|
|
|
Prodigal
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:55 AM
Posts: 864,
Visits: 2,484
|
|
| Given a few people round here object to GNS, I thought this might be on interest. The Big Model is a later development which replaced GNS, at least in the minds of Ron Edwards and the Forge who developed GNS in the first place. (bear in mind, GNS and Big Model were intended as general RPG theory rather than LARP theory) There has been a recent post describing the model and the ciriticisms of it here: http://larpwriting.livejournal.com/ More info about it is on Wiki.
------ <insert really amusing sig here>
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Eos Staff
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:25 PM
Posts: 662,
Visits: 3,008
|
|
Is it not truer to say that the Big Model expanded, rather than replaced, GNS Theory? GNS still exists in its entirety as the Creative Agenda, surely...
---
Joe Rooney - Battle Vegan
Insurrection LRP: high fantasy in a dystopian setting.
Event Two: 17th-19th April 2009. Book now for £20 discount!
Bladelands: Raoul Ortez - apostate, medium, bodyguard and vicious lunatic
EOS: staff (probably the best job in LRP!)
Joe R's LARPCard
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:55 AM
Posts: 864,
Visits: 2,484
|
|
Is it not truer to say that the Big Model expanded, rather than replaced, GNS Theory? What I actually said: The Big Model is a later development which replaced GNS, at least in the minds of Ron Edwards and the Forge who developed GNS in the first place. It replaced it in that the person who developed it dropped his old model for his newer one. I did not say it replaced it in any general sense. Both are still around, and GNS is perhaps more applicable to larp than the big model is.
------ <insert really amusing sig here>
|
|
|
|
|
Cold Water and Brass Tacks
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:04 AM
Posts: 1,198,
Visits: 1,055
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:55 AM
Posts: 864,
Visits: 2,484
|
|
| The Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist model has been discussed before. It's described in a previous recent post on that LJ. For an alternative writeup, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory
------ <insert really amusing sig here>
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:00 PM
Posts: 2,006,
Visits: 8,543
|
|
Nath (2/4/2008)
Given a few people round here object to GNS, I thought this might be on interest.
I think you may be confusing skepticism for objection - it's a fairly common Continental complaint that the English are 'theory hostile', but it usually boils down to English people saying "hmm, maybe - but why?".
I'm interested in labels insofar they are useful - and labels are useful insofar as they help people who like different things find out whether games contain those things. In that sense, a label is worthy if it reflects differing markets, regardless of whether it's sanctioned by a theory or not.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Overlord
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:58 PM
Posts: 1,615,
Visits: 4,314
|
|
One of the reasons I set the Academia forum up was for just this kind of discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:03 AM
Posts: 103,
Visits: 491
|
|
| GNS (which is the only really contraversial part of the Big Model) makes me think "yeah maybe". It sounds plausible. But a lot of theories that sound plausible later turn out not to fit with systematic observations. The 2-axis model also makes me think "yeah maybe": http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html. The 2-axis model has the advantage of being based on a large survey, as opposed to being based entirely on personal observations like GNS. It has the disadvantage that it's largely about D&D-style play where you can meaningfully divide the play into "combat" and "everything else". Neither of those models attempt to describes larp or larpers. I think larp is much more varied than tabletop roleplay, so probably even harder to describe.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:50 AM
Posts: 1,483,
Visits: 2,106
|
|
Allen Stroud (2/4/2008)
One of the reasons I set the Academia forum up was for just this kind of discussion.
What, so we could pretend to be academics? 
I don't object to models, other than large scale models of the north Atlantic. I think the "player-led vs story-driven" is an interesting way to analyse LRP. I think "fest vs small event" is also an interesting way to analyse LRP. So is GNS probably. I don't take to it because it has a vague ring of pretension to it, and I'm never quite sure that I know what it's talking about. (And I don't want to read a wiki page about it thanks).
A lot of analysis is based on breaking things into constituent parts and identifying the common themes. It's a critical part of the scientific process because it is often required to allow mathematical analysis of the simplified parts to take place. However while labelling things is useful, outside of a very narrow scientific scope it's very rarely a fundamental division. There aren't really seven colours of the rainbow for instance... It's just as valid to say that all LRP falls into two categories, LRP in the northern hemisphere where the water goes down the plughole clockwise and LRP in the southern hemisphere where it goes down the plughole the other way...
In the end it basically boils down into finding some convenient lines to split things up along. Lines that help you work out what you think is good about a game and what you think is bad about a game are useful to event runners because they help you to develop better games. Lines can be useful for players as categorisations to identify events they want to go to (presuming you can work out what category it is in). If an analysis helps you do then it's a "good" analysis, if it doesn't then it's a crap analysis. The idea that one form of analysis might somehow be fundamental, or the right one, which is the impre | | | |