Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8244976" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>Where I am getting lost is on how some of these terms are being used. I feel like I have been responding to posts, but with each response its like I can't win because I am told now I need to talk about aesthetics, or now I need to talk about something else (even though I think I am talking about that). Again, maybe the issue is they are using terms here rather specifically and I don't share the vocabulary they bring to design. But I think that is part of the problem in these analysis threads. Honestly at this point I am not even sure what is being debated. At one stage I thought the viability of living world was being challenged, then it seems it isn't it is just being categorized differently. I don't know. My view this whole time has simply been, &quot;playing to discover the GM's notes&quot; fails to capture the range of what is going on in a living sandbox. And then I tried to provide explanations and example, and techniques and methods for running living world when asked. I think there was and remains some dispute over the nature of a living world (in terms of where the living world itself resides: if it can be likened to a model if is just this amorphous thing that only really takes shape when the GM describes things to players, etc). I think that is a longer discussion, there was probably a lot of talking past one another.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8244976, member: 85555"] Where I am getting lost is on how some of these terms are being used. I feel like I have been responding to posts, but with each response its like I can't win because I am told now I need to talk about aesthetics, or now I need to talk about something else (even though I think I am talking about that). Again, maybe the issue is they are using terms here rather specifically and I don't share the vocabulary they bring to design. But I think that is part of the problem in these analysis threads. Honestly at this point I am not even sure what is being debated. At one stage I thought the viability of living world was being challenged, then it seems it isn't it is just being categorized differently. I don't know. My view this whole time has simply been, "playing to discover the GM's notes" fails to capture the range of what is going on in a living sandbox. And then I tried to provide explanations and example, and techniques and methods for running living world when asked. I think there was and remains some dispute over the nature of a living world (in terms of where the living world itself resides: if it can be likened to a model if is just this amorphous thing that only really takes shape when the GM describes things to players, etc). I think that is a longer discussion, there was probably a lot of talking past one another. [/QUOTE]

Verification