Why 'Sandbox' is a meaningless phrase

[Pleh]

Just because its hard doesn't mean its impossible. Just because its impossible today doesn't mean it will be impossible tomorrow.

But it could still always be impossible forever, let's not discount this possibility.

Further, we have nothing to be gained by quantifying a game's linearity in light of the fact that our current words work just fine. No need to discard an old model until the new one is actually here to replace it.

Red is a lot of shades. But when it starts being used for every shade that is not navy blue then it becomes near-meaningless.

Thank goodness nothing like that has happened in this discussion and the danger of this happening remains merely a strawman.

[Emperor Demonking]

Since you're the one so interested in nailing down what sandboxy means, why don;t you share your answers to those questions first?

It is an unanswerable question since Sandbox is a meaningless phrase.

Pleh: 'It might be impossible' simply isn't a useful attitude to have, I don't think.

I would say that what we have done not work particularly well hence this thread, hence the thread also here on the same topic, hence the retreat into sandboxy. Hence too many times for it to be true.

Where have you found it useful?

I think if a game can be called a Sandbox if it has any Sandboxy elements - a possibility you could not discount - then that's not so different from red meaning every colour but navy blue. If the term can be given to almost every game (apart from parodies of linear games like Bored) then it is a meaningless term.

Sandboxy - as an attempt to salvage a metaphor taken from video games - is also not harmonious.

I will leave with this final note - because I find it interesting and I want post in the thread again unless someone wants to make a part 2 - earlier in the thread some pointed out an old TSR book that split between 'Linear' and 'Open World'. The ability to stop the adventure and go back - a quincentical defining feature of the Sandbox - is explicitly mentioned as possibilities for the players in linear games.

[OldTrees1]

It is an unanswerable question since Sandbox is a meaningless phrase.

Sandbox is defined in the Linear Game to Sandbox continuum. If you have issues with that definition, feel free to read this 50 page thread demonstrating how the term does have a significantly valuable linguistic use to the vast majority regardless of your own experiences with the word.

[Mordaedil]

Logging into a different account was all it took to start the arguments again, huh?

[Pleh]

It is an unanswerable question since Sandbox is a meaningless phrase.

When you presume the conclusion to make the conclusion, you have left the realm of logic.

Pleh: 'It might be impossible' simply isn't a useful attitude to have, I don't think.

As a scientist, I disagree. It's always useful to have realistic expectations. Currently, we're pretty sure FTL travel is impossible, due to the infinite amount of energy it would require. Not that this stops us from continuing to pursue it, but that those pursuing it need to admit the likelihood of it turning out to be a wild goose chase for their study to have intellectual honesty.

I would say that what we have done not work particularly well hence this thread, hence the thread also here on the same topic, hence the retreat into sandboxy. Hence too many times for it to be true.

I would say this thread is the only place where I've seen anyone struggle with the term. I think you have more to prove that anyone could find it problematic than I to prove it useful. It hasn't stopped being useful except here where people seem to beligerently reject it for no particularly convincing reasons.

So far, arguments against it have waffled between the term being too limited as to apply to unreal game scenarios and being too ubiquitous to matter.

Again, this is the only place in the world that seems to be struggling with this concept, so I find it unlikely that all the people successfully using this term simply don't realize it has no meaning. Much more likely, you don't or won't understand.

Logging into a different account was all it took to start the arguments again, huh?

"Darth Ultron" and "Emperor Demonking" certainly seems a suspiciously similar naming criteria, but the tone this time arpund seemed marginally more polite, so I was willing to offer benefit of the doubt until everything devolved back where it was (which we've almost got there again).

[Emperor Demonking]

Since, you lot decided to take my saying that I did not plan to post again in the thread as an opportunity to suddenly accuse me of an eleven-year long breaking of the forum replies then I will respond.

When you're at the point where "Everyone who disagrees with me is just the same person", you're wrong. I am not Darth Ultron.

I would say this thread is the only place where I've seen anyone struggle with the term.

Also on the front page of this board Pippa the Pixie asks "So what is a sadbox game anyway?". So you must be blind. I am not Pippa the Pixie either, before you start with that.

Also, in that thread 1 of3 writes "No one knows. It is just a stupid metaphor. It can mean all and nothing." I am not 1of3 either, before you start.

When you presume the conclusion to make the conclusion, you have left the realm of logic.

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.

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.

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.

So far, arguments against it have waffled between the term being too limited as to apply to unreal game scenarios and being too ubiquitous to matter.

Yes when you give an argument that is too limited. That is the criticism. When you change your definition - which you can do because the phrase is meaningless - to one that is too vague then that is the criticism. When you want to exclude all that needs to be excluded then you are liable to exclude that which really needs to be included and end up with something too stringent. If you try to include all that needs to be included then you end up with something that is too vague and that includes things that really oughtn't be.

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.

[Boci]

Since, you lot decided to take my saying that I did not plan to post again in the thread as an opportunity to suddenly accuse me of an eleven-year long breaking of the forum replies then I will respond.

One person said that, and the very next poster discounted the possibility.

[Emperor Demonking]

One person said that, and the very next poster discounted the possibility.

One person said that. The very next person said "Darth Ultron" and "Emperor Demonking" certainly seems a suspiciously similar naming criteria, but the tone this time arpund seemed marginally more polite, so I was willing to offer benefit of the doubt until everything devolved back where it was (which we've almost got there again). ", the " I was willing to offer benefit of the doubt " is an accusation not a discounting.

[Max_Killjoy]

Logging into a different account was all it took to start the arguments again, huh?

So I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion after a couple of pages?

Showed up out of nowhere, same belligerent posting style, same phrasing and wording, same deliberate misrepresentation of what other posters have said, same exact positions.

