After having reread Ron Edward’s Article on Gamism:
And having played several indie RPGs, as well as attempted to design some of my own, I have to say this:
I like Gamist play. I like it alot. I’m even more certain of that now than when I first read the GNS articles and was exposed to them.
(And within Gamisim, I prefer Crunch over Gamble, which my ruminations suggest is hard to do well.)
What does this mean to me? Now that’s a more difficult question. RE’s explanation of CCGs as portable, customizable wargames really clicked. I’m a big CCG fan, and Shadowfist is absolutely my favorite game (CC or otherwise) right now.
But yeah, if a game doesn’t have a Challenge (that’s with a capital C there… as in “Could there be a CHALLENGE buried in the ground? DOUBLE DEUCE!!!1”) for me to face, I’m going to get bored and disrupt your game.
(Note that CHALLENGES are essential for Narrativist play. They just get labeled differently. They aren’t for Sim play, which is why I make Sim players cry.)
If your game does have a CHALLENGE, you’re going to find me interested, committed, and pulling crazy shit out of nowhere.
(Since this is my blog and I’m allowed to ramble, let me recall the Lamest Vampire Game Ever. Absolutely nothing happened. I decided one night that I would rather walk home in the rain than play in that game.)
Step On Up or Go Home, Biznatch.