Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5135069" data-attributes="member: 177">To me, it is somewhat better than a paperweight.  It is, at its best, a conceptual framework we can use for purposes of analysis and consideration.  it does not in and of itself, predict anything about a particular game, player, or GM, but it does give us a point of view from which we can think about games, players, and GMs.Consider, if you will, tarot cards.  If you know the symbolism of the cards, and you lay them out, you can produce a picture of your past, present, and future.  It is a vague picture, but a picture it is, and pictures are models.Are the tarot cards themselves predictive?  I will not make a claim on that score.  What I will claim is that even for those who don't believe in their predictive power, the cards can provide some clarity and food for thought.  The picture provided gives you hooks onto which you can tack your own reality.  By forcing yourself to think in the terms of the cards' framework, you think a bit beyond your own usual mental paths and ruts - "out of the box" so to speak, and you may consider things you'd otherwise pass over, or consider giving higher or lower priority to real things than you would have without the cards.That's what GNS (and GDS) theories are, as far as I am concerned.  Frameworks to think from that may not be what we are habituated to - formalisms that may help shed light on what we are doing.</blockquote>