Why 'Sandbox' is a meaningless phrase

[Thinker]

No, if people were able to give great answers to my questions. If they could rank things in sandboxiness (the tough stuff, not just Bored of the Rings )- the very lowest hurdle for a meaningful, harmonious term - then I would have accepted that is might very well be something there.

In the English language, we have a lot of terms that don't allow you to have a specific, always applicable definition. Oftentimes, these are descriptive words or categories. For example, how would you rank the Englishness of languages? Would my rankings differ from your rankings? Clearly, British English would rank #1, right? But what about American English or Australian English? Are they less English? What about Cockney or Geordie? How do you describe French with regards to its Englishness?

Merriam-Webster's first definition of English is this:
a : the language of the people of England and the U.S. and many areas now or formerly under British control
b : a particular variety of English distinguished by peculiarities (as of pronunciation)
c : English language, literature, or composition when a subject of study

There's a lot of leeway in that definition, even with it being so long. Would you define Jamaican Patois as being a dialect of English based on the definition above?

It's the same with Sandbox. There is no single definition that will suit everyone's use of the word, but we all generally know what someone is talking about when they say "Sandbox". It won't be a totally linear game and the players have a great deal of agency over what their characters get involved with.

[kyoryu]

There's a lot of leeway in that definition, even with it being so long. Would you define Jamaican Patois as being a dialect of English based on the definition above?

It's the same with Sandbox. There is no single definition that will suit everyone's use of the word, but we all generally know what someone is talking about when they say "Sandbox". It won't be a totally linear game and the players have a great deal of agency over what their characters get involved with.

I like the color analogy from earlier.

We can have "red". At some point, "red" becomes "orange" in how we describe it, and at some point "red" becomes "purple" the other way. Where any individual person draws that line will certainly vary, and what people think when someone says "red" (brick red, candy apple red, etc.) might vary. But there will be general agreement, and nobody is going to argue that blue is red.

[Pleh]

I like the color analogy from earlier.

We can have "red". At some point, "red" becomes "orange" in how we describe it, and at some point "red" becomes "purple" the other way. Where any individual person draws that line will certainly vary, and what people think when someone says "red" (brick red, candy apple red, etc.) might vary. But there will be general agreement, and nobody is going to argue that blue is red.

Unless they're colorblind, which is possibly a similar problem this thread might be demonstrating.

Red vs blue might seem meaningless to a person whose eyes can't distinguish between those colors.

[kyoryu]

There was a suspicion by multiple people for a while, and then iirc, Darth Ultron gave a list of his houserules and it was word for word identical to jedipotters.

The issue is that jedipotter seems to have advocated a fairly old-school, megadungeon style game while DU seems to be more about the linear adventure.

Similar defense mechanisms, for sure. But I suspect jedipotter and DU would explode in proximity to each other.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Natural languages are not computer languages. In a computer language, definitional ambiguity is bad because it causes bugs (or makes the compiler confused). In a natural languages, ambiguity (and it's cousin polysemy) are good. They're useful. They're inevitable. There are very few words or phrases that have only one, tightly-defined meaning. And those are invariably technical terms of limited scope. This does not mean that most words are meaningless--on the contrary, most words are full of lots of different meanings.

Embrace the chaos! We have cookies!

[Koo Rehtorb]

If you start with a box full of sand and start taking grains of sand away one at a time with a tweezer at what point does it stop being a sandbox?

[Scripten]

If you start with a box full of sand and start taking grains of sand away one at a time with a tweezer at what point does it stop being a sandbox?

See, this is how we know you don't work with computers. :P You don't take the sand away, you start with the box.

[Quertus]

I'm a few pages behind - apologies if this has already been covered.

But the thread isn't called for "Why 'Sandboxy' is a meaningless phrase" and in the wild, we see the term "Sandbox" used rather than "Sandboxy" used. This the basic question of whether a Sandbox game is one which is very sandboxy or at all sandboxy. And I don't think that's an unreasonable degree of precission to desire.

When I look at the Recruitment forms, I feel that it means very. But when I look at some discussions and people railing against linear games in favour of sandbox games, it seems that sometimes they are using the 'at all' definition.

