Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9652020" data-attributes="member: 42582">Do you agree that what you say is metaphorical, or non-literal in some similar fashion? In that, in a literal sandbox, I actually move sand around. Whereas in the &quot;sandboxes&quot; being talked about here, the players don't move things: they say things. And the GM isn't actually providing anything but representations - words, maps and perhaps pictures; and in response to the players saying the things that they say, the GM provides more representations.This may seem trivial, but I don't think it is.When I actually move sand around, the questions of what have I done, and what have I created or destroyed, and so on, are answered by actual material facts that unfold in space and time.But in the RPG sandbox, we have the production of representations - words, maps, pictures - and reasoning with them and about them. It's a fully cognitive, imaginative activity.Some representations can be true or false, accurate or inaccurate - they are &quot;answerable&quot; to some actual state of affairs that they pertain to. But in the RPG case, there is no actual state of affairs - it's fiction!So what regulates the &quot;correctness&quot; of representations? What makes it true that a NPC will do &lt;this&gt; rather than &lt;that&gt;. Some of us&nbsp; in this thread - and I'm one of them - doubt that the details of a setting are so specifically set out that unique, correct &quot;truths&quot; are entailed about what is, or could be, the case. Decision is required.Which brings us back to the metaphor: the &quot;world&quot; that the GM &quot;provides&quot; is a whole lot of stuff that has been said, and/or is being said, by the GM. Responses or reactions to things that the PCs do - insult guards, offer them bribes, etc- aren't generated via causal processes relating the PCs to those things; it's not real, and so there's no causation. (In this respect, it's not like actually driving through the actual world.) Those responses or reactions are often not entailed (eg most of the time, the GM will not have notes that entail an outcome). So they have to be decided.This is where the idea that things are not really objective gets its toehold.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9652020, member: 42582"] Do you agree that what you say is metaphorical, or non-literal in some similar fashion? In that, in a literal sandbox, I actually move sand around. Whereas in the "sandboxes" being talked about here, the players don't move things: they say things. And the GM isn't actually providing anything but [I]representations[/I] - words, maps and perhaps pictures; and in response to the players saying the things that they say, the GM provides more representations. This may seem trivial, but I don't think it is. When I actually move sand around, the questions of [I]what have I done[/I], and [I]what have I created or destroyed[/I], and so on, are answered by actual material facts that unfold in space and time. But in the RPG sandbox, we have the production of representations - words, maps, pictures - and reasoning with them and about them. It's a fully cognitive, imaginative activity. Some representations can be true or false, accurate or inaccurate - they are "answerable" to some actual state of affairs that they pertain to. But in the RPG case, there is no actual state of affairs - it's fiction! So what regulates the "correctness" of representations? What makes it true that a NPC will do <this> rather than <that>. Some of us in this thread - and I'm one of them - doubt that the details of a setting are so specifically set out that unique, correct "truths" are entailed about what is, or could be, the case. Decision is required. Which brings us back to the metaphor: the "world" that the GM "provides" is a whole lot of stuff that has been said, and/or is being said, by the GM. Responses or reactions to things that the PCs do - insult guards, offer them bribes, etc- aren't generated via causal processes relating the PCs to those things; it's not real, and so there's no causation. (In this respect, it's not like actually driving through the actual world.) Those responses or reactions are often not entailed (eg most of the time, the GM will not have notes that entail an outcome). So they have to be decided. This is where the idea that things are not [I]really[/I] objective gets its toehold. [/QUOTE]

Verification