That’s arguably true. As soon as there are rules, you can try to “game” them. (Provided there is choice, of course, which is for example minimal in Mensch Ärgere Dich Nicht, but extremely plentiful in some RPGs. But then again, with no choice at all, do you even have a game?)
Gamism-heavy rules, however, or Gamism-focussed games, would provide more than that. They would strive to intentionally make their rules so that competitive (or at least efficiency-focussed) play is enabled and supported by the rules and the options and choices they open up.
In this light, I would modify the above statement to “all rules enable gamism”.
Gamist-focussed rules, however, encourage or even demand it. (Cf. most board games)
[quote]
I agree with what you’re saying, but I’m not so sure about this example. I’m probably going against the consensus once again, but I’ve always felt that level of detail and realism are two separate things.[/quote]
All the best rules try to elegantly bridge the gap between simulation and gamism, I think.
So sure, the “recoil” thing provides for believability and realism. But it can also serve to balance different weapons against each other, make different combat actions (single shot, short burst, full auto fire) viable in different situations, and even balance different character concepts against each other.
@ level of detail vs. realism:
Sure thing, you can have very detailed rules for magic spell casting, and that’s by no means “realistic” in any conceivable way, shape, or form.
Also, you can have extremely detailed combat which is at the same time utterly unrealistic, perhaps even in its basic assumptions.
(D&D anyone? Started out as a simple, “well we have to roll something for when we fight in an RPG” system, went on to become much more complex and detailed… but still never changed some of its underlying principles and assumptions. Anyone who has actually been in a fight (unarmed or otherwise) knows that its really not about hit points, and also that AC is a highly abstracted and essentially dubious concept)
[Note I’m not bashing the system as such. I’m just denying it any claims to “realism” in its combat mechanics 
]
Hm, but for the other way around… can anyone think of examples for rules that are very simple, but very realistic at the same time?
They probably exist, but I can’t think of any right now…
That’s an interesting observation indeed.
And I think it leads us to the core of many misunderstandings about “story” in RPGs.
See, there’s (at least) two ways you could define “story”, especially in an RPG.
-
the stuff that happens because people (players) do things and the environment (DM) reacts and, yeah well, stuff happens. Producing story, right?
-
an “authored” (or preordained, or railroaded) story previously conceived by the DM, with a few “forks” where PCs can make decisions that will influence the outcome, but basically a predetermined road to success / adventure path / short story / whatever…
I’ll assume that the first of these has always happened in RPGs. That doesn’t need rules, it just happens. Whether it necessarily produces story of “good literary/narrative quality” is a different question, but it does produce (some kind of) story. Because events happened and then people did things and then other events happened.
The second version of story may have arisen out of a desire to more closely emulate our hobby’s source material (mostly books, by Tolkien, Howard, Vance, Moorcock, you name 'em…)
By that time, I imagine a solid assumption of “the DM being the one in power over the game world” combined with “the players being along for the ride / trying to survive the experience” was firmly in place in the hobby and its community.
It seems therefore only natural that things developed like they did - premade adventure modules, homebrew railroad fests, scripted scenarios, etc. became the height of what GMs the world over strived for and found to be “good Roleplaying ™”
Now, perhaps sadly (for some), more and more of us post-modern assholes of players have become interested in tearing down that hierarchy between DM and players, questioning, at first timidly, then more fiercely, the authority over “The Story ™” held by one person at the table at the expense of all other participants’ chance to contribute their own ideas to it.
Participationism stopped being good enough, and hard railroad began getting rejected with increasing vehemency as well.
We are your players and we want our say in that game that we are part of. This is Democracy!
Remember that, without us, you wouldn’t even have a game…
Revolutionary pep-talk aside, though Several movements have arisen to adress these points.
I think perhaps the central question of most of them was: “how can we have good story, but without it being in the hands of only one person at the table?”
A good question, and a hard one too, as anybody who has ever attempted to co-author anything (a story, a game, whatever) with someone else will know. It becomes harder the more people are involved, even with the planning time, and the option to go back and forth that e.g. writing a novel affords you. How much harder must it be in the “impromptu” environment of an RPG, then?
Some game writers have tried to solve this with elaborate rules, intended to provide a framework for improvised cooperative storytelling.
(City of Birds, My Life with Master, Primetime Adventures…)
Others have steered closer to the traditional RPG formula (or the various formulae), but added Benny points, Action points, or some other player resource for spontaneous (but guided, i.e. limited) intervention / contribution.
(I have never played many of these, but I think Mouse Guard falls here, also D&D 4 had Action Points, and Star Wars Edge of the Empire also gives players a lot of input…)
Finally (perhaps?), a third group has decided to return to more old-school ways of handling it. So called “Retro Clones” used to be all the rage for a couple years (and maybe still are? No idea tbh).
Arguably, a part of their appeal is also to do with “story” in some way, shape or form…
Does that answer the question? Was there even a question? Will we ever find out what the One True Way of RPGing is?
I guess I doubt it 
