I'm surprised to see this have a Wikipedia page. It's very niche. It's not very well founded, it's not very well defined, and there's plenty of problems with it

I'm surprised to see this have a Wikipedia page. It's very niche. It's not very well founded, it's not very well defined, and there's plenty of problems with it. GNS theory definitely has some interesting points of view if you're thinking about game design, especially RPG design, but so do many, many other writings. And GNS redefines some terms that used to mean something slightly different in other discussions of RPG theory. My biggest problem with it is that Edwards claims that a game should focus on a single creative agenda (narrativist, gamist or simulationist) and that if you mix them, your game is dysfunctional, or something like that. I think the magic happens exactly when you find a good balance between these three concerns. They're all part of the RPG experience, and excluding one feels hollow to me. On the other hand, Vincent Baker comes from Ron Edwards' crowd at The Forge, and he's created several really great, innovative and popular RPGs, so if the GNS discussion has contributed to that, and that's absolutely valuable. And the Threefold Model[0] also has a Wikipedia page, so perhaps GNS should too. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_model