation
+ in the imaginary game-world. Challenge is about the strategizing,
+ guts, and performance of the characters in this imaginary
+ game-world.
+
+ For the characters, it's a risky situation in the game-world; in
+ addition to that all-important risk, it can be as fabulous,
+ elaborate, and thematic as any other sort of role-playing. Challenge
+ is merely plain old Situation - it only gets a new name because of
+ the necessary attention it must receive in Gamist play. Strategizing
+ in and among the Challenge is the material, or arena, for whatever
+ brand of Step On Up is operating.
+
+ Gamist play and design is very diverse, partly due to the relative
+ emphases of these two layers, as well as how they are best met in that
+ particular game. At the crudest lens-setting, one can contrast those who
+ emphasize Challenge and drop the Step On Up to a faint roar, as opposed
+ to those who diminish the Challenge - it's always there, though - and
+ focus on the Step On Up.
+
+ Terms 'til you squeak
+ The game to the Gamist
+ What does "game" mean, anyway? Wouldn't that be good to know before
+ talking about Game-ist? As it turns out, not really, no more than
+ "simulation" helps with discussing Simulationist play. The term "game"
+ is good enough for our purposes (as a root for the "ist"), but not
+ especially rigorous or interesting. So many different things get called
+ games that it's hardly worth considering a blanket definition. To call
+ all of role-playing a "game," the term must be so broadly defined that
+ it excludes any agenda beyond socializing.
+
+ There's one specific aspect of the term that needs some scrutiny, though
+ - its judgmental content. Phrases like "It's a game," or better, "It's
+ just a game," or, "It's the game" illustrate that the term tells us
+ nothing; the meaning lies in the inflection. The phrase might be saying
+ that "it" is utterly trivial: "it's just a game." Or it might be saying
+ that "it" demands our constant and committed attention: "that's the
+ game."
+
+ So, I think more sensibly, it's good to look inside Gamism to see the
+ game there - what is it? It's a recreational, social activity, in which
+ one faces circumstances of risk - but neither life-threatening nor of
+ any other great material consequence. All that's on the line is some
+ esteem, probably fleeting, enough to enjoy risking and no more. Think of
+ a poker game among friends with very minor stakes, or a neighborhood
+ pickup basketball game. Taking away the small change or the
+ score-counting would take away a lot of the fun, because they help to
+ track or prompt the minor esteem ups-and-downs. This is Step On Up. It
+ is "just a game," yes, but "it's the game," too.
+
+ With any luck, now that I'm claiming two things are being labeled rather
+ than one, perhaps some of the debate about the label in question can
+ settle down. At the Step On Up level, what's at stake? A bit of esteem,
+ as stated above. But what about? Here's point #1: what's really at stake
+ can be totally overt (the basketball score), or it can nonverbal or
+ otherwise subtle (who sinks the best single hoop, regardless of which
+ team wins). All that matters is that it must exist embedded in the
+ real-life social interaction.
+
+ Think of the following:
+
+ * how performance is assessed, including a range of severity for
+ joshing, praise, and criticism
+ * the parameters of engagement - rules you do not break, in order to
+ enjoy playing changes in the field of play, whether in space or
+ time, making it impossible to stay with a single approach
+
+ The competition boogeyman
+ Competition is best understood as a productive add-on to Gamist play.
+ Such play is fundamentally cooperative, but may include competition.
+ That's not a contradiction: I'm using exactly the same logic as might be
+ found at the poker and basketball games. You can't compete, socially,
+ without an agreed-upon venue. If the cooperation's details are
+ acceptable to everyone, then the competition within it can be quite
+ fierce.
+
+ Role-playing texts never get this straight. For them, it's always either
+ competition or cooperation, one-other, push-pull, and often nonsensical.
+ The following is from Fantasy Earth, Basic Rules (1994, Zody Games,
+ author is Michael S. Zody):
+
+ ... while board games and wargames have winners and losers,
+ role-playing games do not. Rather than being competitive, role-playing
+ games are cooperative. The players all work together and win and lose
+ as a team.
+
+ I consider the above text to be inherently contradictory. Versions of it
+ can be found in quite a few role-playing games, especially those with
+ fantasy settings and a fairly high risk of character death.
+
+ So what is all this competition business about? It concerns conflict of
+ interest. If person A's performance is only maximized by driving down
+ another's performance, then competition is present. In Gamist play, this
+ is not required - but it is very often part of the picture. Competition
+ gives both Step On Up and Challenge a whole new feel - a bite.
+
+ How does conflict of interest relate to Step On Up and to Challenge? The
+ crucial answer is that it may be present twice, independently, within
+ the two-level structure.
+
+ * Competition at the Step On Up level = conflict of interest regarding
+ players' performance and impact on the game-world.
+ * Competition at the Challenge level = conflict of interest among
+ characters' priorities (survival, resource accumulation, whatever)
+ in the game-world.
+
+ Think of each level having a little red dial, from 1 to 11 - and those
+ dials can be twisted independently. Therefore, four extremes of
+ dial-twisting may be compared.
+
+ 1. High competition in Step On Up plus low competition in Challenge =
+ entirely team-based play, party style against a shared Challenge,
+ but with value placed on some other metric of winning among the real
+ people, such as levelling-up faster, having the best stuff, having
+ one's player-characters be killed less often, getting more Victory
+ Points, or some such thing. Most Tunnels & Trolls play is like this.
+ 2. Low competition in Step On Up plus high competition in Challenge =
+ characters are constantly scheming on one another or perhaps openly
+ trying to kill or outdo another but the players aren't especially
+ competing, because consequences to the player are low per unit
+ win/loss. Kobolds Ate My Baby and the related game, Ninja Burger,
+ play this way.
+ 3. High competition in both levels = moving toward the Hard Core (see
+ below), including strong rules-manipulation, often observed in
+ variants of Dungeons & Dragons as well in much LARP play. A risky
+ way to play, but plenty of fun if you have a well-designed system
+ like Rune.
+ 4. Low competition in both levels = strong focus on Step On Up and
+ Challenge but with little need for conflict-of-interest. Quite a bit
+ of D&D based on story-heavy published scenarios plays this way. It
+ shares some features with "characters face problem" Simulationist
+ play, with the addition of a performance metric of some kind. Some
+ T&T play Drifted this way as well, judging by many Sorcerer's
+ Apprentice articles.
+
+ Things get more complex than this, because different roles for GM and
+ players lead to combinations of the above categories within a single
+ game. For instance, players can cooperate as a party and compete with
+ the GM, for instance, given a rules-set that limits GM options (a
+ combination of #1 and #2). This shouldn't be confused with cooperating
+ with one another, cooperating with the GM, and competing against the
+ GM's characters (#4).
+
+ Reality check
+ I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games
+ are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in
+ the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately,
+ include:
+ "Eat me,"
+ (upon winning) "I win," and
+ "C'mon, let's play without these morons."
+
+ I'm defining "winning" as positive assessment at the Step On Up level.
+ It even applies when little or no competition is going on. It applies
+ even when the win-condition is fleeting. Even if it's unstated. Even if
+ it's no big deal. Without it, and if it's not the priority of play, then
+ no Gamism.
+
+ Textually, so many games say "it's not about winning" and then
+ immediately provide extremely clear win/loss parameters for play.
+ Sometimes I think it's because people believe that players are
+ inherently Gamist and have to be appeased in some way. This uneasy
+ waffling or endless qualifying shows up most often in fantasy games
+ whose authors would like play to be about something else, but just can't
+ quite believe that players would agree.
+
+ From the introduction to RuneQuest, second edition (The Chaosium, 1978,
+ 1979, 1980; specific author for this text unknown; game authors are
+ Steve Perrin, Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, and Warren James):
+
+ The title of the game, RuneQuest, describes its goal. The player
+ creates one or more characters, known as adventurers, and playes them
+ in various scenarios, designed by a Referee. The Adventurer has the
+ use of combat, magic, and other skills, and treasure. The Referee has
+ the use of assorted monsters, traps, and his own wicked imagination to
+ keep the Adventurer from his goal within the rules of the game. A
+ surviving Adventurer gains experience in fighting, magic, and other
+ skills, as well as money to purchase further training.
+
+ Now all that's pretty Gamist stuff of a late 1970s vintage, right? Get
+ this, which follows immediately:
+
+ The adventurer progresses in this way until he is so proficient that
+ he comes to the attention of the High Priests, sages, and gods. At
+ this point he has the option to join a Rune Cult. Joining such a cult
+ gives him many advantages, not the least of which is aid from the god
+ of the cult.
+
+ Acquiring a Rune by joining such a cult is the goal of the game, for
+ only in gathering a Rune may a character take the next step, up into
+ the ranks of Hero, and perhaps Superhero.
+
+ All right, that bit about joining cults still seems kind of Gamist,
+ right? About getting more effective and so on? Great ... except that the
+ GM controls the High Priests and sages. Why would he, whose job was just
+ stated to be to "keep the Adventurer from his goal," have them recognize
+ the Adventurer in the first place? Either they do, and the GM must
+ abandon the stated goal, or they don't, and that whole paragraph becomes
+ gibberish.
+
+ Bear in mind as well that "Hero" and "Superhero" are never defined, and
+ indeed never again mentioned anywhere in the rulebook. See what I mean
+ about waffly and uncertain text? Such text is the default explanation
+ for role-playing, with very few exceptions, until the publication of
+ Vampire in 1991. Even since, though, it's still the standard for fantasy
+ games. The following is from Legendary Lives, second edition (1993,
+ Marquee Press, authors are Joe Williams and Kathleen Williams):
+
+ The players are impromptu actors within the scenes created by the
+ referee ... The fun comes from interacting with the other characters
+ and with the imaginary world created by the refereee. For the duration
+ of the game, try to immerse yourself in the role. [Sim so far - RE]
+ ...
+ The first goal of a player is survival. Yes your character can die
+ during an adventure, and a dead character is completely gone. If your
+ character is smart enough, bright enough, or lucky enough, he or she
+ will survive to reap the benefits of becoming older, wiser, and more
+ powerful.
+ [Wowsies, eh? Then text follows which backpeddles rapidly and tries to
+ explain why character death isn't losing. -RE]
+
+ As a contrast, some texts make no bones about this issue and indeed leap
+ in with both feet, as in Kobolds Ate My Baby! third edition (2001, Ninth
+ Level Games; authors are Christopher O'Neill and Daniel Landis):
+
+ How to win!
