GNS and Big Model theories have limits. They describe the players, the
relationships between player stances, and the social contract between the
players. They help expose the incoherences and/or game design flaws of
role-playing games. They help understand the psychological mechanics &
dynamics of a RPG gaming table. They help understand that differing
expectations will end up with incoherence, zilch play, or even agenda clash. In
that, they are useful awareness-raising tools for the GM and the players
alike.
However, they also show their limits in that they are theoretical tools,
from which GM & player best practices have to be deducted, and depend on
the effort of the GM, on his understanding, and on the willingness and/or
ability of each player to understand her own creative agenda, her own needs and
expectations, know her own stance and the nature of the game, and fulfill her
part of the gaming table "social contract".
But what of the time-deprived gamemaster? What of the player who is
unwilling or unable to clearly state or even understand his own
expectations?
Moreover, what of the case of an impromptu gaming table, or a gaming
convention demo? How can a GM apply his understanding of the Big Model or the
GNS model to the gaming session at hand without engaging in interviews on the
preferred creative agendas and expectations of the players?
I believe that these limits can be broken through by any GM, by adopting a
common, game-independant, player-independant, creative-agenda-independant
methodical gamemastering approach.