For the label, yes, different people use the term with different degrees of accuracy and precision. People* are dumb. That doesn't in any way impune the word itself, though.

* sadly, I'm no exception here. I'm generally rather loose with my usage of words.

When defining Sandbox, people generally only refer to one thing. What that thing is differs from person to person and even from time to time. And what that thing is although similar to one another are very distinct from one another. Games are not split between

Sandbox: The DM accepts jarringness, The DM offers a huge number of hooks, The players are allowed to make choices, The DM has a whole world mapped out, the DM has not planned any particular scenes for the players, The players roam acoss the land.
And other games?

But its a spectrum some people say. But the five things aren't linked that way. You're not cutting reality right when strapping the players to tracks becomes 'more sandboxy' when it stops by the whole world of towns (point four), it does not become more sandboxy when fully improvised (point five) etc.

It is not because it is not physical that is "less real" it is simply because it is wrong.

Have you heard the story of the 7 wise men who attempt to describe the elephant they slighted in a cave? Same thing, albeit almost in reverse.

It's really difficult to explain certain concepts to someone who doesn't get it. So, we try to touch on pieces of the concept, hoping that these small pieces will be more relatable.

Now, that having been said, we don't all exactly agree on what this elephant's legs are like, or whether it actually requires a tail to be an elephant. But it's still pretty clear that a bush is not an elephant.

Two set ups:
1. The players are in the capital. They are part of the adventure's guild. They can explore the city, and every day ten new hooks are posted on the adventurer's guild wall.
2. The player's are part of the wide landscape. They can travel to different geographic locales at they pick. At the first locale they'll find the Goblins (aquatic, mountain, desert, field Goblins depending on their choice), at the second enter the mysterious crypt, at the third dead with the juvenile dragon.
Which is more sandboxy (or are they equals)? If you don't know then how would you begin to find out. Through what lens could you try to answer the question (with light it could be hue, wavelength etc.)?

Physics.

Can the players interact with the objects in all realistic ways that game physics says that they should be able to? Does the game break if they play with the toys the "wrong" way?

This is, IMO, one of the easier lenses to use to determine the Sandboxiness of a game.

[ZamielVanWeber]

If you start with a box full of sand and start taking grains of sand away one at a time with a tweezer at what point does it stop being a sandbox?

When the sand is no longer in a heap.

[Quertus]

I'm a few pages behind - apologies if this has already been covered... Have you heard the story of the 7 wise men who attempt to describe the elephant they slighted in a cave?

You know the story of the Elephant and the Blind Men? The elephant really exists. But if the blind men in their struggle to understand the elephant decided that "Elephant is defined in the non-Elephant Game to Elephant continuum" and that Elephanty is the concept to measure. We would tell them - with our benefit of sight etc. - that they are wrong. That 'elephanty' is not a real concept.

Well, yes, apparently you do.

Although... we don't seem to be telling the same story, with the same details. Does that make it a meaningless story?

I am not presuming the conclusion. In a harmonic concept, it is easy to rank things that belong to the concept. You cannot speak sensibly on the subject of a Sandbox game. You can not rank things in terms of how sandboxy they are. That is because sandboxy is not a real concept. 'Sandboxy is how close it is to a sandbox.' "Sandbox is defined in the Linear Game to Sandbox continuum" those aren't real nailing down of a concept.

The inability of a 5-year-old to meaningfully explain gravity or the composition of the Sun does not in any way impune their existence. This line of argumentation is... foolhardy at best.

You know the story of the Elephant and the Blind Men? The elephant really exists. But if the blind men in their struggle to understand the elephant decided that "Elephant is defined in the non-Elephant Game to Elephant continuum" and that Elephanty is the concept to measure. We would tell them - with our benefit of sight etc. - that they are wrong. That 'elephanty' is not a real concept.

I mean, I've seen some childs' drawings that I would describe as "more elephanty" or "less elephanty" than others...

One can certainly have colors that are more reddish or less reddish as one approaches perfect red. One can have temperatures that are hotter or cooler. I fail to follow your logic to have in any way demonstrated that something cannot be more or less Sandboxy.

