Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5782583" data-attributes="member: 177">Negative, but accurate*.  When writing on GNS, Edwards claimed that a gamer held one of three mutually exclusive aims.  His posit was that the problem with most games at the time was that they tried to satisfy all three aims at once, when the player really only wanted one.Needless to say, I think Edwards was incorrect.  I think WotC's market research in 1999 rather blows that part of GNS out of the water.Technically inaccurate.  Edwards first had the "threefold model", sometimes also called "GDS theory".  Here is it Game, Drama, and Simulation.   Edwards then revised it to GNS.  He later discarded GNS, and came up with the Big Model, which shares some ideas with its predecessor, but much of it is redefined, so it isn't really the original GNS that is part of the Big Model.*cite:  <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html" target="_blank">System does Matter</a>, by Edwards: "Three player aims or outlooks have been suggested, in that a given player approaches a role-playing situation pretty much from one of them, with some, but not much, crossover possible."..."Here I suggest that RPG system design cannot meet all three outlooks at once."..."To sum up, I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks."</blockquote>