Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8237527" data-attributes="member: 85555">No on is asserting it this. No one is saying it is a thing in the real world. What people are saying is you can map out a world, run a world, so it exists outside the players as an idea that is explorable. It is not unlike the notion of exploring a setting made for a video game, with the additional element that the human GM is there to add an additional layer of flexibility (i.e. the game might not be programed to allow for it, but a GM can help facilitate what happens when you try to pick up the rock by the bridge or kill the shop keeper). If this is insufficient for what you were seeking, fair enough. I am a little perplexed though that an argument or a syllogism would entirely change how you experience the game. That just isn't how I think at all. Do I like this game? Yes or no. Do I feel like I am exploring a world external to myself? Yes or no. That is all I really care about. The GM's job here is to create the sense of a real world, not to create an actual world. But it is an approximation that can really feel real, and the GM can cultivate it as an external in his or her imagination (which is external to the players). I think when you keep describing it as 'the fiction' you miss on this aspect of exploring what is in the GM's head and what they understand about the world, as well as the interplay between that and the PCs: and the energy that flows from that. Now if that is too wishy washy, too mystically phrased for you. By all means, go play another game. Some of us take a somewhat mystic view to conceptualizing how gaming works and it totally works for us. To me it isn't particularly important if you accept these worlds as real or not</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8237527, member: 85555"] No on is asserting it this. No one is saying it is a thing in the real world. What people are saying is you can map out a world, run a world, so it exists outside the players as an idea that is explorable. It is not unlike the notion of exploring a setting made for a video game, with the additional element that the human GM is there to add an additional layer of flexibility (i.e. the game might not be programed to allow for it, but a GM can help facilitate what happens when you try to pick up the rock by the bridge or kill the shop keeper). If this is insufficient for what you were seeking, fair enough. I am a little perplexed though that an argument or a syllogism would entirely change how you experience the game. That just isn't how I think at all. Do I like this game? Yes or no. Do I feel like I am exploring a world external to myself? Yes or no. That is all I really care about. The GM's job here is to create the sense of a real world, not to create an actual world. But it is an approximation that can really feel real, and the GM can cultivate it as an external in his or her imagination (which is external to the players). I think when you keep describing it as 'the fiction' you miss on this aspect of exploring what is in the GM's head and what they understand about the world, as well as the interplay between that and the PCs: and the energy that flows from that. Now if that is too wishy washy, too mystically phrased for you. By all means, go play another game. Some of us take a somewhat mystic view to conceptualizing how gaming works and it totally works for us. To me it isn't particularly important if you accept these worlds as real or not [/QUOTE]

Verification