+ ... unlike your average role-playing game, KOBOLDS ATE MY BABY! Third
+ Edition has winners (and losers). Truth be told, it mainly has losers!
+ Anyway, the winner is the player who, at the end of the game, has the
+ most Victory Points. Most games continue until a certain condition is
+ met, generally when all the babies are gone ...
+
+ Yee-ha! But that's a recent example. To get back to the dark and
+ steaming roots of the first wave of role-playing innovation, check this
+ out from The Basic Game chapter in Tunnels & Trolls, 5th edition (1979,
+ Flying Buffalo Inc; author is Ken St. Andre, with possible edits or
+ additions by Liz Danforth):
+
+ Every time your character escapes from a tunnel alive, you may
+ consider yourself a winner. The higher the level and the more wealth
+ your character attains, the better you are doing in comparison to all
+ the other players.
+
+ From the Adventure Points chapter in the same text:
+
+ As long as a character remains alive - regardless of how many
+ adventures he or she participates in - you are "winning." If ill fate
+ befalls the character, or if you overextend yourself in playing your
+ character's capabilities, the character dies and it is your loss. Of
+ course, these games allow you to play any number of characters
+ (sometimes referred to as a "stable of characters") and some will
+ survive and advance, and everyone wins in the end.
+
+ This seems a bit softer, until one notices that although winning is
+ qualified by quotes and extra text, loss significantly is not.
+
+ Further text in the Adventure Points chapter of the same game repeatedly
+ provides big payoff for rash, risky, but tactically-imaginative action,
+ if the character survives. One small part rewards role-playing, but:
+
+ Any points awarded in this category should be given to those players
+ who are doing an exceptionally good job only, thus making the game
+ more of a challenge to all.
+
+ In other words, "challenge" is the first priority and immersion (for
+ lack of a better word), cooperation with the GM or his story-plans, or
+ in-character consistent play, are to be conducted and evaluated in that
+ context. They are, as well as anything else like character survival or
+ achievement, to be competed about.
+
+ I love the T&T and Kobolds texts. They are refreshing, spunky, and even
+ inspiring: "Step on up, buddy!" Open Gamism is completely accessible,
+ completely functional, and extremely fun. You see, it all goes back to
+ how the Step On Up social stuff is perfectly capable of enjoying the
+ in-game Challenge, Situation stuff, and how they're not the same thing.
+ In these games, the idea is to keep the Challenge whimsical enough that
+ its occasionally-extreme consequences don't reflect proportionally on
+ the player's emotional stakes of the moment.
+
+ T&T is not the be-all and end-all of Gamism, although it was probably
+ the first utterly explicit Gamist role-playing text. Not all Gamist play
+ is alike! It ranges across a great deal of structural, social, and
+ imaginative diversity, which is why this essay still has a long way to
+ go.
+
+ Structural basics
+ Grant Gigee provided some comments that I think speak more closely to
+ the issue than anything I could come up with:
+
+ Conflict and choice: Clearly, both terms can also be applied to
+ Narrativism, but I think they are very evocative and, combined with
+ challenge, concisely convey the important values of Gamism. Conflict
+ is crucial to narrative, but while one can explore the back-story or
+ the setting, or whatever, and while one can explore the moral
+ ramifications of those choices, folk like myself would rather get
+ right to the high points - the points of greatest tension which lead
+ to the greatest accomplishment. [emphasis mine; that's where the Step
+ On Up lives, right there - RE]
+
+ Choice is important because only through choice can there be
+ consequences. The reason most Gamists play wizards over fighters lies
+ not in avoiding conflict but in having choices. The fighter's choices
+ are all front-loaded - which sword (the best one), which armor (the best
+ one), etc - while the wizard's are more immediate: which spell at what
+ time.
+
+ Valid Gamist conflict and valid Gamist choice lead directly to strategy
+ and tactics, which I like to think of in two ways. The first way is the
+ interplay of resources, combined arms, either-or decisions,
+ effectiveness, point-husbanding, and similar game-mechanics acumen. Two
+ articles to review regarding these sorts of strategy and tactics in
+ Gamist play are [15]Elements of tactics and [16]Elements of strategy by
+ Brian Gleichman. The second way is all about bending parameters, lateral
+ thinking, and occasional banzai, which is to say, one's ability to shape
+ the actual play, or the importance of its parts, through sheer
+ interaction with it and with other people.
+
+ In trying to back up a little and look at things more generally than
+ individual moments of successful tactics, I came up with two new terms.
+ I'm not sure whether they're profound or just obvious, so consider'em
+ informal at this point.
+
+ The Gamble and the Crunch
+ Challenge is the Situation faced by the player-characters with a strong
+ implication of risk. It can be further focused into applications, which
+ individually tend toward one of these two things:
+
+ The Gamble occurs when the player's ability to manipulate the odds or
+ clarify unknowns is seriously limited. "Hold your nose and jump!" is its
+ battle-cry. Running a first-level character in all forms of D&D is a
+ Gamble; all of Ninja Burger play is a Gamble. More locally, imagine a
+ crucial charge made by a fighter character toward a dragon - his goal is
+ to distract it from the other character's coordinated attack, and he's
+ the only one whose hit points are sufficient to survive half its
+ flame-blast. Will he make the saving roll? If he doesn't, he dies. Go!
+
+ The Crunch occurs when system-based strategy makes a big difference,
+ either because the Fortune methods involved are predictable (e.g.
+ probabilities on a single-die roll), or because effects are reliably
+ additive or cancelling (e.g. Feats, spells). Gamist-heavy Champions play
+ with powerful characters is very much about the Crunch. The villain's
+ move occurs early in Phase 3; if the speed-guy saves his action from
+ Phase 2 into Phase 3 to pre-empt that action, and if the brick-guy's
+ punch late on Phase 3 can be enhanced first by the psionic-guy's
+ augmenting power if he Pushes the power, then we can double-team the
+ villain before he can kill the hostage.
+
+ The distinction between Gamble and Crunch isn't quite the same as
+ "randomness;" it has more to do with options and consequences. Fortune
+ can be involved in both of them, and it doesn't have to be involved in
+ either (see Diplomacy for a non-RPG example). Also, look out for jargon:
+ "Crunchy" is a gamer term for detailed and layered rules; "crunching" is
+ a long-standing term for maximizing Effectiveness by manipulating a
+ system's Currency. Neither of these are Crunch as I'm defining here.
+
+ Who vs. whom: the source of adversity
+ Adversity is necessary to role-playing; without it, nothing happens. The
+ term requires two analyses.
+
+ 1. Who's the source of adversity in Gamist play? This is a layered
+ question based on the Step On Up and Challenge levels. Step On Up
+ adversity simply means demanding high attention to System operation
+ and the responding emotional "on-button" from the person. It's the
+ "social heat," if you will, as well as whatever cognitive demands
+ are imposed by the System. Optionally, as described above,
+ person-on-person conflict of interest might be involved as well,
+ bringing in competition at this level. Without the competition, the
+ adversity needs to come from some extra-player source, whether a GM
+ or a publication or some confluence of both. With it, of course, the
+ source of adversity arises among the players; this is usually an
+ add-on to the GM/publication adversity rather than a substitute.
+ 2. What are its imposed dangers? This seems more straightforward at
+ first, as Challenge adversity means risk to the characters in some
+ way. But about what? Options range from character survival to
+ abstract Victory Points, with a huge range of possibilities in
+ between. Also, optionally, character-on-character conflict of
+ interest may be involved as well, again setting up the possible
+ inclusion of competition as a "heater-up" for adversity.
+
+ Clearly, these are not really independent! The Challenge adversity sets
+ up all sorts of System demands and risks to the characters, which in
+ turn can provide the motor for the Step On Up adversity to kick into
+ action. That's a powerful phenomenon; arguably, it was the core of D&D
+ play becoming a popular hobby at all in the mid-1970s, based on
+ organized tournaments.
+
+ But all the possible combinations are overwhelming - whose strategizing
+ is opposed to whose? If a GM is the source of adversity, to what extent
+ is he or she a potential competitor as well? What are the differences
+ between GM as referee, as judge, and as player of opponents? Is
+ player-effort a team thing or an "every man my enemy" thing? The general
+ answer to these and similar questions can only be "Yes," then parsed
+ very specifically both by game design and by group preferences. Social
+ Contract issues such as whether maps, notes, and dice-rolls are hidden
+ or open all rely on the answers. But those are only some of the possible
+ questions. Here are others.
+
+ 1. How long is a "go"? Which is to say, what are the units of reward
+ and loss, and how are they distributed through the time of play?
+ Compare losing a round in a video game with loss in a football game,
+ and consider whether a fight scene in a role-playing session is a
+ piece of a very long conflict called a Delve, or whether it's the
+ moment of truth, right there. Is player-character death, for
+ example, like losing the ball for a first down for the other side,
+ or missing a touchdown, or losing the whole game?
+ 2. How is Fortune involved, and when? Oh, there are so many ways:
+ player-character creation, the typical resolution mechanics, any
+ sudden-death resolution mechanics, reduction of abilities or
+ resources, preparation for a crisis, the crisis itself ... To flip
+ to the other side, what's the role, if any, of
+ allocation-strategizing points or resources?
+ Neither of the above can be considered without thinking about the
+ relative importance of Effectiveness and Resource, and how they
+ relate to one another, or, on a more imaginative/scenario level, the
+ relative distribution and positioning of the Gamble and the Crunch.
+
+ 3. To what degree is conflict-of-interest involved, for both the Step
+ On Up and Challenge levels? Similarly, and this of course is mainly
+ a social question, what degree of ruthlessness is involved?
+ 4. What is the Challenge about? Further, how imaginatively committed to
+ it, moment by moment, are people expected to be? I suggest with
+ great fervor that combat is only one form of conflict, and character
+ survival is only one in-game metric for success.
+
+ A look at reward systems
+ I generally refer to Stakes in Gamist play to discuss what's at risk and
+ what stands to be gained at both the Step On Up and Challenge level. I
+ think successful Gamist play needs to include both the loss and gain
+ conditions for the Stakes, not just gain. This gets really tricky,
+ because the "metric" of what's being assessed at the Step On Up level is
+ only sometimes overt. Add to that the concept of Stakes relative to the
+ competition within each level, if present, and things suddenly get
+ complicated.
