Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8622010" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Let me again, be clear -- I'm not a particular fan of the GNS model.  I think that the Edwards essays laying it out are full of thought provoking ideas, and there's lots of good though there.  I think that Narrativsim as a concept was well helped, and that we wouldn't likely have such games like PbtA games or FitD games or even Burning Wheel be as good as they are without the good thinking the Forge put together.  That said, I tend to find GNS to be most useful as a thinking device rather than a categorization one.  That the ideas presented are useful while the framework is too stilted and rigid to be functional.  I would hesitate to actually label a game G, N, or S because drift is so very available to many.  I think that as design concepts -- what do I want this design to focus on -- the GNS model provides some excellent thinking, but little practical advice for design.  It's aimed at the high level and drawing clear distinctions in what is a fairly muddy landscape.  It's like naming the highest mountain in three different, adjacent ranges, but that doesn't define the exact boundaries of those mountain ranges, just a defining and relatable peak.  So, useful as a navigation aid, but not a detailed map.</p></blockquote><p></p>