?

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 |

Comments {12}

Christian Griffen (xenopulse)

(no subject)

from: chgriffen
date: Apr. 26th, 2007 03:56 pm (UTC)
Link

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

Yes, in implicit ways of playing with a purpose.

2. Did you find it so in the past?

Very much so, but it took me going through a thread explaining my issues with my then-group and Ron working it over a couple of times. But then, it helped me a lot to understand what's going on. He really was spot-on, and I could enjoy the game much more because my expectations changed.

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

Yes.

4. Did you do so in the past?

Yes. Beast Hunters is a direct child of the Gamism article and related discussions on the Forge, mixed with my actual play experiences and desires.

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

The presentation of GNS should change and develop significantly. There are other theories to fill in the parts that it's not covering for me (and I'm not a 100% proponent of the theory as it stands, or rather, I'm developing a perspective from a somewhat different angle).

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

It's always changing, but it's hard to observe that, because it's mostly doing so in isolated conversations.

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

These days, it usually goes right past me.

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

It's kicked off a whole range of purposeful indie game design, it's helped a whole lot of people in becoming aware of their play preferences and group dynamics, it's influenced many designs, and as Ben said, some of the very basics are mostly taken for granted today.

9. What is your assessment of its future?

It'll be one among many, I assume, with a bit of a special place for its early development and influence.

Reply | Thread