Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5133195" data-attributes="member: 58197">Ding ding ding! We have a winner.I slogged through the threads linked to above--as much of them as I could stomach, anyhow--and the conclusion I came to was that by the time Ron Edwards got done adding caveats and limitations and "Now, this might seem to imply this, but it actually doesn't," he'd basically eliminated any possibility of making a useful prediction based on his theory.Furthermore, nowhere in any of his posts did I see Ron Edwards lay out a clear definition of just what he means by G, N, and S. The whole thing seems like a giant soapbox erected for the purpose of pontificating on games at great length.I agree with the other posters who say the GDS framework is much more workable than GNS. It's clearly defined and it makes a prediction: Each gamer has a gaming style which can be defined as some mix of G, D, and S, mechanics can be defined as furthering G, D, or S, and matching gamers to mechanics tends to produce happy gamers.Whether this prediction is correct or not is another question. But it is a prediction and it is at least somewhat testable.</blockquote>