+
+ So what constitutes "success" at the Step On Up and/or Challenge level
+ during play? Is it the right to keep playing? Improving one's
+ character's effectiveness, begging the question of what for? Getting
+ some kind of "victory points"? The metagame/game relationship between
+ these is phenomenally important. I think that, in Gamist play, the
+ metagame-part is the key one - a completely informal Social Reward
+ (e.g., "Killed more goblins than you!", even in a game-system which
+ confers no consequence for doing so) can easily outweigh an in-game one.
+
+ In taking this idea to design, my mind kind of balks at the tricky mix
+ of Exploration and Competition, and how to keep them from being at
+ cross-purposes. It is really hard to conceive of Gamist reward
+ mechanisms that are both consistently satisfying across long-term play
+ and meaningful at the Step On Up level. Abstract victory points are
+ arguably quite weak; "you win" means nothing if it, well, doesn't do
+ anything. The more-commonly seen metric of character survival is badly
+ broken, in a variety of applications. If character death is temporary,
+ it's not much of a loss condition, but if it's not, the game is often
+ forced to abandon the loss condition such that people can continue to
+ play.
+
+ Character improvement ("advancement") is even more problematic. The
+ basic issues it raises are:
+
+ * How tough and effective should a starting character be? If it's too
+ high, then there's no reason to improve; if it's too low, the early
+ stages of play depend far too much on GM mercy.
+ * What kind of rate is involved, relative to the challenges as time
+ goes by? The effectiveness-increase can form an exponential
+ interaction with the character's ability to increase further, which
+ in most cases breaks the game or reduces all confrontations to
+ statistical grinds rather than Step On Up crises.
+
+ Reward systems remain the current most challenging sector of game
+ design, for many reasons, not the least of which is no clear idea of for
+ how long or at what scale "successful play" should be rated. I look
+ forward to experimentation and debate that can help resolve some of the
+ issues for Gamist play.
+
+ The joys of Gamism
+ It is way cool, in a game which utilizes point-construction of
+ characters, to allocate them such that the character "hums" - that is,
+ he (or she or it, henceforth "he") can do what you'd like him to do
+ without running out of energy too fast, can go where he needs to go, and
+ take a hit without crumpling - or, in games which are less about moving
+ places and hitting one another, the character can actually get X done in
+ a way which makes anyone else say, "Whoa, good one!" Nocturne, my
+ Champions super-hero, steps through the wall and freezes the villain The
+ Crippler in his tracks with a burning blue look. He glides straight to
+ the uber-villain, the Blood Queen, where she stands before the
+ technological cross (on whom is crucified Nocturne's buddy, Warp),
+ ignoring the zots and shots of the henchmen, and says, in deadly tones,
+ "Where ... is ... our ... son?" Presence attack roll!
+
+ It is totally cool, in a game with a well-constructed IIEE component, to
+ strategize one or more characters' actions such that their effect and
+ timing delivers a phenomenal wallop, or more generally, has a
+ distinctive and exciting effect on play. Demon-boy's acrobatic attack
+ provides the diversion, as Hurricane-girl's wind-storm scatters the
+ henchmen, opening up a channel for Metal-guy to hurl Claw-man straight
+ into the Menace. As expected, Claw-man takes it on the chin, but that
+ removes the Menace's saved action (which we all knew he had; he had that
+ smirk), and that's when Eyebeam-man's blast hits, shattering the tank
+ behind the Menace to release the wave of radioactive fluid and to wake
+ the sleeping alien within ...
+
+ The very meaning of cool beans is to husband resources intelligently,
+ such that when you really need that Endurance, or the story points, or
+ those hit points, or that final charge in the magic staff, they're
+ there. Yzorn, the young mage, dodges once, twice, and again, eluding the
+ jaws of the summoned wolf, costing Engarad more and more energy until
+ the animal fades into smoke. Then, "Catch this!" he cries, at last
+ loosing the lightning bolt and crisping his foe into an ashy column,
+ which slowly fragments under its own weight.
+
+ Nothing is more cool than putting the character or whatever at risk,
+ whether in Gamble or Crunch circumstances, and seeing the system deliver
+ its punch relative to your tactics. Roichi, my Blue Islands ninja,
+ reaches into the folds of his black gi to produce, rattle-rattle the
+ dice, a packet of Hot Sauce! Shimatta!
+
+ It is the essence of coolness to see the legitimately avoidable twist be
+ avoided, or fail to be avoided. "Boy, that troll was a lot easier to
+ kill than I expected," says the player. I, the GM, smirk. "You're
+ growing ... turning hairy ... your armor and clothing crack and stretch
+ off of your body ... horns sprout on your -" "Hey! I'm turning into a
+ troll, aren't I?" "Yup ... cursed to clean up the first level, just like
+ your predecessor, who's turning into a dead human, by the way." "Shit!
+ That makes sense! We should have figured that out!" Heh, heh, heh ...
+
+ All of the above are fun during any role-playing, but from a Gamist
+ perspective, the point is for one's acumen to be acknowledged - it's a
+ matter of pure pride. You grokked the system just right for that
+ particular situation; you took into account all the possible variables
+ of the moment. If such a perspective, and all these events, are combined
+ together and experienced as part and parcel of the Exploration - which
+ is to say, the social, imaginative "scene" - then Gamist play is under
+ way. I maintain this experience cannot be achieved through any physical
+ sport, through any virtual interface, or through any medium whatever
+ aside from table-top role-playing. The rush is, I think, unique to the
+ medium.
+
+ The Hard Core
+ So far I haven't mentioned any negative connotations to Gamist play,
+ despite my hints in the beginning of the essay. The time has come to
+ explain why many people hate and fear any sign of Step On Up, let alone
+ competition, in and among the adversity-situations of their
+ role-playing. It's due to a possible application of Gamist principles to
+ their "perviest" extreme, which is to say, the highest degree of
+ person-to-System contact during play. When you sacrifice Exploration to
+ get to this degree of contact in Gamist play, you have entered the Hard
+ Core.
+
+ The Hard Core occurs when Gamist play transmogrifies into pure metagame:
+ Exploration becomes minimal or absent, such that System and Social
+ Contract contact one another directly, and, essentially, all the
+ mechanics become metagame mechanics. It's usually, although not always,
+ the result of high competitive actions at the Step On Up level, which
+ then "eats" the Challenge level such that it is literally and nakedly an
+ extension of Step On Up and nothing else. Role-playing in the Hard Core
+ is very much like playing competitive video games or, for that matter,
+ like playing that old junior high school favorite, Smear the Queer, with
+ egos rather than bones and blood on the line.
+
+ I perceive four distinct Hard Core applications. They all very easily
+ become dysfunctional, but, contrary to popular belief, quite a bit of
+ Hard Core play may be functional if the Social Contract is being
+ reinforced rather than broken. None of them combine well with secondary
+ Simulationist or Narrativist priorities, which is one reason that people
+ often confound the Hard Core with playing Gamist at all. That's an
+ error, though, because the Hard Core is just as incompatible with
+ high-Exploration Gamist priorities as well.
+
+ It's time to introduce the "M" word too. The term "munchkin" gets thrown
+ around a lot in reference to Gamist play, and one of the big points of
+ this essay is to show that it applies to too many different things to be
+ useful. I'll discuss this further in the Troubles with Gamism section
+ below, but for now, just bear in mind that Hard Core role-players are
+ often called munchkins by others, including non-Hard Core Gamists.
+
+ Turnin' on each other
+ Gamist play already presupposes some pressure among members of the
+ group. Now add to that not only conflict-of-interest at the Challenge
+ level, but open acknowledgment of one another's player-characters as the
+ only engaging source of Challenge - and given the absence of
+ Exploration, directly applying to a Step On Up struggle for dominance.
+ So now you have both little red dials up to 11, and the arena of
+ resolution is simply whose characters survive mutual attacks.
+
+ Turnin' often arises from when the "official" Challenge parameters are
+ shown to be uninteresting for one reason or another, such as when losing
+ one's character to GM-run foes turns out not to mean much in Step On Up
+ terms - i.e., when the GM kills characters at whim. It's typically
+ dysfunctional when it arises from this or similar sources.
+
+ However, I also think Turnin' is the least threatening Hard Core
+ application, because when it's integrated into other enjoyable aspects
+ of a system, it can actually be a wonderful addition to play, as
+ illustrated by the wizard-economy of spells for rogues in T&T or the
+ magic items rules in Elfs. After all, character conflict-of-interest is
+ not necessarily Hard Core, nor is it even necessarily a Gamist issue at
+ all. However, given that its extreme form is dysfunctional, many game
+ texts have mistakenly urged various ways never ever ever to permit
+ inter-character conflict of interest, in order to stave it off.
+
+ Powergaming
+ This technique is all about ramping a system's Currency, Effectiveness,
+ and reward system into an exponential spiral. As a behavior, it can be
+ applied to any system, but most forms of D&D offer an excellent inroad
+ for it: after a certain number of levels achieved, the ability to
+ deliver damage and remain invulnerable itself provides ever-increasing
+ ability to achieve yet higher degrees of damage-delivery and hit-point
+ resources.
+
+ Like Turnin', Powergaming doesn't necessarily destroy the enjoyment of
+ play, and unlike Turnin', it may even remain functional in full-blown
+ Hard Core form. Some Exploration may well be maintained, at least
+ minimally, and the effectiveness-spiral might play a strategic role
+ rather than to dominate fellow players. However, it's fair to say that
+ Powergaming is only functional if everyone is committed to it, and it
+ carries dangers of leading to Breaking (see below).
+
+ To prevent Powergaming, many game designers identify the GM as the
+ ultimate and final rules-interpreter. It's no solution at all, though:
+ (1) there's no way to enforce the enforcement, and (2), even if the
+ group does buy into the "GM is always right" decree, the GM is now
+ empowered to Powergame over everyone else.
+
+ Calvinball
+ This is the famous "rules-lawyering" approach, which is misnamed because
+ it claims textual support when in reality it simply invents it.
+ Calvinball is a better term: making up the rules as you go along,
+ usually in terms of on-the-spot interpretations disguised as "obvious"
+ well-established interpretations. It basically combines glibness and
+ bullying to achieve moment-to-moment advantages for one's character. A
+ Calvinballer may also be adept at bugging the GM about some rules-detail
+ often enough that a goodly percentage of the time yields a reward for
+ it, but not often enough to tip everyone else off to what's going on.
