In its most formal sense, the threefold model claims that any single gamemaster (GM) decision (about the resolution of in-game events) can be made in order to further the goals of Drama, or Simulation, or Game. By extension, a series of decisions may be described as tending towards one or two of the three goals, to a greater or lesser extent. This can be visualised as an equilateral triangle, with a goal at each vertex, and the points between them representing different weightings of the different goals. As a consequence, a player or GM can characterise their preferred gaming style as a point on this triangle, or (since no real precision is implied) in words such as 'mostly gamist' or 'dramatist with a bit of simulationist' or 'right in the middle'.
Another consequence of the model is the claim that by advancing towards one of the goals, one is moving away from the other two. Thus a game that is highly dramatic will be neither a good simulation nor a challenging game, and so on. This assertion has been widely challenged, and led to criticism of the model.
In the terminology of the threefold, the goals of drama, simulation and game have specific meanings.
- Drama is concerned with the narrative qualities of the game, such as story, nuances of meaning, exploration of themes, etc. It does not imply following a preset story, but an eagerness to achieve good or well plotted stories and meaning in the unfolding events.
- Game is concerned with the amount and kind of challenge that the players face in the course of the game. Ideas such as 'balance' and 'fairness' and 'victory' belong here.
- Simulation is concerned with the internal consistency of events that unfold in the gameworld, and ensuring that they are only caused by in-game factors - that is, eliminating metagame concerns (such as drama and game). Simulation isn't necessarily concerned with simulating reality; it could be a simulation of any fictional world, cosmology or scenario, according to its own rules.