Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8245556" data-attributes="member: 42582">Where have I posted that &quot;sandboxes&quot; aren't possible?I have posted that they don't author themselves, and that no amount of detail will generate unique solutions like 2+2 = 4.I have also posted that the &quot;world&quot; that the players &quot;explore&quot; is an idea that the GM has; and that the &quot;exploration&quot; consists in learning things from the GM. You call the GM's idea a &quot;mental model&quot; but I don't agree that it's a model because it doesn't generate unique solutions. And you agree that there is conversation but don't agree that the players learn things from the GM (I don't think) - but I'm still not sure how you think they learn it.Where have I attacked your approach? I have asked you to describe it, non-metaphorically. And have done my best to make non-metaphoric sense of what you post.It's not a &quot;critique&quot;. It's a description, of a certain sort of play. If you don't think it describes your play then I don't even get why it bothers you: I'm not particularly applying it to you. In this thread I expressly applied it to [USER=6698278]@Emerikol[/USER], who was talking about enjoying the exploratory aspect of play and learning about the GM's world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8245556, member: 42582"] Where have I posted that "sandboxes" aren't possible? I have posted that they don't author themselves, and that no amount of detail will generate unique solutions like 2+2 = 4. I have also posted that the "world" that the players "explore" is an idea that the GM has; and that the "exploration" consists in learning things from the GM. You call the GM's idea a "mental model" but I don't agree that it's a model because it doesn't generate unique solutions. And you agree that there is conversation but don't agree that the players learn things from the GM (I don't think) - but I'm still not sure how you think they learn it. Where have I attacked your approach? I have asked you to describe it, non-metaphorically. And have done my best to make non-metaphoric sense of what you post. It's not a "critique". It's a description, of a certain sort of play. If you don't think it describes your play then I don't even get why it bothers you: I'm not particularly applying it to you. In this thread I expressly applied it to [USER=6698278]@Emerikol[/USER], who was talking about enjoying the exploratory aspect of play and learning about the GM's world. [/QUOTE]

Verification