Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8244149" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>Except 95% of people I talk to 'get it'. This is a small group of posters on a thread who say they don't (and I am not sure that is even the case, I am sure some here get it but reject our claims). And we have gone into detail, without being vague. We have taken it step by step, we've highlighted how you manage things like NPCs and groups in play, the kind of logic and thinking that goes into the GM making decisions about things, the kind of fidelity that is maintained with the background setting, explained how the GM needs to be open to things that the players propose that he or she hadn't planned in advance. I think perhaps what you want is something like the binary Pemerton keeps pointing to, but as I have explained, that is not a good place to put our focus because you miss out on the organic and open process of exchange.&nbsp; There is an ongoing exchange of the players saying what they try, the GM saying what happens or what they see. But that doesn't capture the fullness of the process and it is a process governed by all the things we've been trying to tell you about. Look, I defined what a living world was (I think pretty clearly) and I think in a way that doesn't obfuscate or 'deify'. You keep getting hung up on that. I don't know why you do. No one is saying we are inhabiting real worlds, we are saying there is an imagined place, and that place can be modeled by the GM, and it can be run as a living world (as I defined it) where the players actions and choices not only matter a great deal, but ultimately become the engine of the sandbox.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8244149, member: 85555"] Except 95% of people I talk to 'get it'. This is a small group of posters on a thread who say they don't (and I am not sure that is even the case, I am sure some here get it but reject our claims). And we have gone into detail, without being vague. We have taken it step by step, we've highlighted how you manage things like NPCs and groups in play, the kind of logic and thinking that goes into the GM making decisions about things, the kind of fidelity that is maintained with the background setting, explained how the GM needs to be open to things that the players propose that he or she hadn't planned in advance. I think perhaps what you want is something like the binary Pemerton keeps pointing to, but as I have explained, that is not a good place to put our focus because you miss out on the organic and open process of exchange. There is an ongoing exchange of the players saying what they try, the GM saying what happens or what they see. But that doesn't capture the fullness of the process and it is a process governed by all the things we've been trying to tell you about. Look, I defined what a living world was (I think pretty clearly) and I think in a way that doesn't obfuscate or 'deify'. You keep getting hung up on that. I don't know why you do. No one is saying we are inhabiting real worlds, we are saying there is an imagined place, and that place can be modeled by the GM, and it can be run as a living world (as I defined it) where the players actions and choices not only matter a great deal, but ultimately become the engine of the sandbox. [/QUOTE]

Verification