Log in

No account? Create an account

A GNS Question

« previous entry | next entry »
Apr. 25th, 2007 | 10:26 pm

John Kim's blog had a post about GNS and his interest or lack thereof these days. I have, as you know, been somewhat absent from this whole little mad field, myself, and I found myself thinking, "So what do I think about it these days?"

As I turn that over in my head, possibly profitably but possibly not, I have some questions for you. Please insert "and the Big Model" after GNS if that is helpful to you; I don't really care.

1. Do you find GNS useful in your current play?

2. Did you find it so in the past?

3. If you design games, do you think about this while you design (including general mulling over)?

4. Did you do so in the past?

5. Do you think that GNS should change and develop significantly?

6. Practically speaking, do you think it will change noticeably in the next year or so?

7. When you see someone make a GNS-based remark somewhere on the web, do you react with interest, annoyance, or what?

8. What is your overall assessment of what GNS has achieved in the past?

9. What is your assessment of its future?

You don't have to answer all that, obviously, but I am genuinely interested to know, as I see very, very different things about this.

Oh, one more thing: is it worth creating a poll like this? I've never done one.

Link | Leave a comment | | Flag

Comments {12}


Re: Some thoughts on GNS

from: jiituomas
date: Apr. 26th, 2007 11:11 am (UTC)

1.-4. Certainly not.

5. Hell, yes.

6. Hell, no.

7. Depends heavily on where I see it. Usually with interest, as it tends to denote at least some interest in analyzing role-playing beyond simple play.

8. It has given us some vocabulary, flawed but still convenient, which has fostered improved communication about the field.

9. GNS and its successors will survive, live and well, on the Forge and the post-Forge blogs for years. It will be alive and strong long after all the serious research and theory on role-playing has in reality made it completely obsolete.

Reply | Parent | Thread