+
+ The big trick of Calvinball is pretending to be still committed to the
+ Exploration. That makes it especially well-suited to disrupting
+ Simulationist play from the older traditions, because the other players'
+ commitment to the integrity of the Dream can be co-opted into one's
+ Calvinball strategy, exploiting the others' willingness to enter into
+ the rules-debate in hopes of a compromise, which of course is not
+ forthcoming. Calvinball then quickly transforms into a struggle for
+ control over what is and is not happening in the imaginative situation.
+
+ One mistaken solution to this tactic is to hide the rules from the
+ players in some kind of laughably-secure "GM book" or "GM section," as
+ well as to enforce the ideal of Transparency. The other, more common
+ solution is simply to continue adding rules forever and ever, amen, in
+ order to account unambiguously for any and all imaginable events during
+ play.
+
+ Breaking the game
+ Here's the most extreme form of the Hard Core; it's the only one that I
+ can't imagine is functional in any circumstances. Breaking the game is
+ defined as rendering others' ability to play ineffective in terms of any
+ metric that happens to be important in that group. Theoretically, any
+ and all games are breakable: one can always sweep the pieces off the
+ board. But I'm talking about doing so in the context of identifying
+ internal inconsistencies or vulnerable points in the design, breaking
+ the game by playing it and rendering the Exploration nonsensical.
+
+ Here's the key giveaway in terms of system design: it is Broken (i.e.
+ Breaking consistently works) if repetitive, unchanging behavior garners
+ benefit. The player hits no self-correcting parameters and is never
+ forced to readjust his or her strategy. The principle can be applied in
+ multiple ways, both two common ones include:
+
+ * Exploiting point-based games which rely on layered Currency, such
+ that points may be spent cheaply for disproportionately high gain,
+ often in a self-sustaining fashion. The classic example is the
+ Recovery attribute in Champions, which was increased by spending
+ points on Constitution and Strength, but could be bought down, and
+ the points thus gained could be pumped back into Strength, thus
+ raising REC to levels beyond the original value. Champions also
+ featured a means of decreasing powers' cost by increasing a divisor
+ value, and strategizing the relationship to this divisor with other
+ means of point-reduction became an art form in many groups.
+ * Exploiting announcement/order-of-action systems to acquire perfect
+ can't-hit-me-I-hit-you combinations, multiple-action combinations,
+ and similar. Most games which feature powers or advantages that the
+ order of action are vulnerable to unforeseen stacking with these
+ effects.
+
+ Breaking the Game isn't quite the same thing as Powergaming, because
+ once a game is Broken, the group rarely continues to play. However, the
+ latter often leads to the former, because Powergaming reveals vulnerable
+ points in game design that are then Broken. Trying to prevent this
+ one-two combination of behavior has led many game designers mistakenly
+ to provide endless patch rules, full of exceptions to cover the
+ exceptions, none of which accomplishes anything except to open up even
+ more points of vulnerability.
+
+ Diversity of Gamist design
+ Considering all these different concerns, perhaps finally the variety of
+ Gamist role-playing design can get its long-awaited, long-denied day in
+ the sun. I've taken a few variables from the Structural Basics section,
+ mainly the ones that can be ascribed to specific game texts rather than
+ the less-tangible, more locally-defined ones.
+
+ * The degree of Exploration relative to Step On Up
+ * The role of Fortune in resolving Stakes-relevant conflict in the
+ game
+ * How much Gamble vs. how much Crunch
+ * The length of a "go," or unit of play necessary to see how well
+ someone does
+ * The local units of local loss - how you can tell when someone
+ doesn't do well
+ * The degree of metagame mechanics available
+
+ Mano a mano
+ These are duelling games. They're generally written as self-governing,
+ which is to say, no GM necessary, although sometimes a gentleman's
+ agreement about some things is necessary. For instance, in Wizard duels,
+ a player is expected to be truthful when his character's illusion spell
+ is disbelieved. Also, sometimes a Referee or "monster player" is
+ recommended if people want to play in teams rather than against one
+ another.
+
+ Melee/Wizard - Exploration is low, role of Fortune medium, Gamble even
+ with Crunch, "go" length = one fight, units of local loss = PC death,
+ degree of metagame is nil
+
+ Lost Worlds - Exploration is low to medium, role of Fortune medium,
+ Crunch slightly higher than Gamble, "go" length = one fight, units of
+ local loss = PC death, degree of metagame is nil (or high if choosing
+ the character in the first place is considered)
+
+ Dungeon crawl
+ The classic Exploration paradigm, and arguably the progenitor of the
+ multi-bezillion dollar computer-game industry. The characters must
+ traverse and navigate a dangerous environment and reap the rewards of
+ their discoveries and combat acumen relative to the spiralling risk.
+
+ Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition - Exploration is medium, role of Fortune
+ is high until after 10th level, fair Gamble and later mainly Crunch,
+ "go" length = a delve, units of local loss = death, degree of metagame =
+ nil
+
+ Deathstalkers (System & Setting) - Exploration medium-to-high, Fortune
+ high at low levels especially, Gamble at lower levels with more Crunch
+ at higher ones, "go" length unknown, units of local loss = character
+ death, degree of metagame is nil
+
+ Forge: Out of Chaos (Character & System), - Exploration is a solid
+ medium, role of Fortune is medium, Gamble mixed evenly with Crunch, "go"
+ length = expedition, units of local loss = PC death or lack of
+ levelling, degree of metagame is nil
+
+ Rune - Exploration is low, role of Fortune is medium to high, Gamble
+ mixed evenly with Crunch, "go" length = expedition, units of local loss
+ vary across several variables, degree of metagame is nil (or high if the
+ GM-round-robin is considered)
+
+ Donjon - Exploration high, role of Fortune is high, high Gamble vs. low
+ Crunch (almost all Abilities are really the same thing - a mechanical
+ way to win), "go" length is a delve, and individual "Donjon Levels",
+ units of local loss = destruction of equipment and character
+ inconvenience (death is extremely rare), degree of metagame = quite high
+
+ Elaborate setting
+ This brand of Gamist play evolved almost instantly, beginning with maps
+ and supplements like the World of Greyhawk. It offers a few special
+ problems, the main one being an ongoing Simulationist "creep" in the
+ evolving texts, edition by edition, which can trip up the Gamist
+ priorities of special interest ... in other words, GNS-based
+ Incoherence. One reader even proposed the term "Power Simulationism" for
+ such games, and stated, "These games are the least rewarding to me
+ because they feel like kicking a man when he is down."
+
+ Stormbringer 1st edition - Exploration is high, role of Fortune is
+ extreme, both Gamble and Crunch at different instances of play, "go"
+ length = adventure scenario, units of local loss = death, degree of
+ metagame = nil (perhaps a bit in demon creation)
+
+ Rifts (with some Simulationist design as hybrid support) - Exploration
+ is medium-low, role of Fortune high at low levels, low at higher levels,
+ mixed Gamble and Crunch, "go" length = firefight, units of local loss =
+ death (or perhaps loot), degree of metagame = nil
+
+ Shadowrun (also a Simulationist hybrid) - Exploration is high, medium to
+ high Fortune, mixed Gamble and Crunch (higher Crunch in longer-term
+ games), "go" length = a black-ops mission (a "shadowrun"), units of
+ local loss = character death, loss of profit, degree of metagame varies
+ by edition
+
+ Age of Heroes - Exploration is high, role of Fortune is strong but
+ easily assessed, mainly Crunch, "go length = set pieces, loss =
+ characters' agenda per set piece, degree of metagame = nil [note: This
+ game is not based on a canonical setting, but rather on procedures and
+ rules-categories corresponding to a setting type, relating to "adventure
+ fantasy" much as early Champions relates to comics; as such, it is
+ probably the single representative in the category without Coherence
+ problems]
+
+ Deadlands - Exploration is high, Situation, role of Fortune is medium,
+ mainly Crunch, "go" length = adventure scenario, units of local loss
+ aren't well defined, degree of metagame is minor but consistently
+ present
+
+ Whimsical whackiness
+ These are usually humorous spinoffs of dungeon crawls.
+
+ Tunnels & Trolls - Exploration medium, role of Fortune high, emphasis on
+ Gamble, "go" length = level, units of local loss = PC death or
+ diminishment of abilities, degree of metagame is low except for some
+ whimsy
+
+ Kobolds Ate My Baby / Ninja Burger (Situation & System) - Exploration
+ low-to-medium, role of Fortune is extreme, extreme emphasis on Gamble,
+ "go" length = one dinner/mission, units of local loss = victory points
+ (less so, PC death), degree of metagame is medium (often obstructive to
+ others)
+
+ Elfs - Exploration is medium, role of Fortune is high, mixed Gamble and
+ Crunch, "go" length = adventure scenario, units of local loss =
+ immediate advantage, degree of metagame = medium.
+
+ Gimme some story
+ These games shift the venue of Step On Up from in-game character action
+ resolution to metagame narration rights, which may or may not entail
+ greater character effectiveness.
+
+ The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen - Exploration = medium, role of
+ Fortune is nil, mainly Crunch, "go" length = one tale, units of local
+ loss = control of the narrative, degree of metagame is total. Arguably,
+ this game is more appropriately placed in the "almost role-playing game"
+ category along with Bedlam, De Profundis, and Once Upon a Time.
+
+ Pantheon - Exploration = high, role of Fortune is minor, mainly Crunch,
+ "go" length = one story, units of local loss = points, degree of
+ metagame fairly high
+
+ Is d20 Gamist?
+ D&D3E is certainly strongly oriented toward Gamist play, but as for d20,
+ what is it, structurally?
+
+ * levels to describe character attack-options and hit points - but not
+ necessarily levelling-up as a major feature of play
+ * classes and possibly races, but these are meaningless on reflection
+ - a game can have one or twenty classes; they are strictly a method
+ for establishing resource categories
+ * Six attributes - but with any relationship to effectiveness that you
+ want; one can even tack on another system for primary Effectiveness
+ variables, as in D&D3E
+
+ All one really has is a flat-curve resolution method in 5% increments
+ against target numbers, with (a) possible re-rolls (which is what "extra
+ attacks" are), (b) a resource mechanic relative to character survival,
+ and (c) lists of powers. I've concluded that d20 takes on a
+ game-identity to the extent that a designer customizes Resolution,
+ Currency, and Reward into a particular shape. Therefore to "use d20"
+ means one of the following:
+
+ * to imitate or augment an existing form (supplemental material for
+ D&D3E)
+ * fundamentally to write your own game (Mutants & Masterminds)
+ * and I should mention some attempts at the latter which look more
+ like the former (Star Wars d20, Spycraft)
+
+ No wonder it's impossible to discuss d20 sensibly! There's no game
+ there, not even a System. Therefore it passes out of the range of topics
+ for this essay; d20 presents a fascinating economics and marketing
+ phenomenon, but I think it's only meaningful in those terms.
