It might be, I don't know (not sure what you mean by impersonal here, so I can't really say). Like I said, Godbound and Stars without Number, those are living world sandboxes. My point about living world is you need both the macro level (which is what I was just describing) and the micro level (the NPCs and factions the players are immediately dealing with). It isn't some high concept, elusive thing. And it isn't something that everyone is going to like (it does involve a lot of prep, because sandboxes by their nature require that, and it involves a lot of thinking on your toes and putting elements together rapidly: some GMs seem to have no problem with this, some have great difficulty---like with any style of play). For me, the core concept that makes this click is the idea that things in the setting have volition, treating them like live players in the game.
Your final sentence in bold does sound like you ascribing a high concept descriptor of a "living world" campaign to me. This is not say that "elusive" applies, but it does sound fairly high concept.
I have no love of orthodoxy at all. If anything I am probably a contrarian more than orthodox. If you need to affix a negative label to what I do: stubborn and a little annoying I can accept (even my friends would attach that to me at times). Those two are fair criticisms. But I do tend to react negatively when I perceive elitism, so I will defend mainstream tastes against attacks that paint it as simple minded, not enlightened, etc. I don't really play a lot of mainstream games myself (I don't play 5E for example, I like dice pools--which are usually highly disliked in sandbox communities--at least the ones I travel in, etc). I think this might be why you think I am here to defend orthodoxy. Also I do tend to take the stance of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater a lot (but I see that as just being mindful of what you are changing, not being against change)
I think that it is less elitism and more about trying to advocate in favor of a minority, fringe perspective in gaming hobby that is dominated by the D&D (and its ilk) hegemony. I don't think that mainstream perspectives in gaming need
any white knights defending it from forum nobodies like us. D&D and its ilk have overwhelmingly won. So what does rushing in to emotionally defend these perspectives actually achieve, especially since the goal of many of these threads is, more often than not (IMHO), about trying to analyze and understand core, basic gaming differences from more analytical perspectives? It is not as if
@Fenris-77 or
@Campbell always agree with
@pemerton on his positions, yet they can push back and criticize without getting into the sort of heated arguments that others do with him. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. So maybe it's worth considering whether your purposes would be better served by a change in tact that is more conducive to constructive discussion.
This I do not disagree with, but I think this swings both ways more than people realize. I have definitely seen instances of characterizing a style as less than directed at sandbox and living world (in this thread and in other ones). And this is why I even take time to defend the styles I didn't like that drove me to sandbox. Because I think any analysis that is built around my dislike of something and doesn't try to understand it from the POV of someone within that style, is doomed to misunderstand it. There may be some valid criticisms, but more often than not it is like watching a Lutheran complain about Catholic doctrine, or watching a Catholic complain about Lutheran doctrine. The only time I think either makes headway is when they put their untrue way aside for a moment and truly try to understand the position of the other side. And an even more doomed approach is to try to understand something, in order to attack it. That clouds your analysis.
Part of the issue, which has been brought up numerous times before, is that a number of the main critics have played and do enjoy playing numerous, different games, but that same diversified perspective is not necessarily shared by others who are fighting for their preferred "doctrine." So the whole "both-sides-ism" is clearly something of a false equivalence.
Maybe I am wrong, but that isn't my impression of his posts over many threads at all. What I am saying is he has challenged the viability of a living world sandbox in previous threads many times (and challenged the idea that the GM can present a believable world). He is hostile to this idea and seems to see it as a threat to his approach
IMHO, the vast bulk of
@pemerton's posts (or an oft recurring underlying motif) has mainly been challenging related ideas pertaining to GM vs. player authorship in sandbox play in regards to creating a consistent or living world. He (and others) has been trying to get you to think more critically about your games and elucidate on them in more concrete (and less abstracted) ways. It is not that GM-authored is bad, but, rather, that player-authored is equally valid. He is primarily "hostile" about anything that questions the validity of his own player-driven play, particularly coming from more traditional GM-fiat perspectives, which often has its fair share of mainstream plus OSR defenders. I think that if you (and a fair share of others) learned how to read "pemertonese," particularly without reading unwarranted hostility or elitism, these threads would be a LOT less prone to needless squabbling. Learn to be as a stream rolling over stones.
