Talk:GNS theory

Section titles for Creative Agendas

The subtitles to the sections Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism, respectively: Prove Yourself, Say Something and Be There, can, as far as I know, not be grounded in any existing work, and as such seem to be something akin to original research or synthesis work. I suggest they be suppressed or duly referenced. CBoeckle (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Too Narrow

My first post in this discussion is going to be a criticism.

I disagree that the GNS types are mutually exclusive. Examining my own role-playing, I would put either Narrativist or Simulationist first, whichever one didn't make first in second place, and put Gamist last.

In much the same way as I feel Dungeons & Dragons 3.X's two styles of play are too broad, I feel that the GNS designations are too narrow. While old, I prefer the not too narrow, not too broad styles, of play from AD&D2E's Campaign Sourcebook and Category Guide. The D&D3.X styles of play do include some of these in their broad descriptions of styles of play.

This is only one view, but if enough people share it, it might belong under a criticism heading. Bear Eagleson 17:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you realise that GNS is meant to describe individual decisions, not 'play styles'? Perhaps during roleplaying 50% of your decisions is N, 40% is S and 10% is G - that is utterly consistent with GNS theory. 132.229.186.94 09:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have reread it, yes. What I am disagreeing with is the "mutually exclusive" point. Bear Eagleson 15:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not any of this is true is irrelevant. This is a wikipedia article describing the theory as presented. If you want to debate the theory, there are other places to do that. It's also probably significant to note that GNS has been superseded by the Big Model, which does not have a wikipedia article yet. Joshua BishopRoby 17:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree with JBR, there's no need for editing this article.Vaxalon

Links that need updating

The link to the breakdown of RPG players did not work for me anymore. I found a version on archive.org here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200706052928/http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:5D3D:6100:B07B:941D:DC3D:9012 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The link to Does System Matter is no longer valid, does anyone know of a backup source for that article that could be included in the article?TheDragonMaster 20:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to be fixed. MathieuLeocmach (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Narrativism intro

The second half of the first paragraph is confusing as hell. Would someone who understands its intent please either rewrite it, or at least provide a concrete example? Emurphy42 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That quote does not make any sense. I remain unenlightened about narrativism131.122.52.166 (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I just spent about an hour cleaning up section one of this mess of an article. Perhaps it's better now. If not, I'm actually trying to learn about this topic so I may have the knowledge required to fix it shortly. Either way, I'll be working on the rest of the article later today. --Kitsunegami (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion?

There is a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNS Theory going on about the deletion of this article! --Arnauld (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The result was Keep/No consensus for deletion --Arnauld (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (according to JForget 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

The Big Model

"The Big Model" link is to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted. Perhaps the referenced to it should be deleted or made more generic. 174.127.225.245 (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I updated those links yesterday to point to the Big Model article on the RPG Talk Wikia. 71.183.167.224 (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bias and Citation

This article lacks citation, definition, or cross reference for many terms introduced, and no effort was made to explain or extrapolate how those terms apply. The terms themselves seem to be used in such a way to imply bias: without citation or definition they take on implied meanings via characterizing words and tone.

I took a modest stab at removing a few blatant characterizations, but left more subtle or questionable examples in place. I did so because I felt that the lack of citation, and the more egregious phrases I trimmed (i.e. "to the point of satire") may have influenced my perception of bias across the board.

I am obviously not a regular wiki editor, but do understand bias and appreciate the need for citation when introducing unrelated or ill-defined terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.104.22 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are some secondary sources to consider. I'll see about putting them in.

• http://isabout.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/what-gns-theory-claims/
• http://retroculturejournal.wordpress.com/about/role-playing-game-theory/
• http://arcanagames.ca/2013/03/25/gns_theory/

John Kim (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)