+
+ Historical perspective
+ How is Gamist design distributed across games throughout the hobby's
+ history? I'm now talking about explicit design features and facilitative
+ text in game-books, not play itself. My essay [17]A hard look at
+ Dungeons & Dragons addresses some of the factors that underlie this
+ section.
+
+ The most striking feature across role-playing history is the astonishing
+ shift in the late 1980s from assuming that Gamist play was the default
+ to practically nothing - limited mainly to "old AD&D," various D&D
+ imitators, Shadowrun, or Rifts.
+
+ I think this rarity is mainly a matter of rejection by texts that
+ facilitated other preferred modes of play. I specifically include AD&D2
+ to be included in this shift, as I consider it to be mainly incoherent
+ with various and sometimes-contradictory doses of Simulationist design
+ scattered throughout, going all the way back to the Wilderness Survival
+ Guide and the Dragonlance modules. I also think that the various
+ setting-derivative AD&D2 boxed sets of the early 1990s (Al-Qadim, Dark
+ Sun, Planescape, et al.) explicitly facilitate Illusionist Simulationist
+ play.
+
+ A similar textual rejection can be found in the publications of Lion
+ Rampant and later (same company) White Wolf, many of which explicitly
+ condemned Gamist play in subcultural terms. In many ways, this can be
+ seen as a reclamation of "hip" for role-playing, or at least for a given
+ company's role-playing products.
+
+ In spite of all the textual rejection, I also think that the dearth of
+ texts reveals nothing about the commonality of Gamist play - I suspect
+ that Drift has kept Gamist play alive and quite active, even in the
+ absence of coherent games to use it for, especially for AD&D2,
+ Champions, Amber, and Vampire (see the GNS section below). Discussing
+ why such an overt, accessible, and functional brand of play did not act
+ as a solid demand on the marketplace of game design must await more
+ discussion of game-industry economics.
+
+ Then again, perhaps my surprise is a matter of my own subcultural
+ limitations, if related hobbies are considered. Gamism remained alive
+ and well among computer games like Rogue, Nethack, Ultima library (later
+ to become Ultima Online), Zork, Advent(ure), MUDs, MUSHes, MOOs,
+ Everquest, Amethyst, and many more. Unfortunately, I'm an ignoramus
+ about this entire hobby, and any insights into its history, play
+ preferences, economics, and what-all would be very welcome at the Forge.
+
+ Oh, and let's not forget that card game that showed up at the game store
+ counters a decade ago. I think that Magic: the Gathering is best
+ described as a portable, customizable wargame - and that part of its
+ popularity may be ascribed to the fact that the customers of the day had
+ never seen a wargame before. Unsurprisingly, a whole sector of people
+ who were involved in role-playing suddenly discovered the hobby they'd
+ been looking for.
+
+ From a role-playing design perspective, Magic and many other
+ customizable card games reminded people of a principle that had been
+ abandoned for almost a decade: (1) that competitive Step On Up is
+ actually fun, rather than automatically Broken; (2) that elegant and
+ highly-prioritized game design permits easier entry and more
+ satisfaction in play; and (3) that Exploration may be customized to
+ taste, rather than considered an all-or-nothing variable.
+
+ Finally, Gamist play has also cropped up across many products which are
+ sometimes called role-playing games, but are just a little off my
+ personal undefined cognitive space for that label, mainly due to the
+ role of "character" and certain aspects of how resolution is addressed.
+ All of them utilize control over narration as one of the variables of
+ play, thus shifting around the privileges of a traditional GM role, and
+ all of them are explicitly about winning the game much as one wins a
+ traditional card game. They include Once Upon a Time, The Adventures of
+ Baron von Munchausen, and Bedlam, and many others seem to be on the way
+ as well. As with the customizable Magic-type games, already they've
+ prompted many changes in role-playing, most notably in terms of
+ formalizing and permitting shifts among who gets to narrate the outcomes
+ of a given resolution mechanic.
+
+ GNS issues
+ Memetic power
+ Nothing beats Gamism - once you have Step On Up in action, it takes
+ over. The main reason is simple: Step On Up is a recognizable, common,
+ coherent, and rewarding aspect of human behavior, which is why we see it
+ all 'round the place. Role-playing is just another venue. So, basically,
+ everyone gets it, and once present, Situation becomes Challenge, and the
+ cognitive fascination with esteem relative to performance becomes the
+ order of the day. It doesn't rely on any particular game mechanic to be
+ present - consider that any metric for social esteem is a candidate for
+ Step On Up, and that any element of in-game content is a candidate for
+ Challenge. You're bound to find someone's own personal profile for these
+ in the game-content somewhere!
+
+ It also takes over easily mechanically in many instances of game design,
+ especially in Simulationist-facilitating games, in two ways. The first
+ way is to perceive system-based opportunities for advantage: breakpoints
+ in point-allocation design, stacking of options into unique effects, and
+ similar. Such things are often offered as neat add-ons in
+ otherwise-Simulationist designs, but they take over fast when character
+ niche-protection switches into literal character-defense. The second
+ way, unsurprisingly, is through reward systems: a traditional
+ character-improvement system can switch to a fully-social Step On Up
+ reward system any time anyone wants, especially since it's
+ self-perpetuating.
+
+ Clinton provided this example:
+
+ ... find a copy of Player's Option: Skills and Powers for AD&D2. It
+ took the broken Simulationism of that game and added a huge layer of
+ Gamism to the construction of characters. I remember making up some
+ serious monstrosities with this book.
+
+ The most common Gamist-Drift events in my experience are found in the
+ following games:
+
+ * Gamist-Drifted Champions falls into two types: point-strategizing or
+ movement/action-strategizing. The reward metric is plain old success
+ in in-game conflicts, or demonstrated "superior knowledge" of the
+ game's mathiness.
+ * Gamist-Drifted Amber is characterized by Drama-bullying toward
+ Situation-control, essentially an unstructured version of Pantheon.
+ It can also include point-mongering depending on certain
+ rules-interpretation. The reward metric may be in-game social
+ advancement (e.g. Throne War) or simply moment-to-moment struggles
+ over who's in charge of the narration.
+ * Gamist-Drifted Vampire consists of extensive breakpoint
+ exploitation. The metric is Champions-like character effectiveness,
+ specifically who can ignore as well as deliver the most damage. More
+ subtly, it's also coolness, whoever gets to be perceived as the most
+ real-Goth of the bunch. Many Vampire LARPs tend in this direction as
+ well, with the added benefits of singles-bar interactions.
+
+ All of the above tend toward Powergaming as well, with attendant shifts
+ to the other branches of the Hard Core over time.
+
+ The common reaction to this easy transition, for non-Gamist-inclined
+ players, is pure terror - it's the Monsters from the Id! In-group
+ conflicts over the issue have been repeated from group to group, game to
+ game, throughout the entire history of the hobby.
+
+ One such thing is a tug-of-war regarding following rules vs.
+ not-following rules. What the rules actually say becomes yet another
+ variable even as people argue about whether they should be followed, and
+ when both of these issues are firing at once, nothing can possibly be
+ resolved. The result is always to consider either following or ignoring
+ rules to be "right" when it goes your way.
+
+ Another tack is for some groups and game designers to treat Gamism's
+ easy "in" as a necessary evil and to take an appeasement approach. The
+ "Id" can be controlled, they say, as long as the Superego (the GM) stays
+ firmly in charge and gives it occasional fights and a reward system
+ based on improving effectiveness. This approach may rank among the
+ most-commonly attempted yet least-successful tactic in all of game
+ design. It will never actually work: the Lumpley Principle correctly
+ places the rules and procedures of play at the mercy of the Social
+ Contract, not the other way around. Therefore, even if such a game
+ continues, it has this limping-along, gotta-put-up-with-Bob feel to it.
+
+ Hybridization
+ Simulationist play is an excellent "subordinate" mode for Gamist play. A
+ game designed toward this sort of play is also open to functional Drift
+ toward Sim-only as people toss out that "weird stuff" or that
+ "powergamer" stuff. See Rifts, Shadowrun, and Age of Heroes.
+
+ However, Gamist play is a terrible "subordinate" mode for Simulationist
+ play, because it takes over in a heartbeat, for all the reasons listed
+ above. I should clarify, however, that I'm talking strictly about play
+ itself, not texts. Looking at texts through several editions, the
+ overwhelming tendency is to Drift toward Simulationism. I think this
+ phenomenon has several causes, including pseudo-solutions for trying to
+ prevent Gamist play, specifically the Hard Core.
+
+ Gamist and Narrativist play have an interesting relationship, but it's
+ hard to see or understand unless you have experience with solid
+ non-Simulationist game play, which very few role-players have. Nearly
+ all of us have dealt mainly with Sim-design and Sim-assumptions, with
+ both Gamism and Narrativism as semi-dysfunctional interfering
+ priorities, and resulting in a lot of compromises rather than solutions.
+ We know that when Simulationist play is involved and either or both
+ Gamist and Narrativist play crops up, then a terrible struggle emerges
+ among the modes. The entire White Wolf line of games represents a
+ fascinating case study of the phenomenon, starting with Vampire and, in
+ my view, culminating with a Narrativist direction with Adventure!.
+ Another case study is the history of the Hero System, which by
+ fourth-edition Champions was resolved in favor of Simulationist design.
+
+ But if Simulationist-facilitating design is not involved, then the whole
+ picture changes. Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and
+ interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist and Narrativist play often share
+ the following things:
+
+ * Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the
+ arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any)
+ Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.
+ * Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the
+ point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than
+ established at every point during play in a linear fashion.
+ * More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual
+ fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may
+ be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.
+ * Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics,
+ whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to
+ a pre-stated plan of play.
