diff -r 624c702e7fec -r 90028d83d4ea references/gamism_step_on_up.txt --- /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