Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PrecociousApprentice" data-source="post: 4223981" data-attributes="member: 61449">I self identify as narrativist with gamist tendencies. I think that there is an inherent bias in the current GNS theory literature that is tilted toward narrativism. The way most of the essays are writen, nar seems both the most pure or noble form of role play, and the most difficult for players to pull off, making it the most worthy pursuit. Besides Purist for Systems, sim play seems doomed to fail because any model can only be totally consistent with itself, and so simulating anything external to the system is doomed to be imperfect. Gam sounds base, even though the point of gaming is fun. So inherently, I think that there is bias in the theory. It stands to reason that the bias would lean that way considering that the theory's creator seems planted firmly in the nar group. (Can't say for sure, considering I'm a noob at this, but that is the way it appears to me.)Anyway, I think that there has to be a better way to explain gaming than the current theory.</blockquote>