Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 8238008" data-attributes="member: 16586">Kevin Crawford manages to describe the process of running sandbox game with precision and without resorting to aspirational language that fails to account for the cognitive limits we all have. He also does not place sandbox gaming on pedestal or make claims about the depth of other ways of playing. Is his treatment of sandbox play in Stars Without Number or Godbound reductive?I personally love sandbox gaming. Sine Nomine has a direct line to my wallet. I just think our analysis needs to be practical, acknowledge the process of play (and not just how it feels), and respect the limits of our cognitive powers. That last bit is a really big deal to me. I know how hard this naughty word is. We just had our Session Zero for the Infinity game I'm going to be a player in last night. Understanding the scope, relationships, and life experience of one person who is not us is damn near unfathomable to me. Implying that you can actually keep an entire world in your head is staggering. There's a&nbsp; lot of value in the attempt, but acting like the entire endeavor is not a massive exercise in human will is deeply misleading in my opinion.Personally I believe that trying to maintain the mystique of what we're doing does a lot of harm to new GMs. It also discourages people to try to become GMs because the entire exercise just looks too daunting. This sort of aspirational language is why I never felt confident as a young GM until I ran Apocalypse World. It's why sandbox play was ineffable to me until I read Stars Without Number and started utilizing the process and tools Kevin Crawford provided.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Campbell, post: 8238008, member: 16586"] Kevin Crawford manages to describe the process of running sandbox game with precision and without resorting to aspirational language that fails to account for the cognitive limits we all have. He also does not place sandbox gaming on pedestal or make claims about the depth of other ways of playing. Is his treatment of sandbox play in Stars Without Number or Godbound reductive? I personally love sandbox gaming. Sine Nomine has a direct line to my wallet. I just think our analysis needs to be practical, acknowledge the process of play (and not just how it feels), and respect the limits of our cognitive powers. That last bit is a really big deal to me. I know how hard this naughty word is. We just had our Session Zero for the Infinity game I'm going to be a player in last night. Understanding the scope, relationships, and life experience of one person who is not us is damn near unfathomable to me. Implying that you can actually keep an entire world in your head is staggering. There's a lot of value in the attempt, but acting like the entire endeavor is not a massive exercise in human will is deeply misleading in my opinion. Personally I believe that trying to maintain the mystique of what we're doing does a lot of harm to new GMs. It also discourages people to try to become GMs because the entire exercise just looks too daunting. This sort of aspirational language is why I never felt confident as a young GM until I ran Apocalypse World. It's why sandbox play was ineffable to me until I read Stars Without Number and started utilizing the process and tools Kevin Crawford provided. [/QUOTE]

Verification