+
+ Which is a really long-winded way of saying that one or the other of the
+ two modes has to be "the point," and they don't share well - but unlike
+ either's relationship with Simulationist play (i.e., a potentially
+ hostile one), Gamist and Narrativist play don't tug-of-war over "doing
+ it right" - they simply avoid one another, like the same-end poles of
+ two magnets. Note, I'm saying play, not players. The activity of play
+ doesn't hybridize well between Gamism and Narrativism, but it does
+ shift, sometimes quite easily.
+
+ Obviously, if the group is disinclined to do this, it can't happen. So
+ in Gamist vs. Narrativist play, absent Simulationism, it may be a matter
+ of "what we wanna do," and a very easy adjustment to system to reflect
+ that in many cases, because how we "do" things is very similar already.
+
+ The key to the shift seems to be the reward system, not resolution - not
+ about "how we decide what happens" so much as "how we decide that we're
+ having fun." How a group plays Toon, for instance, depends wholly on
+ whether Plot Points are used for scoring or whether they're employed as
+ a multiple-author cartoon-story creation device. Similarly, the weak
+ endgame of Once Upon a Time is resolved locally per group based on
+ whether the group acceptance of the Ending card or the emptying of one's
+ hand is the metric for ending the game.
+
+ If the reward system is less abstract and embedded deeply into the rest
+ of the game, as with Sorcerer and Rune, shifting priorities becomes less
+ easy. The Dying Earth provides a phenomenal example of Narrativist play
+ using previously-Gamist methods, minimizing Drift with three things:
+ non-spiraling game interactions (rock-paper-scissors), limiting returns
+ (e.g. negative exponential improvement), and overwhelming rewards that
+ promote an alternative metagame priority better suited to Narrativism.
+
+ The history of Tunnels & Trolls offers, I think, one of the most
+ powerful examples of the phenomenon in the theory of game design ever,
+ back around 1980. I cannot recommend reading and playing T&T highly
+ enough to the student of Gamist and Narrativist play. I also recommend
+ reading all of their solo adventure scenarios, with special reference to
+ date and author, and also as many copies of the magazine Sorcerer's
+ Apprentice as possible. Here's a conceptual hint: the T&T reward system
+ doesn't award experience points for finding or spending money, but that
+ design feature has nothing to do with "realism" at all. It's set up to
+ prevent double-dipping, which is to say, gaining both attribute
+ improvement and better weapons, armor, and spells through one metric.
+ Thus "money" in this game is really a parallel Adventure-Point system
+ for improving character features that are not attributes.
+
+ Balance: the sort-of issue
+ "Balance" is one of those words which is applied to a wide variety of
+ activities or practices that may be independent or even contradictory.
+ (See the linked threads in the Glossary.) The word is thrown about like
+ a shuttlecock with little reference to any definition at all. That's the
+ current state of the art. So I'm taking time-out on the Gamism-only
+ discussion to go on a full GNS balance rant, because the assumption that
+ Gamist play is uniquely or definitively concerned with "balance" is
+ very, very mistaken.
+
+ Overall
+
+ 1. Compare "balance" with the notion of parity, or equality of
+ performance or resources. If a game includes enforced parity, is it
+ is balanced? Is it that simple? And if not, then what?
+ 2. Bear in mind that Fairness and Parity are not synonymous. One or the
+ other might be the real priority regardless of which word is being
+ used. Also, "Fair" generally means, "What I want."
+ 3. Are we discussing the totality of a character (Effectiveness,
+ Resource, Metagame), or are we discussing Effectiveness only, or
+ Effectiveness + Resource only?
+ 4. Are we discussing "screen time" for characters at all, which has
+ nothing to do with their abilities/oomph?
+ 5. Are we discussing anything to do at all with players, or rather,
+ with the people at the table? Can we talk about balance in regard to
+ attention, respect, and input among them? Does it have anything to
+ do with Balance of Power, referring to how "the buck" (where it
+ stops) is distributed among the members of the group?
+
+ They can't all be balance at once.
+
+ Within Gamist play
+
+ 1. Parity of starting point, with free rein given to differing degrees
+ of improvement after that. Basically, this means that "we all start
+ equal" but after that, anything goes, and if A gets better than B,
+ then that's fine.
+ 2. The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy:
+ magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment
+ into quickness rather than endurance. In this sense, "balance" means
+ that any strategy is at least potentially effective, and
+ "unbalanced" means numerically broken.
+ 3. Related to #2, a team that is not equipped for the expected range of
+ potential dangers is sometimes called unbalanced.
+ 4. In direct contrast to #1, "balance" can also mean that everyone is
+ subject to the same vagaries of fate (Fortune). That is, play is
+ "balanced" if everyone has a chance to save against the Killer Death
+ Trap. Or it's balanced because we all rolled 3d6 for Strength,
+ regardless of what everyone individually ended up with. (Tunnels &
+ Trolls is all about this kind of play.)
+ 5. The resistance of a game to deliberate Breaking.
+
+ Within Simulationist play
+ I am forced to speak historically here, in reference to existing and
+ widespread Simulationist approaches, not to any potential or theoretical
+ ones. So think of Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, and Rolemaster as you read the
+ next part.
+
+ 1. One fascinating way that the term is applied is to the
+ Currency-based relationship among the components of a character:
+ Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame. That's right - we're not talking
+ about balance among characters at all, but rather balance within the
+ interacting components of a single character. I realize that this
+ sounds weird. Check back in the Sim essay to see how important these
+ within-character interactions can be in this mode of play.
+ 2. And, completely differently, "balance" is often invoked as an
+ anti-Gamist play defense, specifically in terms of not permitting
+ characters to change very much relative to one another, as all of
+ them improve. This is, I think, the origin of "everyone gets a
+ couple EPs at the end of each session" approach, as opposed to
+ "everyone gets different EPs on the basis of individual
+ performance."
+ 3. Rules-enforcement in terms of Effectiveness, which is why GURPS has
+ point-total limits per setting. Note that heavy layering renders
+ this very vulnerable to Gamist Drift.
+
+ Within Narrativist play
+ This gets a little tricky because I can't think of a single coherent
+ Narrativist game text in which balance as a term is invoked as a design
+ or play feature, nor any particular instance of play I've been involved
+ in which brought the issue up. But I'm pretty sure that it's a
+ protagonism issue.
+
+ 1. "Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time,
+ or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This
+ is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone.
+ Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as
+ Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so. In game terms,
+ this is a Character Components issue: Hawkeye would have a high
+ Metagame component whereas Thor would have a higher Effectiveness
+ component.
+ 2. Balance of Power is relevant to all forms of play, but it strikes me
+ as especially testy in this mode.
+
+ That's the end of my balance rant, but I beg and plead of anyone who
+ reads this essay: I would very much like never to hear again that (1)
+ Gamist play must be uniquely obsessed with balance, or (2) if play is
+ concerned with any form of balance, it must be Gamist. These are
+ unsupportable habits of thought that pervade our hobby and represent
+ very poor understanding of the issues involved.
+
+ Pitfalls for Gamist design
+ Elegance is the key - which is to say, each piece of the system does
+ what it does, has the implications that it has, and doesn't create wonky
+ spirals or novel relationships that devalue the Step On Up or Challenge
+ parameters. Easy to say, eh? Well, it's damned hard to do, as many an
+ inventor of a new board game or new card game can attest.
+
+ Defend against Breaking through elegance, not through patch rules.
+ Eliminate, from the ground up, all recursiveness, nonfunctional layers,
+ and mathematical ratios.
+
+ Fortune should be present for a Gamist reason, for instance, to
+ introduce uncertainty at specific points, for specific impacts on the
+ goals of play. It can be very rare to absent, or wildly and constantly
+ present, but whatever it is, it needs to "spike" the play-experience
+ rather than dilute it. Using Fortune to model the statistical vagaries
+ of in-game physical effects should be a secondary concern, if present at
+ all.
+
+ A Double-Hose occurs when features of a character are forced downward by
+ a low score in some other feature, and when both features are important.
+ In Tunnels & Trolls, for instance, a low Strength and Dexterity limit
+ one's choice of weapons to lower-damage items, as well as lower the
+ "adds" (bonuses) for attacks. If you must have a Double-hose, make it
+ easy to replace or recoup "losses," and also make it easy to escape the
+ Hose soon through character improvement.
+
+ Beware of end-runs which permit a Challenge to be solved without the
+ requisite Step On Up ability or competence. Playtest the game multiple
+ times with people who are determined to beat it.
+
+ Do not confuse character improvement for "winning," especially if the
+ process is slow and painful. On a related point, do not set the venue
+ and length of a "go," which is to say a unit of success or failure at
+ the Step On Up level, equivalent to the entirety of a long-term,
+ no-set-end, many-session game.
+
+ Don't be a weenie - include loss conditions that can be recognized and
+ that do not undercut play. Decide whether such a loss ends the game as a
+ whole or permits it to continue, but do not commit the common mistake of
+ "loss means sit out" - this is not viable for roleplaying. As soon as
+ you have to let people win so that they'll keep playing, the
+ relationship of Step On Up to Challenge dies nastily, leaving no
+ alternative but to reinvent the game in Hard Core form.
+
+ Beware of Heartbreaker design, particularly the Fantasy ones. Such games
+ are wonderful to write and often very enjoyable among one's group, but
+ ultimately of little interest to anyone else. More subtly, don't fall
+ into the trap of providing Gamist design-features as an appeasement
+ strategy - do it or don't.
+
+ Here's my current shot at a little Gamist design: [18]Black Fire. It's
+ even more alpha-alpha than Mongrel was, for the Simulationism essay, so
+ let's see what happens.
+
+ Troubles for the Gamist
+ GNS incompatibility
+ The basic hassle arises due to Gamism's "easy in" during play. If one or
+ two people get the bug, so to speak, and no one else does, then GNS
+ incompatibility disrupts play. This specific problem - the
+ Drifted-to-Gamist ensconced in an otherwise-oriented group - is so
+ common among Simulationist play especially that it, like the Hard Core,
+ gets labeled with munchkinism. It's usually seen in texts from bitter
+ non-Gamists and their "grow up from munchkinism" rants.
+
+ The following is from the GM section of Arrowflight (2002, Deep 7,
+ author is Todd Downing):
+
+ Dealing with Munchkins The other side to the "cheating" coin is the
+ competitive gamer, a breed also known as "Munchkin." Munchkins are
+ players who dilute the experience through a combination of
+ rules-mongering and overt cheating.
