Icefield wrote: . . . If you're not familiar with it here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory
. . . Anyway I see it as a way to understand each other and myself, what do you guys think?
Our games swing deeply between all three. We take simulation seriously one moment, then spoof it with narration or gamism, at a later moment.
On the other hand, I find that the narration or the gamism sometimes simulates behavior appropriate to the setting. Even spoofing may occasionally simulate a spoof that would belong to the setting. Sometimes the metagaming is less meta than the role-playing.
It's all good, because we don't come to a game just to beat the odds against the odd, just to run from the behavioral rigidity of the rat race, or just to go on tour in untoward towns, but also to socialize and keep the mind nimble.
We don't want to get permanently lost in games. We do have safeguards in place so we can make our way back to real life. By avoiding the hypnosis of electronic games, the immersion doesn't swallow us up. By swallowing cheesy snacks, we remember the rat race. By talking to one another out of character, we cheat schizophrenia.