G/N/S epiphany

[hong]

I didn't say that it's inherently hateable, I just said *I* hate it. If it were a food it would be beets.

YM brussels sprouts, HTH.

 

[Henry]

"Now see here, guy! You're not dealing with any dumb two-bit trigger-pumping morons...

"And I write novels! Though I haven't had any of them published yet, so I better warn you, I'm in a _meeeeeean_ mood!"

Just to clarify, though, the above quote rokkkkz teh houzzz. Nothing like a little Douglas Adams to brighten the day.

 

[diaglo]

42 ...

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

It also does not cover the full spectrum.

Those who game for therapeutic purposes, for example. Or socializing. Or to learn.

Like RGB (which is a <i>really good</i> analogy, btw), it only covers a large portion of the possible spectrum of colors. And like RGB, CMYK, and any other attempt to boil the color palette down to a few basic parts, there are holes that leave people out.

And as Hong said, it also tends to fulfill the primary purpose of giving us names to call one another.

 

[Umbran]

Well, anyone who follows G/N/S theory knows that.

Yes, everyone who fully follows the theory knows that.

Unfortunately, like most theories of psychology and social interaction, it is more frequently used by people who only sort-of know it. Most folk (gamers included) do not know how these things are supposed to be used, and why.

The G/N/S Theory is, in a nutshell, a set of gamer stereotypes. Human beings are pretty good about using stereotypes on hairbrushes and apples. But we are notoriously bad about using them on other people.

 

[Dogbrain]

What?

It's a fairly concise classification of the various reasons that people play RPG's.

So is "black/white/yellow" as a way to classify human "races", and it's also pretty damned WRONG if you try to apply it to reality in any but the crudest and least precise of terms.

 

[WaterRabbit]

It's a fairly concise classification of the various reasons that people play RPG's. Like any generalization, it has its faults, but what's hateable about it?

And about as useful as on a boar hog.

When used to classify games it depends upon the perspective of the person doing the classification. I have seen arguments ad naseum from different g/n/s supporters trying to classify a given game.

And when applied to gamers it is totally off and implies a superiority of one type over others. The best classification of gamers I have heard is: process vs. goal-oriented gamers.

I have yet to see anything useful develop from the g/n/s model despite 5+ years of discussion. But hey, that's just me Mr. Vegas.

 

[DrZombie]

You guys are so totally missing the point here. The reason being that you missed a class : The Boozers.

I mainly game to have a quiet drink with me mates, while the wife and kid are upstairs snoring hapilly away.

So we might start as N, then we'll go to S, slide down to G, and next thing you know we're all D, because we've had to much B. And after a while we all have to leave the gaming table evry half hour because we have to P.

Life can be simple.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Lordy, I hate G/N/S theory.

Preach on brother, preach on.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The main problem with g/n/s theory to me at least is that the narrative and simulation are part of the game and the enjoyment thereof, making a gamist inherently part narrativist and part simulationist. One can also take that tack that the narrative is part of producing a living breathing world, making the simulationist part narrativist, or that the simulation of the world produces the story, making the narrativist a simulationist too.

It's like the philosophical argument of knowledge, belief and truth - it's all gobbeldegook made up by someone who likes circular arguments.