+
+ [alarming rant snipped; includes examples of lying about dice rolls -
+ RE]
+ The best games are those where everyone is playing a role, striving
+ for a goal and working as a unit (that doesn't mean that every
+ character must like every other character, but player must at least
+ properly play the role they've chosen). If you find a Munchkin in your
+ midst, there are numerous ways to deal with him, depending on the
+ offense:
+
+ [methods follow, all relying on the GM having final say in any aspect
+ of the game - RE]
+ ... most players are at least conscientious and intelligent enough not
+ to harm their own playing experience as well as that of the other
+ players, but the exceptions are out there. As they say, "there's one
+ in every group." You don't have to tolerate them in yours.
+
+ Downing's prose is clearly angry. To him, any degree of striving for
+ advantage among players, for anything, constitutes breaking the Social
+ Contract, to the same degree as lying about dice outcomes. Let's break
+ that down, though. He doesn't mind striving for a goal, as long as it's
+ an in-character, in-game goal, and much Gamist play can be consistent
+ with that. And much Gamist play also prioritizes working as a unit with
+ other players. All that's left is the "playing a role" distinction, and
+ Downing's real beef seems to be that "playing a role" is not these
+ players' first priority, i.e., they are not Simulationists in the mode
+ that is reinforced throughout the text of Arrowflight.
+
+ Although I understand where he and many other authors are coming from,
+ which is GNS-synecdoche pure and simple, this and similar anti-Gamist
+ texts go too far - Step On Up play, even with a dose of competition,
+ does not deserve being labeled unconscientious and unintelligent.
+ Basically, the authors confound two things.
+
+ * The player who turns any instance of play into social
+ power-tripping, rivalry, rancor, and disruption. I shall call this
+ person "the Prick." The important thing to realize is that this
+ person is not a Gamist at all, and that Pricks disrupt any form of
+ play; a Simulationist-Gamist mismatch is one thing, but stubborn
+ disruption is another. The fault lies at the Social Contract level,
+ not at the GNS level.
+ * The person who really wants to play Gamist but is in the wrong
+ group, giving rise to secondary dysfunctions of various sorts. This
+ person is usually derided as "the powergamer" or "the munchkin" by
+ the others, but I hasten to add that the fault lies with the GNS
+ mismatch, not with the person as a social human, and that his or her
+ mode of Gamist play may not even include the Hard Core.
+
+ This section is perhaps harsh on the Simulationist approach and
+ assumptions. I also need to acknowledge that a bored Gamist-inclined
+ player, seeing no engaging Challenge, has been known, on occasion, to
+ turn his attention toward the Hard Core, specifically Turnin' and
+ Breaking the game. If it's clear that the other individuals don't
+ appreciate this, and if he or she continues, then what's happened is the
+ Birth of a Prick that some better understanding of contrasting GNS goals
+ might have prevented. I used to see this all the time in Champions
+ groups, and it's horrible. I can at least sympathize with where
+ Downing's coming from.
+
+ Troubles within Gamism
+ Now I'm talking about troubles within Gamism rather than with it. All
+ three modes boast an array of specific dysfunctions, and here are the
+ sorts that Gamists encounter among their own. (Side point: Simulationist
+ dysfunctions include The Impossible Thing, Transparency, and placing
+ "realism" as the core value; Narrativist dysfunctions include
+ railroading, sizzle over steak, and interfering through deprotagonism.)
+
+ The core problem in Gamist dysfunction is not knowing what the Step On
+ Up is actually about. It results in all kinds of things, most usually
+ ramping-up the competitive levels and shifting to the Hard Core, usually
+ in the form of Turnin' and Calvinball beyond what other members of the
+ group want to do. A related problem concerns Author vs. Pawn Stance,
+ which is to say, differing standards for moment-to-moment Exploration of
+ Character. When I see a player completely abandon all Stances but Pawn
+ through several scenes of play, it's like the sinister drumming
+ emanating from the leafy jungle the night before the massacre. Many a GM
+ in a Gamist-oriented group strictly enforces justifications of
+ characters' behavior in an attempt to stave off the problem, although
+ frankly, if he has to resort to decrees, threats, and pleas, it's
+ probably already too late.
+
+ These "core" issues should look similar to the GNS-mismatch issue
+ described above, because it's the Birth of a Prick all over again, only
+ within the Gamist mode.
+
+ The other, more extreme dysfunction arises from the player who is
+ basically a poor sport, or, "the Wimp," which is unfortunately the most
+ common dysfunctional Gamism. It has its parallels in other Step On Up,
+ non-role-playing activities; people are sure to recognize them from
+ their hobbies.
+
+ * Critical commentary that goes beyond simple joshing or observation
+ into abuse: "You suck," delivered to someone who happened to roll a
+ 1 rather than a 20; this is often combined with an inability to
+ tolerate joshing oneself. (What degree of verbiage counts as abuse
+ varies from group to group.)
+ * Manipulating the others' parameters for how-to-play, e.g., tattling
+ to the GM that so-and-so is violating his or her character's
+ alignment.
+ * Stating what another player "should have done" as a form of constant
+ criticism. This is a bigger deal than it looks, as in Gamist play,
+ it's all right not to make the best choice all the time, but
+ personal choice in the Crunch or Gamble is sacrosanct. Essentially,
+ it constitutes protagonism in Gamist play. The Wimp de-protagonizes
+ other players' characters all the time by de-valuing the players'
+ decisions from his armchair. Breaking the Contract: if I can't win,
+ I'll take my football and go straight home; or lashing out at allies
+ as if they were foes; or being socially obnoxious until granted an
+ advantage or perceived entitlement.
+ * Plain wussy-cheating: stating it was "in" when it was "out," and
+ similar, and pouting when the tactic doesn't work, usually escalates
+ to breaking the baseline cooperative Social Contract that underlies
+ the Step On Up in question.
+
+ Bluntly, in any context besides role-playing, this kind of behavior will
+ get your ass kicked for you, or at the very least, instantly excluded
+ from the activity. It's simply not socially tolerable. The real question
+ is why it's widely observed in the role-playing hobby, for which I can
+ see two reasons.
+
+ 1. Wimpiness is often observed among young people as they work out the
+ "rules of life" through all sorts of play-activity, among other
+ unpleasant behaviors such as bullying. This is why adults usually
+ don't play with kids unless they can enforce certain social
+ standards, i.e., act as social mentors in addition to playing the
+ game.
+ 2. I think that the Social Context of role-playing is currently in
+ disarray. It's out of the scope of this essay to go into the issue
+ in detail, but see the [19]Social Context discussion on the Forge
+ for some notions. The short version is that friendships cannot be
+ placed at stake based on in-play events - if they are, then Step On
+ Up places way too much pressure on the agreement to play together at
+ all.
+
+ Confusingly, many Gamist-oriented players call Wimpiness "munchkinism,"
+ making three distinct uses for the term so far.
+
+ The bitterest role-player in the world
+ Meet the low-Step On Up, high-Challenge Gamist, with both "little red
+ competition" dials spun down to their lowest settings.
+
+ This person prefers a role-playing game that combines Gamist potential
+ with Simulationist hybrid support, such that a highly Explorative
+ Situation can evolve, in-game and without effort, into a Challenge
+ Situation. In other words, the social-level Step On Up "emerges" from
+ the events in-play. This view, and its problematic qualities, are
+ extremely similar to that of the person who wants to see full-blown
+ Narrativist values "just appear" from a Simulationist-play foundation.
+ It's possible, but not as easy and intuitive as it would seem.
+
+ His preferred venue for the Gamist moments of play is a small-scale
+ scene or crisis embedded in a larger-scale Exploration that focuses on
+ Setting and Character. In these scenes, he's all about the Crunch:
+ Fortune systems should be easy to estimate, such that each instance of
+ its use may be chosen and embedded in a matrix of strategizing.
+ Point-character construction and menus of independent feats or powers
+ built to resist Powergaming are ideal.
+
+ As for playing the character, it's Author Stance all the way. He likes
+ to imagine what "his guy" thinks, but to direct "his guy" actions from a
+ cool and clear Step On Up perspective. The degree of Author Stance is
+ confined to in-game imaginative events alone and doesn't bleed over into
+ Balance of Power issues regarding resolution at all.
+
+ Related to the Stance issue, he is vehemently opposed to the Hard Core,
+ even to any hints of it or any exploitable concepts that it seizes upon
+ most easily. For instance, reward system that functions at the metagame
+ level is anathema: not only should solid aesthetics should be primary,
+ but he is rightly leery of the Hard Core eye for such reward systems.
+ "Balance" for him consists of the purity of the Resource system and
+ unbroken Currency. It's consistent with the Simulationist Purist for
+ System values and represents further defenses against the Hard Core.
+
+ He probably developed his role-playing preferences in highly-Drifted
+ AD&D2 or in an easily-Drifted version of early Champions, both of which
+ he probably describes as playing "correctly" relative to other groups
+ committed to these games.
+
+ This man (I've met no women who fit this description) is cursed. He's
+ cursed because the only people who can enjoy playing with him, and vice
+ versa, are those who share precisely his goals, and these goals are very
+ easily upset by just about any others.
+
+ * His heavy Sim focus keeps away the "lite" Gamists who like
+ Exploration but not Simulationism.
+ * The lack of metagame reward system keeps away most Gamists in
+ general.
+ * Hard Core Gamists will kick him in the nuts every time, just as they
+ do to Simulationist play.
+ * Most Simulationist-oriented players won't Step Up - they get no
+ gleam in their eye when the Challenge hits, and some are even happy
+ just to piddle about and "be."
+ * Just about anyone who's not Gamist-inclined lumps him with "those
+ Gamists" and writes him off.
+
+ I've known several of these guys. They are bitter, I say. Imagine years
+ of just knowing that your "perfect game" is possible, seeing it in your
+ mind, knowing that if only a few other people could just play their
+ characters exactly according to the values that you yourself would play,
+ that your GM-preparation would pay off beyond anyone's wildest dreams.
+ Now imagine years of encountering all the bulleted points above, over
+ and over.
+
+ At present, I have no suggestions to help them, just as I cannot help
+ those who expect to see "story" consistently emerge from play that does
+ not prioritize it. I hope some dialogue at the Forge might come up with
+ some solutions.
+
+ What I like about Gamism
+ Gamist-inclined players tend to be unashamed regarding their
+ preferences. Their role-playing is easily understood, diverse in
+ application, unpretentious, and often perfectly happy with its role
+ relative to the person's social life at large. The Gamists have a lot to
+ teach the rest of the hobby about self-esteem.
