Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 8255208" data-attributes="member: 75787">To me, the fact that the two people who seem most supportive of the theory cannot agree on whether the singular most popular RPG is in one category or not, and that the entire &quot;culture&quot; of 5E changes when you look at all books or just rulebooks, argues very convincingly that the theory is vague and not terribly applicable.I work in analytic sciences, and my bias is that if a model isn't obviously applicable to the most common form of data, it's not a good model. The characteristics the blog discusses are fine and quite useful, but the attempt to create a categorization based on it just doesn't seem to fit even the most popular game. I honestly (really!) cannot see that this model does anything more effectively than asking &quot;where do you fit on the GNS spectrum?&quot; question --- so long as you allow the answer &quot;I have no clue what you're talking about, can we just play?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gorgon Zee, post: 8255208, member: 75787"] To me, the fact that the two people who seem most supportive of the theory cannot agree on whether the singular most popular RPG is in one category or not, and that the entire "culture" of 5E changes when you look at all books or just rulebooks, argues very convincingly that the theory is vague and not terribly applicable. I work in analytic sciences, and my bias is that if a model isn't obviously applicable to the most common form of data, it's not a good model. The characteristics the blog discusses are fine and quite useful, but the attempt to create a categorization based on it just doesn't seem to fit even the most popular game. I honestly (really!) cannot see that this model does anything more effectively than asking "where do you fit on the GNS spectrum?" question --- so long as you allow the answer "I have no clue what you're talking about, can we just play?" [/QUOTE]

Verification