Talk:GNS theory

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section titles for Creative Agendas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Too Narrow 

message: 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)
thread_title: Links that need updating

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

message: 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)
replies: text: The result was Keep/No consensus for deletion --Arnauld (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Big Model