Although, as ever, I recommend that discussion should center around the pure sandbox, rather than the elephant/bear or elephant/crocodile hybrids. Much harder to define elephants that way, IMO.

In the situation we are in now, people aren't even touching the same animal. Some are touching 'the players have free-range' animal, some are touching the 'its an open-world game' animal, and some are even touching the 'the castle has a back entrance' animal. Everybody is touching an animal so there's pushback from "Why 'Sandbox' is a meaningless phrase" but its still worth acknowledging that fifty pages into the thread that the way Quertus (who is not me, so don't start) naturally speaks about the Sandbox is different from the way that you are speaking about it, and that is - I contend - because you are talking about different things.

I am probably not you. I withhold the right to be totally bonkers and have a split personality who posts here without my knowledge.

I am also not going to completely discount the possibility that we are describing different beasts. However, even if we are, they seem highly related animals, and not one elephant, one frog, one amoeba, one crystal, one book, one volcano, one planetoid, a hockey team, the game of Chess, two seconds, a game save for Oblivion, and the concept of happiness.

That is because the definition is not a harmonious one and includes things that are unrelated.

Imagine the concept 'redness', redness is about heat and hue. This is easy we can look at the fire as the paragon of super-redness. But then we look at the Bunsen burner and turn it up from orange to blue. Redness as defined doesn't work. Attempts to salvage it will lead to one giving definitions that alternate between being too vague and too narrow. It will lead to one avoiding the tough questions. It might even - although we hope not - lead to somebody announcing that nobody else has a problem with 'redness' and anyone who does is clearly just the same person in a decade-long long con.

I can only suspect that the issue here is with the word "definition". Most if us are, I believe, more focused on providing an "explanation" than a definition. In that light, our responses make much more sense.

Viewed exclusively as definitions, yeah, the Everyone Collective would look quite silly. Much like those 7 wise men and their elephant.

Its not just Max_Killjoy and OldTrees1 though. Its pretty much everyone on this thread. None of us have any trouble understanding what sandbox means, and I even debated with Quertus whether a game can have good only character and yet still be considered a sandbox, which would be difficult if it were a meaningless phrase.

Only you and Dark Ultron have struggled to understand how the phrase works.

The concern is, I believe, that, if we are describing different but related things - like honey bees and carpenter bees - it may be difficult for us to realize how we differ.

It wouldn't be that difficult if it was a meaningless phrase. And it is interesting how that debate went. Quertus said that to run a sandbox requires the DM to allow evil characters. you said no. So Quertus created the term "Heroic Sandbox"

That's not how I read that.

First off, long before that discussion, I had been couching my descriptions that way - I'm sure you'll really see phases like "political sandbox" from me before then, no?

A pure sandbox requires the GM to allow the players to play with the toys in any way whatsoever

A sandbox requires the GM to allow the players to play with the toys in any way whatsoever... that hasn't already been disqualified. This can happen in numerous ways, including but not limited to the social contract, labels / qualifiers on the term sandbox, etc.

No, if people were able to give great answers to my questions. If they could rank things in sandboxiness (the tough stuff, not just Bored of the Rings )- the very lowest hurdle for a meaningful, harmonious term - then I would have accepted that is might very well be something there.

Are you really asking people accustomed to saying "this is hot" to invent the Fahrenheit scale, just to prove that "hot" is meaningful?

I actually started reading the thread with my own definition of Sandbox (something like "A game where the players can ignore hooks and change adventures without it being considered odd").

People keep focusing on the destination, and ignoring the path. I continue to insist that both destination and path must be in the players' hands in a pure sandbox / that any decision from that reduces how Sandboxy the game is.

That is exactly true. If you have an idea for what something means then you will be close-minded to thinking it is not actually meaningful. When somebody's definition does not fit with yours, you will be inclined to think that they misspoke a little or that they are describing the backside while you are describing the front . That is why it is important to ask questions and to interrogate your assumptions rather than letting confirmation bias do all the work. Questions are not something to fear and to lash out at.

