Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8633194" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I don't think its so much unnecessary, but often less than useful because it ends up making assumptions that look good in theory but are not congruent with people's actual wants and needs in the wild.  I'm a big proponent of having some terminology to help with discussion, but I'm also pretty firm in that I think as a model develops, it tends strongly to make overly specific assumptions of how it applies.   That's a big part of my objections to the exclusivity part of GNS; I don't think it much resembles what most people want in play.   It well represents a few very specific subsets of play at the price of not engaging well with the rest.This does not mean I don't think its worthwhile to delve into a bit deeper into what people actually want from a game than is usually done; but I don't think an overly detailed model actually helps with that in some cases, and in the end, the biggest issues aren't about not having the terminology to talk about what people want, and people not wanting to talk about it all for various reasons that no set of terminology and modelling will help.</blockquote>