Threefold Model - Criticism

Criticism

Followers of the threefold model sometimes claim it has having quelled the debate about 'which roleplaying style is best' by pointing out that different people want different things out of games, and that some styles are better suited to certain goals.

However, it has come under a great deal of criticism. Some criticise it simply for trying to establish some theoretical thought about roleplaying, and some misunderstand it as trying to categorise players.

Others deny the claim that one must 'trade off' one goal against another, and claim that a skilled GM can fulfill all three goals without compromising.

Some dispute the appropriateness or meaning of the goals of simulation, drama and game; in particular simulationists are seen as having defined the model to their own tastes, leaving the drama and game goals poorly-defined.

Some believe that the threefold should be extended to a fourth goal/vertex, usually Socialising. (That is, the fun of playing a game with your friends, making sure everyone is happy.) This would allow preferences to be plotted on a tetrahedron rather than a triangle. However, there has been little consensus on this issue.

Some criticise the model for having no utility, finding that it makes no useful predictions and offers little insight into how to improve one's game. Many feel that the effort spent arguing the merits of the Threefold Model could be better spent discussing more productive aspects of roleplaying.