+
+ Some folks seem to think that Gamist play lacks variety, to which I say,
+ "nonsense." Scrabble is "always the same," and it's fun as hell; simple
+ games do not mean simplistic, shallow, or easy. What matters is whether
+ the strategy of the moment is fun. Well-designed, multiple-edged Step On
+ Up activities with fully-developed competition are endlessly diverting
+ and provide an excellent basis for friendship. Anyone who thinks that
+ such things in role-playing necessarily cannot be fun and will
+ necessarily destroy social interactions is badly mistaken - what's
+ needed is better, more diverting, and more multiply-angled design. D&D3E
+ and Rune are just the start, and their overt roots in 1970s-style
+ dungeon crawls indicate, I think, that the hobby's efforts in Gamist
+ design are so far limited to getting its first steps re-created
+ properly.
+
+ What I'm calling for is a better appreciation for functional Gamist
+ role-playing, overtly and even joyfully stated in the games' design and
+ texts. Given the introduction of D&D3E, I think this long-unmet need is
+ being satisfied without my help, but I also think that lots of people
+ might enjoy Gamist play that's not D&D style fantasy. Why not whole new
+ venues, such as romance, or sports!
+
+ Good new designs remind largely unexplored. Where are the sensible
+ reward systems that integrate Challenge and Step On Up in some way, and
+ are not wholly defined by increasing Effectiveness values or promoting
+ tug-of-war over narration? Where are the loss conditions that are not
+ recursive regarding continued play?
+
+ The Hard Question
+ Each of these three essays concludes with a challenge to the role-player
+ who prefers the mode under discussion. For the Gamist, the question is,
+ why is role-playing your chosen venue as a social hobby? There are lots
+ and lots of them that unequivocally fit Step On Up with far less
+ potential for encountering conflicting priorities: volleyball, chess, or
+ pool, if you like the Crunch; horse races or Las Vegas if you like the
+ Gamble; hell, even organized amateur sports like competitive martial
+ arts or sport fishing.
+
+ Do you play Gamist in role-playing because it doesn't hurt your ego as
+ much as other venues might? Is role-playing safer in some way, in terms
+ of the loss factor of Step On Up? Even more severely, are you sticking
+ to role-playing because many fellow players subscribe to the "no one
+ wins in role-playing" idea? Do you lurk like Grendel among a group of
+ tolerant, perhaps discomfited Simulationists, secure that they are
+ disinclined to Step On Up toward you? In which case, you can win against
+ them or the game all the time, but they will never win against you?
+
+ I accuse no one of affirmative answers to these questions; that's the
+ reader's business. But I do think answering them should be a high
+ priority.
+
+ Glossary
+ See the Glossary in the other essays as well as definitions and
+ explanations in the "GNS and related matters" essay.
+
+ Actor Stance
+ the real person determines the character's decisions and actions
+ using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.
+
+ Author Stance
+ the real person determines the character's decisions and actions
+ based on the real person's priorities, Author Stance includes two
+ sub-categories
+ in "Author" Author Stance, the person then retroactively "motivates"
+ the character to perform the acts in question; in "Pawn" Author
+ Stance, he or she does not. Pawn Stance is often identified with
+ Gamist play, but this identification is false for either Stance or
+ Mode.
+
+ Balance
+ this term is undefined. See the discussion in this text.
+
+ Balance of Power
+ how the "buck stops here" authority regarding resolution in play is
+ distributed among members of a role-playing group. This term was
+ first applied to role-playing interactions by Hunter Logan.
+
+ Breaking the game
+ a dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play, characterized by
+ rendering other participants' efforts ineffective without recourse.
+
+ Calvinball
+ a potentially-dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play,
+ characterized by making up the rules of a game as it is played,
+ especially in the immediate context of advantaging oneself and
+ disadvantaging one's opponents. "Tagged you! Tags mean you're out!"
+ "It's Tuesday! Tagging doesn't work on Tuesdays!" This term,
+ obviously, is pulled from the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes.
+
+ Challenge
+ the Situation of play in the Gamist context, specifically, adversity
+ or imposed risk to player-characters of any kind. It's the
+ imaginative arena for the more general Social Contract of Gamist
+ play, called Step On Up.
+
+ Character Components
+ the features of a role-playing character. All are present for all
+ characters, even if one or more is not explicitly part of the textual
+ rules. See Effectiveness, Metagame, and Resource; also see Currency.
+
+ Coherence
+ any functional combination, including singletons, of GNS priorities.
+ Please note that "coherency" is not a word.
+
+ Congruence
+ refers to play in which two or more different GNS modes may be
+ expressed in such a way that they neither interfere with one another
+ nor are easily distinguished through observation; the term was coined
+ by Walt Freitag in [20]GNS and "Congruency". I am revising the term
+ to "congruence" in the interest of grammar.
+
+ Creative agenda
+ the aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest
+ regarding role-playing; replaces all uses of "premise" in the
+ original essay aside from the specific creative agenda of Narrativist
+ play (for which the term "Premise" is retained); Step On Up, The
+ Right to Dream, and Story Now represent the creative agendas,
+ respectively, of Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist play.
+
+ The Crunch
+ an application or type of Challenge, based on high predictability
+ relative to risk.
+
+ Currency
+ the rate-of-exchange relationship within and among Character
+ Components.
+
+ DFK
+ specific resolution mechanics; see Drama, Fortune, and Karma
+
+ Director Stance
+ the real person determines aspects of the environment relative to the
+ character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's
+ knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has
+ not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing,
+ and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the
+ world separate from the characters. Director Stance is often confused
+ with narration of an in-game event, but the two concepts are not
+ necessarily related.
+
+ The Dream
+ commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically in-game cause
+ and pre-established thematic elements. As a top priority for
+ role-playing, the defining feature of Simulationist play. See my
+ essay [21]Simulationism
+ the right to dream.
+
+ Dysfunction
+ simply, role-playing which is not fun. Most Forge discussions presume
+ that un-fun role-playing is worse than no role-playing.
+
+ Effectiveness (a Character Component)
+ any quantities used to determine success or extent of an action.
+
+ Exploration
+ social and personal imagination, creation of fictional events through
+ communicating among one another.
+
+ The Gamble
+ an application or type of Challenge, based on high risk relative to
+ predictability.
+
+ The Hard Core
+ Gamist play with minimal or even absent Exploration; see Breaking the
+ game, Calvinball, Powergaming, and Turnin'.
+
+ Hybrid
+ role-playing with two identifiable GNS priorities in action;
+ empirically, one is apparently always subordinate to the other, and a
+ threesie game is as yet unknown.
+
+ IIEE
+ Intent, Initiation, Execution, and Effect - how actions and events in
+ the imaginary game-world are resolved in terms of real-world
+ announcement and imaginary order of occurrence.
+
+ Incoherence
+ incompatible combination of GNS priorities, applies by definition to
+ play, but often applied secondarily to game design. Abashedness
+ represents a minor, correctable form of Incoherence.
+
+ The Lumpley Principle
+ "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the
+ means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." The
+ author of the principle is Vincent Baker, see [22]Vincent's standard
+ rant
+ power, credibility, and assent and [23]Player power abuse.
+
+ Metagame (general) - all aspects of play that concern non-Explorative
+ matters or priorities; in terms of my layered model, Social Contract and
+ GNS (creative agenda).
+
+ Metagame (a Character Component)
+ all positioning and behavioral statements about the character, as
+ well as player rights to over-ride the existing Effectiveness rules.
+
+ Metagame mechanics
+ where System and Social Contract meet, without Exploration as the
+ medium.
+
+ "Munchkin"
+ a derogatory term used in several different ways, including by
+ non-Gamists vs. Gamists in general, by Hard Core or heavy-Step
+ Gamists vs. Wimps, and by high-Exploration Gamists vs. Hard Core
+ play.
+
+ Powergaming
+ a potentially dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play,
+ characterized by maximizing character impact on the game-world or
+ player impact on the dialogue of play by whatever means available.
+
+ Resource (a Character Component)
+ any available usable pool upon which Effectiveness or Metagame
+ mechanics may draw, or which are reduced to reflect harm to the
+ character.
+
+ Reward System
+ enjoyability payoff that prompts further play, usually expressed in
+ Explorative terms but not restricted to Exploration.
+
+ Screen Time
+ the extent of attention afforded to a given player's Explorative
+ contributions from the other participants.
+
+ Social Context
+ positioning of one's role-playing hobby relative to other humans
+ outside one's gaming group, whether they are role-players or not. See
+ [24]Social context.
+
+ Social Contract
+ all interactions and relationships among the role-playing group. All
+ role-playing is a subset of the Social Contract.
+
+ Stakes
+ what stands to be lost and/or gained during Gamist play; the term may
+ be applied at either or both Step on Up or Challenge levels of play.
+
+ Stance
+ cognitive position of real person to fictional character (see Author,
+ Actor, and Director Stance definitions). Coined by the RFGA on-line
+ discussions.
+
+ Step On Up
+ social assessment in the face of risk. As a top priority of
+ role-playing, the defining feature of Gamist play.
+
+ Story Now
+ producing, heightening, and resolving a Premise. As a top priority of
+ role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play.
+
+ System (character creation, resolution including IIEE, reward system,
+ metagame mechanics)
+ the means by which imaginary events are established during play (see
+ the Lumpley Principle).
+
+ Turnin'
+ a potentially dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play,
+ characterized by treating one another's characters as the primary
+ source of Challenge.
+
+ Wimpiness
+ a dysfunctional form of Gamism characterized by poor sportsmanship,
+ i.e., the unwillingness to accept a loss.
+
+ The Forge created and administrated by [25]Clinton R. Nixon and [26]Ron
+ Edwards.
+ All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their
+ designated author.
+
+References
+
+ Visible links
+ 1. file:///
+ 2. file:///about/
+ 3. file:///donate.php
+ 4. file:///articles/
+ 5. file:///reviews/
+ 6. file:///resources/
+ 7. file:///
+ 8. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com
+ 9. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
+ 10. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
+ 11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=792
+ 12. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=937
+ 13. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=41
+ 14. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4139
+ 15. http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html
+ 16. http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements11feb03.html
+ 17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/20/
+ 18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/22/
+ 19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4258
+ 20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1733
+ 21. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
+ 22. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701
+ 23. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4415
+ 24. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4258
+ 25. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com
+ 26. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com