Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 8257899" data-attributes="member: 6698278">It strikes me that striving for the sort of living world I like is not something you've ever cared a lot about.&nbsp; My own experience though is that I can use the term in my circles and it is instantly understood what I mean.&nbsp; You can keep belaboring this point and perhaps fiction is not the most divisive of the lot but no all of your gamist uses of words are not perfect English equivalents.&nbsp; It's just not true.&nbsp; You've come to understand these terms as you do because they are the meta language in your circles and that is fine.&nbsp; It's not that nebulous.&nbsp; I've defined it for you many times now.That is the point.&nbsp; From our experience, it is not true that people who make it up on the fly provide as consistent and immersive world.&nbsp;&nbsp; Just the opposite.&nbsp; My own experience, anecdotal just like yours, is that such worlds are trite and lack depth.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now I've never met you so I am not saying you world is that way.&nbsp; I'm saying that is my experience of people who put no effort into their worlds.This is the most trivial case not the most significant case.&nbsp; It trivializes the goals of living world proponents.Well you may be the grandmaster of improv.&nbsp; You may be the smartest man I've ever not met.&nbsp; I'm just saying I don't see it pulled off successfully other than as a theoretical.&nbsp;&nbsp; So practically I've never seen a GM improv most things and have anything but a shambles of a world that I can't believe in at all.&nbsp;&nbsp; So I'm not arguing with you theoretically.&nbsp; I am arguing with you practically.I was just trying to point out that the terms, and you are hardly the only person on here arguing terms so don't take everything as directly solely at you every time,&nbsp; are gamified terms.&nbsp;&nbsp; No.&nbsp; I gave you my definition in previous posts.&nbsp;&nbsp; I would say that an outcome of my approach is that the world is more believable and immersive for some people.&nbsp; I target those people for my campaigns and we have fun.&nbsp;&nbsp; If someone doesn't care about a living world, that would be a clue to me that such a person may not be a good fit for my campaign.&nbsp;&nbsp; That doesn't mean they are bad people, that they are roleplaying wrong, or that preferences lack validity.&nbsp;&nbsp; They just like different things.&nbsp; I suppose we could delve deep into psychology and perhaps even philosophy to try and figure out why we prefer things as we do.&nbsp; Not sure it would bear any fruit other than acrimony.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 8257899, member: 6698278"] It strikes me that striving for the sort of living world I like is not something you've ever cared a lot about. My own experience though is that I can use the term in my circles and it is instantly understood what I mean. You can keep belaboring this point and perhaps fiction is not the most divisive of the lot but no all of your gamist uses of words are not perfect English equivalents. It's just not true. You've come to understand these terms as you do because they are the meta language in your circles and that is fine. It's not that nebulous. I've defined it for you many times now. That is the point. From our experience, it is not true that people who make it up on the fly provide as consistent and immersive world. Just the opposite. My own experience, anecdotal just like yours, is that such worlds are trite and lack depth. Now I've never met you so I am not saying you world is that way. I'm saying that is my experience of people who put no effort into their worlds. This is the most trivial case not the most significant case. It trivializes the goals of living world proponents. Well you may be the grandmaster of improv. You may be the smartest man I've ever not met. I'm just saying I don't see it pulled off successfully other than as a theoretical. So practically I've never seen a GM improv most things and have anything but a shambles of a world that I can't believe in at all. So I'm not arguing with you theoretically. I am arguing with you practically. I was just trying to point out that the terms, and you are hardly the only person on here arguing terms so don't take everything as directly solely at you every time, are gamified terms. No. I gave you my definition in previous posts. I would say that an outcome of my approach is that the world is more believable and immersive for some people. I target those people for my campaigns and we have fun. If someone doesn't care about a living world, that would be a clue to me that such a person may not be a good fit for my campaign. That doesn't mean they are bad people, that they are roleplaying wrong, or that preferences lack validity. They just like different things. I suppose we could delve deep into psychology and perhaps even philosophy to try and figure out why we prefer things as we do. Not sure it would bear any fruit other than acrimony. [/QUOTE]

Verification