The Problem With GNS

[clehrich]

[The idea was that] GNS fails because it fails to define "game" and "role-playing" in any rigorous way. I think the responses to this aren't quite accurate, because they overlook the obvious: "game" has never been defined rigorously. it's a flexible, fuzzy word in common speech and carries this fuzziness of definition over into the realm of rpgs.

I realize this thread should be over now, but just a quick note: my point throughout was that there is no point in defining "game" rigorously if what you want to analyze is RPGs, unless your purpose in doing so is to demonstrate specific ways in which RPGs are or are not like other games.  The fact that we call them "games" in the fuzzy sort of way we do means very little.  If careful analysis is in order, there has to be some reason to link RPGs with this other category, which requires you (1) to define the category, and (2) to define why you want the linkage.  Heinrich seemed to feel that because GNS does not define the category, it is therefore a failure; I would argue that it does not do so because, like me, GNS has no particular reason to link the two groups.  As far as I'm concerned, RPGs aren't "games" unless and until somebody wants to go to the trouble of analyzing them so.

Chris[/quote]

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Chris, I agree with you wholly.

I'd say the thread's over now.

Best,
Ron