GNS - does one preclude another?

[Ourph]

he'd basically eliminated any possibility of making a useful prediction based on his theory.

1 - It's a model, not a theory.
2 - Models are descriptive, not predictive.

 

[Dausuul]

1 - It's a model, not a theory.
2 - Models are descriptive, not predictive.

Okay, I can buy that (although you should eventually be able to build some kind of theory on top of your model or it's not a very useful model). But if GNS is purely a modeling tool, then the lack of clear definitions becomes even more damning, and GDS stands out even more sharply as the better alternative.

 

[LostSoul]

Mea culpa. "Try analyzing play of Torg."

Why would PCs having reality-altering abilities make it more or less difficult?

 

[nedjer]

I dunno. If I walked into a goth club, asked appropriate questions, and then told them that 22% of they enjoyed industrial trance music, and said that for purposes of discussion we were using the term "trancegoths" for those folks, I don't think I'd see much outrage. I expect the DJ would be interested in the findings, and might be interested in seeing if the requests he got mirrored my results.



It is, if they asked properly, and that's what we told them. Are you of the impression that there's anyone around here who is not aware that imagined brutal violence is part of the game? When a significant part of our rulebooks are about combat? Anyone is going to be surprised to learn that some folks like the combat system more than other parts of the game?

Except that the goths are not being stereotyped in a negative way and are being asked about what they're actually doing. Tabletop RPG combat isn't about fantasy violence. That's a simplistic label. It's about the fun, challenges and satisfaction of showing tactical awareness, using the rules well, getting a result, playing with your mates. The amount of actual graphic violence at an RPG table is less than a Tom and Jerry movie, let alone Left 4 Dead 2.

So, it's completely misleading to attempt to brand tabletop RPG players as enjoying fantasy violence, even if a proportion of them consider it 'cool'. Which is where it's really at. The tired, old business of marketing tabletop RPGs as 'dark' or a little 'edgy', which gets them turned away from thousands of homes, schools and libraries. Sure, make your games 'edgy' or 'dark' thoruogh your choice of games and how you play them. But killing off your future to make a lame attempt to appear 'sexy' on the bookshelves.

 

[resistor]

So, it's completely misleading to attempt to brand tabletop RPG players as enjoying fantasy violence, even if a proportion of them consider it 'cool'. Which is where it's really at. The tired, old business of marketing tabletop RPGs as 'dark' or a little 'edgy', which gets them turned away from thousands of homes, schools and libraries. Sure, make your games 'edgy' or 'dark' thoruogh your choice of games and how you play them. But killing off your future to make a lame attempt to appear 'sexy' on the bookshelves.

OK, calm down for a moment. First, you're WAY overreacting. Second, you're arguing against something that nobody here has claimed.

The WotC marketing research used a statistical mechanism called clustering. Basically, you ask people a bunch of questions, and then you use statistical techniques to determine "groups" of respondents that had similar answers.

All anyone has done is to point out that, data obtained from that, several groups appeared that can be understood subjectively, by looking at the similar answers that define the group, as things like: Power Gamer, Strategist, Method Actor, etc.

That doesn't say anything at all about why people fall into those groups, it just helps us understand the coarse-grained reasons for why people enjoy playing the game. It is not in any way a judgment about those groups, but a quantitative observation from empirical data.

 

[nedjer]

OK, calm down for a moment. First, you're WAY overreacting. Second, you're arguing against something that nobody here has claimed.

The WotC marketing research used a statistical mechanism called clustering. Basically, you ask people a bunch of questions, and then you use statistical techniques to determine "groups" of respondents that had similar answers.

All anyone has done is to point out that, data obtained from that, several groups appeared that can be understood subjectively, by looking at the similar answers that define the group, as things like: Power Gamer, Strategist, Method Actor, etc.

That doesn't say anything at all about why people fall into those groups, it just helps us understand the coarse-grained reasons for why people enjoy playing the game. It is not in any way a judgment about those groups, but a quantitative observation from empirical data.

Now I'm soaking my hair in lime, making it very pointy and covering my head with woad - it's a Scottish thing "those groups" don't exist. They're a figment of your statistical imagination. Those categories are too broad and ill-defined to be remotely empirical.

 

[Umbran]

Those categories are too broad and ill-defined to be remotely empirical.

"Empirical" does not equate to "narrowly and extremely precisely defined".

All being empirical means is that they are gained through observation and evidence. Empirical findings are rather often broad. It is the theorists who get to define things down to the last iota. The real world is often more sloppy

 

[pawsplay]

1 - It's a model, not a theory.

So either it's a theoretical model, or it's an extrusion of the posterior.

2 - Models are descriptive, not predictive.

No. You are wrong.

 

[Umbran]

No. You are wrong.

Some models are predictive. Others are merely descriptive. His absolute (no models are predictive) is not accurate, but your full rejection here sort of implies that all models (including GNS) are predictive - and that's not the case either.

GNS, as a model, is not predictive.

 

[pawsplay]

Models resemble the things they are modeling. An economic model predicts market behavior. A scale model of the Eiffel tower resembles the Eiffel tower. All models have predictive power. Within the limitations of the model, they are as the thing itself. The word itself comes from modus, meaning measure or type. I defy anyone to come up with a useful model of anything that does not meaningfully predict something.

GNS does purport to predict many things. It purports to predict:
- That a given preference of play style can be satisfied by G-N-S elements
- That the definition of G-N-S are elements that constitute G, N, or S play
- That it is more useful than other models for describing what happens in play and prescribing remedies to dysfunctional agendas
- That coherent play is better than incoherent play

There are numerous claims made by Ron Edwards that can be compared to reality. It is "not predictive" only in the sense that it is a very bad model.