Perhaps more accurately from my previous stance, I have seen several attempts to define a sandbox. All were suspect. But all lived pretty darn far up the Sandboxy spectrum, towards a True/Pure Sandbox.

But, because we do draw those lines differently as to exactly where to put the label of sandbox or red on the spectrum, it's easier to ask if a particular element is Sandboxy, whether that particular element allows freedom of choice, or confines the players to play with the toys the "right" way, lest the game break.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm certainly more interested in descriptions than in definitions, in attributes instead of categories... and in learning and understanding, rather than "winning" internet arguments...

[Segev]

Are you really asking people accustomed to saying "this is hot" to invent the Fahrenheit scale, just to prove that "hot" is meaningful?

This is a wonderful analogy. Well put, sir.

I'm certainly more interested in descriptions than in definitions, in attributes instead of categories... and in learning and understanding, rather than "winning" internet arguments...

This actually is the difference between a characterization and a discrimination. A discrimination is a set of rules regarding attributes and their values which lets you say, "If you are X, then you have these values for these attributes." A characterization is a set of rules regarding attributes and their values which lets you say, "If you have these values for these attributes, then you are X."

To understand the distinction, consider the phrase, "All crows are black birds, but not all black birds are crows." (Ignore, if you're a pedant like me, the existence of albino crows for the purpose of this discussion.)


Descriptions are usually discrimination rules. They tell you, if you are discussing a certain thing, what qualities it will have. Definitions are generally characteristic rules. They tell you what something is if it has certain qualities.

We're generally trying to describe sandboxes by what discriminates them from non-sandboxes. Attempting to define sandboxes by the characteristics they have is harder, due to the somewhat fuzzy definition in general. If you "know it when you see it," but have a hard time being precise, you probably are better of with descriptions than definitions.

Descriptions handle exceptions much more easily. This is also why people who are attempting to win internet arguments rather than learn and understand will conflate descriptions with definitions; it lets them find those exceptions and claim that the definition's failure means the concept is meaningless.

[Mordaedil]

If these two accounts are the same person, the Mod team should have some ability to use IP tracking tools to determine this and intervene.

The problem with this logic is that neither Darth Ultron nor Emperor Demonking have broken any rules, so there is no reason for a mod to get involved or heck, to dole out any type of punishment. What happened was that he had exhausted his possibilities to convince people to keep falling for his bait in one account, basically spent all of his good faith, and used one of his other accounts to start the argument again, with renewed faith. And people keep falling for it, because frankly, you all are a bit gullible. There are also ways to fool IP traces, so I don't really count on that either, it would just be damning.

No, what convinces me that they are the same isn't really the username, even though that is a dead ringer, or their posting style, cause that is easy for somebody who has roleplayed different characters to fake up, it's because he's used that account before to argue similarly in bad faith before.

To reinforce a poor opinion he's had elsewhere. I'll give him extra credit for making extra accounts and using them enough to make the illusion that they are several people. Heck, it might not even be his account that he started. He's not stupid or short-sighted, unlike what some would call him after reading this thread.

He's deliberate.

[hamishspence]

The problem with this logic is that neither Darth Ultron nor Emperor Demonking have broken any rules, so there is no reason for a mod to get involved or heck, to dole out any type of punishment.

There's a "no multiple accounts" rule:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

Multiple/Alternate Accounts
Each individual user may maintain one active account on the Giant in the Playground forums. Registering more than one account, including the use of identified alternate accounts, is not allowed. Likewise, shared or group accounts are not permitted. Though there are several legitimate advantages to such accounts, particularly in the role-play environment, these accounts are too easily abused and allow rule violators too many additional options to avoid the repercussions of their actions to be allowed.

If a user is found to have multiple accounts, all but the main account (the one with the most posts) will be closed, and any Infractions earned under the alternate accounts will be transferred to the main. Deliberate and/or malicious violations of this rule could result in an infraction or ban.

[Max_Killjoy]

The problem with this logic is that neither Darth Ultron nor Emperor Demonking have broken any rules, so there is no reason for a mod to get involved or heck, to dole out any type of punishment.

