On Aug 9, 5:57 pm, psychohist <psychoh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that one could agree with that
> (as I do), and yet strongly disagree with the
> details of the Threefold.
>
> I hadn't thought there were very many details; it's a pretty simple
> model. What details are you thinking of?
The core concepts of the threefold is ok. People like different things
in their games, and dislike different things.
Beyond that, I think the whole model itself (i.e. the details) are at
best stating the obvious, at worse actually harmful to understanding.
It's also as far as models go, it is put together inconsistent manner
and that allow kills it IMO.
> For one, I object to the model and I certainly
> believe people have different preferences.
>
> You object, in the sense that you think that other people, for example
> I, should not use it? Or you disagree in the sense that you think a
> variation or a different model would be more accurate or more useful
> to yourself? I was only talking about the former.
At one time I would have said the latter, now I'm ready to say the
former and oppose in general any similar model.
Now mind, that's stated as a blanket and it isn't. In your specific
case, I'm not worried about you using the model. Nor am I opposed to
such lightweight use as Russell details in a post here. However I'm
rather certain now that it would have been best that Mary never
attempted to use it- her entire series of posts on D&D recently has
shown that she has seriously overthought and overapplied the model and
it's become self-defeating for her.
I've noted the same mindset elsewhere with the similar (if far more
objectionable) GNS model.
|
