Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 2209928" data-attributes="member: 20239">I guess we just have completely different understandings of what the GNS model is trying to say.  It appears to me that the Laws model takes a number of very different aspects of the roleplaying experience (gamer personality, play style, play purpose, commitment to the game, etc.) and tries to describe the individual player in terms of how all of these parts interact.  At the opposite end of the spectrum, I see the GNS model as dissecting two of those things out of the mix (play style and play purpose), examining them independently and refusing to define the individual player based on the entire spectrum of their play, except on the level of being able to say that individuals may have a preference for a particular style or purpose.  To me, that clearly says the two models are describing different things as well as examining their subjects at very different "magnifications".If the GNS model offered no further criteria for division than G, N and S I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.  The fact that Ron thoroughly describes criteria that divide each of the three main branches of the model into more specific categories, IMO, addresses the issue of the three main categories being too broad.Excellent point.  You improved greatly on my analogy.  My rejoinder would be, which is the more accurate way of describing a pizza?  I would submit that both methods are equally accurate.  I would also submit that both methods are not universally useful.  If you're tweaking a recipe to improve the taste, you examine the ingredients.  If you're breaking down the nutrition information, you examine the chemical components.  Simply stating that pizza contains eggs, flour, butter, cheese, tomatoes and pepperoni isn't very useful if you're trying to determine how much Sodium it contains.I think here you're talking more about human psychology than the actual validity of the models.  If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a model that allows the vast majority of gamers to exclude "problem" players from the particular group they identify themselves with is generally better than one which lumps many other "good" players in with the "problem" players.  While it may make such a model more popular, I don't think it necessarily makes it more accurate.  The GNS model does segregate Gamism (for example) into sub-groups based on other criteria, like Crunch vs. Gamble preferences.  It also clearly defines the Hardcore Gamism phenomenon (strongly related to The Power Gamer group in Laws model) and makes it clear that it's merely a minor sub-category of Gamism.The two main problems I have with the Laws model are that 1) it does nothing to describe how the player groupings are interrelated; and 2) it lumps personality, style and purpose all under one heading and assumes that the limited definitions it gives are adequate to describe the behavior of all gamers (i.e. it's a one dimensional model).  For example, let's say I've got a player who always speaks in character, always creates characters with deep and interesting personal backgrounds and always plays Fighters or Barbarians dedicated to stamping out evil, who seek every opportunity to kick butt on the teeming chaotic hordes in the nearest dungeon (but give long sylliloques on the righteousness of their cause both before and after the battle).  It seems like he would fit both the Method Actor and the Butt Kicker profile.  Where do you put him in the Laws model?  If you plug him into either one, you're ignoring many aspects of his play style and personality.  If you simply say he's some mix of both (50/50 or 60/40 or whatever) then the Laws "model" doesn't really define anything concrete, it just offers some colorful descriptions that may or may not apply to any real world archetypes.The reason I really prefer GNS or GDS over Laws is that both exclude player personality as a factor in their broad definitions, recognizing that things such as preference for "screen time", "stance" and level of player control over the play environment ("GM fullness") vary over all the major divisions and aren't tied to a particular one.</blockquote>

Verification