One would think that the constant refrain of ad hominem, trolling, and threadcrapping would be more than enough, but I guess other things are more "dangerous" than toxic posters.

[kyoryu]

One would think that the constant refrain of ad hominem, trolling, and threadcrapping would be more than enough, but I guess other things are more "dangerous" than toxic posters.

Ultimately, modding is hard. The best way, in my epxerience, to mod is to have specific rules that you enforce. Banning people for being "jerks" gets into fairly obnoxious spaces fairly quickly.

So if he hasn't broken the rules, he hasn't. But that doesn't mean that a revision of the rules isn't in order.

[Scripten]

Ultimately, modding is hard. The best way, in my epxerience, to mod is to have specific rules that you enforce. Banning people for being "jerks" gets into fairly obnoxious spaces fairly quickly.

So if he hasn't broken the rules, he hasn't. But that doesn't mean that a revision of the rules isn't in order.

Absolutely agreed. There's a very fine line between banning dissent and banning trolling/flaming. I know I've gotten into heated discussions where neither side was outright trolling or flaming and where mod intervention would be overkill regardless of which side the scales tilted.

That said, I think it's pretty obvious that DU is intentionally trolling, though I make no argument that he is using multiple accounts based on the evidence. I saw the OOTS thread with ED and, while he uses similar rhetorical tactics to DU, I don't see it as evidence enough. (And it's not really my lane, anyway. The mods can deal with that on their own.) Once DU started threatening/bragging about opening new threads to antagonize people, it became very clear that his intent is to troll.

[OldTrees1]

Absolutely agreed. There's a very fine line between banning dissent and banning trolling/flaming. I know I've gotten into heated discussions where neither side was outright trolling or flaming and where mod intervention would be overkill regardless of which side the scales tilted.

That said, I think it's pretty obvious that DU is intentionally trolling, though I make no argument that he is using multiple accounts based on the evidence. I saw the OOTS thread with ED and, while he uses similar rhetorical tactics to DU, I don't see it as evidence enough. (And it's not really my lane, anyway. The mods can deal with that on their own.) Once DU started threatening/bragging about opening new threads to antagonize people, it became very clear that his intent is to troll.

The strange thing is: the mods have been put on notice about DU's obvious intentional trolling*, and nothing visible has happened. It is almost like DU's trolling is sanctioned by the moderators.

*How many of you followed forum protocol and flagged the trolling/flaming posts?

[Koo Rehtorb]

The strange thing is: the mods have been put on notice about DU's obvious intentional trolling*, and nothing visible has happened. It is almost like DU's trolling is sanctioned by the moderators.

*How many of you followed forum protocol and flagged the trolling/flaming posts?

Maybe DU IS a moderator! This conspiracy goes to the highest levels.

[kyoryu]

DU's obvious intentional trolling

I really don't think he's trolling.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's Poe's Law all up in here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I really don't think he's trolling.

Then he's doing a darn good duck impersonation. Because he's quacking, waddling, and paddling around in ponds.

[Mr Beer]

The strange thing is: the mods have been put on notice about DU's obvious intentional trolling*, and nothing visible has happened. It is almost like DU's trolling is sanctioned by the moderators.

*How many of you followed forum protocol and flagged the trolling/flaming posts?

That's because he's trolling in a lowkey manner. He's advanced an opinion and refused to understand the numerous clear explanations as to why he is wrong. But, he's been pretty polite about it and the opinion isn't real world controversial or offensive.

Provoking discussion about RPGs and then being obtuse isn't a warning offence in my opinion. If I was moderating this forum, I wouldn't impose any penalty on him based upon this thread.

EDIT

Also to be fair, there is a non-zero chance DU is not trolling, I can't see into his mind. I'd put it as sub-5% but it's all just guessing.

[Mordaedil]

If he could be posting "guys I'm totally trolling you", and you could still defend his actions by saying "he's obviously joking. I don't know what he is thinking", then maybe, just MAYBE you are the one taking things too far.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Given that this thread has exceeded 50 pages, and no useful discussion has occurred in the last two or three of those, it's time for it to end.

Thread locked.