Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8239601" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>Again, I think if I objected we probably got our lines crossed. But the point I have been trying to make is this still falls short of describing sandbox as living world: which is the language most sandbox GMs use (and if they don't say living world, they say world in motion). The reason the distinction is important is 'playing to discover the GMs' notes and/or 'playing to discover the GM's conception' misses the motion part (which matters). If we are just focused on the notes or the conception, then that can easily describe how I might have run a game prior to encountering the 'majoring wandering encounter/they live!' advice in Feast of Goblyns. It can easily stop at: GM has map, things are marked on the map, the players effectively move through and discover things on the map, possibly having&nbsp; a random encounter here or there. The point of a living world is one of the things on the map can decide it doesn't like what the party is doing, go to another area, ally with creatures in that area, and work against he players, perhaps setting an ambush-----or the thing on the map could be somewhere else entirely because the map was a snapshot of 8 months ago. Again, we have language already that helps describe the campaign. Kevin Crawford speaks very clearly about the concept in Stars without Number. Other GMs have done so. I don't see why we need to relabel it 'playing to discover GM's notes'. If you want to call it 'the GM's conception' I certainly wouldn't object the same way I do to but I still think it falls short of capturing what a living world is (and if you reject living world, that is fair, I can't convince you-----but this is how many of us play and conceive of the game).</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8239601, member: 85555"] Again, I think if I objected we probably got our lines crossed. But the point I have been trying to make is this still falls short of describing sandbox as living world: which is the language most sandbox GMs use (and if they don't say living world, they say world in motion). The reason the distinction is important is 'playing to discover the GMs' notes and/or 'playing to discover the GM's conception' misses the motion part (which matters). If we are just focused on the notes or the conception, then that can easily describe how I might have run a game prior to encountering the 'majoring wandering encounter/they live!' advice in Feast of Goblyns. It can easily stop at: GM has map, things are marked on the map, the players effectively move through and discover things on the map, possibly having a random encounter here or there. The point of a living world is one of the things on the map can decide it doesn't like what the party is doing, go to another area, ally with creatures in that area, and work against he players, perhaps setting an ambush-----or the thing on the map could be somewhere else entirely because the map was a snapshot of 8 months ago. Again, we have language already that helps describe the campaign. Kevin Crawford speaks very clearly about the concept in Stars without Number. Other GMs have done so. I don't see why we need to relabel it 'playing to discover GM's notes'. If you want to call it 'the GM's conception' I certainly wouldn't object the same way I do to but I still think it falls short of capturing what a living world is (and if you reject living world, that is fair, I can't convince you-----but this is how many of us play and conceive of the game). [/QUOTE]

Verification