Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8235606" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>That is fair. I was honestly having trouble following this aspect of your post (partly because it was bullet pointed and partly because I have zero knowledge of Dogs in the Vineyard). I can't say anything about dogs in the vineyard. In terms of the differences between him and baker you identify, I think there is more going on in Alexander's argument than you've identified. The ideal end state he is guiding people to (remember this is for folks who tried to run a sandbox and bombed, so he is underlying things and exaggerating techniques in order to get the ball rolling: that is at least my reading, I don't want to put words in his mouth): seems to be the sandbox ultimately running itself (which is something me and others have described). And for that to happen, the players need to start taking initiative and almost creating their own hooks (just like he describes where at first the GM has an organization approach the players and ask for something in&nbsp; exchange for an alliance, then the players understand this is a viable thing to seek out and start doing it themselves proactively). The latter is something I see a lot, it is the wheeling and dealing side of sandbox, especially when you are dealing with power groups and players trying to carve out a space for themselves in the setting. Maybe you identified that in your analysis and I missed it.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8235606, member: 85555"] That is fair. I was honestly having trouble following this aspect of your post (partly because it was bullet pointed and partly because I have zero knowledge of Dogs in the Vineyard). I can't say anything about dogs in the vineyard. In terms of the differences between him and baker you identify, I think there is more going on in Alexander's argument than you've identified. The ideal end state he is guiding people to (remember this is for folks who tried to run a sandbox and bombed, so he is underlying things and exaggerating techniques in order to get the ball rolling: that is at least my reading, I don't want to put words in his mouth): seems to be the sandbox ultimately running itself (which is something me and others have described). And for that to happen, the players need to start taking initiative and almost creating their own hooks (just like he describes where at first the GM has an organization approach the players and ask for something in exchange for an alliance, then the players understand this is a viable thing to seek out and start doing it themselves proactively). The latter is something I see a lot, it is the wheeling and dealing side of sandbox, especially when you are dealing with power groups and players trying to carve out a space for themselves in the setting. Maybe you identified that in your analysis and I missed it. [/QUOTE]

Verification