Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2209054" data-attributes="member: 27012">Because they ultimately don't describe two different things.  I spent years discussing the GDS on rec.games.frp.advocacy and was an active participant there when it was created.  It deals with play styles and was designed to describe why players like or don't like certain types of games.  The Laws model deals with play styles.  The GNS deals with play styles.  The Blacow model deals with play styles.  The WotC model deals with play styles.  And it's not that difficult to map the GDS onto the Blacow or WotC model.  It's not a coincidence that they all have three or four categories.  And I think the Laws model is an improvement because it makes a few important distinctions that the other models not only don't make but because that lack of distinction in other models is one of the main reasons why they are so divisive and are constantly argued over.My standard for judgement is how well the tools work for (A) diagnosing problems and suggesting solutions and (B) accurately categorizing styles into groups with substantial similarities and minor differences.  If a model groups highly incompatible styles together in the same category, I tend to consider it a poor model.No.  It's like looking at a pizza as a collection of ingredients or a collection of chemicals.  It's simply a different way of discribing a pizza.</blockquote>