Gamism

Ron Edwards's essay on Gamism, "Gamism: Step On Up" is yet another interesting read with a lot of fantastic observations, insights, and assertions. It's a fraught topic, and I think he handles it with great skill.

He notes that Gamism "operates at two levels: the real, social people and the imaginative, in-game situation," and he labels the social goal is to "Step On Up" and the in-game situation as "Challenge."

This division is, I think, especially insightful because each of the component parts are understandable by everyone, whether they identify as someone who seeks Gamist entertainment or not. And I find his explanation of the social dynamic of Gamism very evocative:

"Gamist play, socially speaking, demands performance with risk, conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually at risk can very--for this level, though, it must be a social, real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem. . . . This is the whole core of the essay, that such a commitment is fun and perfectly viable for role-playing" (Edwards's emphasis).

This definition reveals the Gamist in all of us since there is social risk involved in roleplaying to begin with. Every time someone plays the GM, they are hoping that they hold up their part of the story well enough so that everyone enjoys themselves, and there's something Gamist in that (unless you are of course simply forced to GM because no one else in your group will). That risk and that fear is part of what makes being a GM so fun and rewarding.

Even in groups that love improv-style roleplaying, which would be the last place you might expect a Gamist play style to be enjoyed, there is a real pride that comes in contributing that perfect element to the story you are creating together. In some larger online communities of gaming, a player can even get a minor level of fame for being an excellent player. That desire to have that ranking isn't just pride, it's the enjoyment of that "performance with risk."

I don't point that out to suggest any of those players are Gamist, but to show that that inclination is perfectly recognizable (and appreciable) even in people who don't actively seek Gamist play.

The other excellent angle in Edwards' approach is pulling "competition" out of the definition of Gamism and making it a detachable variable, so that there is Gamism play with and without competition.

I find it all very compelling. I began reading this essay because I wanted to read Edwards's essays in order before reaching "Narrativism: Story Now," knowing that that final essay relied on all this work that came before it--but I ended up really enjoying the essay as a thing unto itself. ​