Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8237847" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I don’t see this at all. Plenty of people are running perfectly functioning and fulfilling sandbox campaigns on the basis of this metaphor and on the variety of tools. The metaphor is essential for understanding what you are doing. And I wouldn’t say it is only metaphorical: the GM is literally imagining a world. A world is not being literally made in physical form but a mental model is being created and given moving parts or a kind of life. And there is a fundamental exchange between players and GM at the table that can in very very simple form be reduced to “the GM describes what the players perceive, the players say what they do, the GM responds with a description, ruling, invoking a mechanic’. But your efforts to break down that process always seem extremely reductive, binary and to not describe what I experience at the table (and just seem to be an effort to minimize or deny the players ability to explore and involve themselves in an imagined place). If you can provide a description that truly describes what we are doing, that isn’t a trap and doesn’t seem like a playstyle argument in disquisition (better yet: is not a playstyle argument in disguise) I will happily use your language. So far you have failed to do that for me. And even if you do: to me this will always remain exploration of a loving world: I think any description of the process must start there for me</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8237847, member: 85555"] I don’t see this at all. Plenty of people are running perfectly functioning and fulfilling sandbox campaigns on the basis of this metaphor and on the variety of tools. The metaphor is essential for understanding what you are doing. And I wouldn’t say it is only metaphorical: the GM is literally imagining a world. A world is not being literally made in physical form but a mental model is being created and given moving parts or a kind of life. And there is a fundamental exchange between players and GM at the table that can in very very simple form be reduced to “the GM describes what the players perceive, the players say what they do, the GM responds with a description, ruling, invoking a mechanic’. But your efforts to break down that process always seem extremely reductive, binary and to not describe what I experience at the table (and just seem to be an effort to minimize or deny the players ability to explore and involve themselves in an imagined place). If you can provide a description that truly describes what we are doing, that isn’t a trap and doesn’t seem like a playstyle argument in disquisition (better yet: is not a playstyle argument in disguise) I will happily use your language. So far you have failed to do that for me. And even if you do: to me this will always remain exploration of a loving world: I think any description of the process must start there for me [/QUOTE]

Verification