I will leave with this final note

And yet you didn't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion after a couple of pages?

Showed up out of nowhere, same belligerent posting style, same phrasing and wording, same deliberate misrepresentation of what other posters have said, same exact positions.




And yet you didn't.

And DU went dark at exactly the same time...

[Emperor Demonking]

So I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion after a couple of pages?

Showed up out of nowhere, same belligerent posting style, same phrasing and wording, same deliberate misrepresentation of what other posters have said, same exact positions.

Look at OldTrees1. Came out of nowhere. Same belligerent posting style as you. Same belief in the 'Sandbox is defined in the Linear Game to Sandbox continuum' as you. Same everything as you.

Yet, one of us has an open mind. One of us does not feel obliged to defend a phrase, which is frankly meaningless. So one of us doesn't have to accuse everyone who disagrees with us on the meaningless of the 'Sandbox' of being the same person.

Do you happen to remember earlier in the thread where you lot were being rude to Darth_Ultron as you complained about how rude he was and were mocking him for his claim that you were all a sort of hivemind of shared giantitp-approved opinions?

You are much, much worse than Darth Ultron.

And yet you didn't.

And my reason was perfectly understandable. I did not expect that sort of opportunistic cowardice. Waiting for someone to say they are checking out of the thread - because of the forum rules on thread length, mind you - to accuse him of being a sockpuppet is behaviour of the most gutless and sneerworthy sort.

[Boci]

Look at OldTrees1. Came out of nowhere. Same belligerent posting style as you. Same belief in the 'Sandbox is defined in the Linear Game to Sandbox continuum' as you. Same everything as you.

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.

Yet, one of us has an open mind. One of us does not feel obliged to defend a phrase, which is frankly meaningless.

You don't have an open mind. You concluded long ago that sandbox was a meaningless phrase and your questions since have been a fishing expedition to gather evidence for that.

We don't have an open mind to the idea that sandbox is a meaningless phrase, because we all independtly before this thread knew what it meant and could use it. If you know what something means, you're generally not going to be open minded to being told its a meaningless phrase.

[Emperor Demonking]

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.

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"

Imagine that the two of us are told that we are each to be blindfolded and will feel an animal. But we are tricked and I am given a cow and you a Rhino. You would agree that "The animal that we both felt" does not exist, right? OK, so we play this game and agree that it has leathery skin and four legs. I then say no horns. You say 'yes horns'. So I create the term 'Bottom Horns'. Frankly we can have a lively debate on describing "The animal that we both felt". That does not change the fact the fact that the animal does not exist.

In this case we're not blindfolded, but we are all playing on different tables, in different communities etc.

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

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...ox-game-anyway - Literally five threads down and this is not a particularly busy board.

You don't have an open mind. You concluded long ago that sandbox was a meaningless phrase and your questions since have been a fishing expedition to gather evidence for that.

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.

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").

We don't have an open mind to the idea that sandbox is a meaningless phrase, because we all independtly before this thread knew what it meant and could use it. If you know what something means, you're generally not going to be open minded to being told its a meaningless phrase.

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.

Not trying to be rude by the comparison, but imagine a bunch of people who were "abducted by aliens". Would these people not be able to have debates about the size of the test tube? But when criticised would they not be inclined to adjust their story - since the "aliens that abducted us" have no real existence they can do that- to answer that criticism, but inevitably introduce a new one. Perhaps they would even start accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being the same person and to force themselves not to see a thread literally on the front page just a couple of threads down. That doesn't mean that "The aliens that abducted us" have any real existence though, does it?

[Boci]

It wouldn't be that difficult if it was a meaningless phrase.

Correct, it would be impossible. "Is getting lost in your home town after there for the first time in yeas a true example of shraldeshuten?" is impossible to debate because no one knows what "shraldeshuten" is, not even me, and I just made the word up.

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.

Yes, that's how language works. If I know what a word means, and other people indepent of me know what a word means, then it has meaning. That how it works with any word, and someone else not understanding the word doesn't change that.

Not trying to be rude by the comparison, but imagine a bunch of people who were "abducted by aliens".

You're confusing meaning with actual events. The proper comparison would be someone saying "abducted by aliens is a meaningless phrase". Which you would disagree with, reguardless of whether or not you thought such events actually happened.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...ox-game-anyway - Literally five threads down and this is not a particularly busy board.

HYou mean that new account, created yesterday, with one other post on it? Even if they are genuinly asking (its a bit of a wierd first topic for a lurker, but sure), they're new. New forum member need to ask thing. There's been threads asking what RAW and PEACH are. Hardly proof those things are meaningless.

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").

That's is:

A. not meaningless
B. not a terrible definition of a sandbox. Its not going to work all the time, but it identifies a key feature of very sanboxy games that would not feature in more linear adventures

[Max_Killjoy]

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.

Darth Demonking is asserting that OT1 and I are the same poster based on an uninformed, belligerent reading of my comment about their use of two accounts.

[Emperor Demonking]

Darth Demonking is asserting that OT1 and I are the same poster based on an uninformed, belligerent reading of my comment about their use of two accounts.

No I am not.

[OldTrees1]

Look at OldTrees1. Came out of nowhere. Same belligerent posting style as you. Same belief in the 'Sandbox is defined in the Linear Game to Sandbox continuum' as you. Same everything as you.

Yet, one of us has an open mind. One of us does not feel obliged to defend a phrase, which is frankly meaningless. So one of us doesn't have to accuse everyone who disagrees with us on the meaningless of the 'Sandbox' of being the same person.

I see you failed to follow instructions or make any attempt at addressing my airtight argument.

This thread, as a result of Darth Ultron's intentionally trolling, clearly demonstrated that the term Sandbox has significantly valuable linguistic use for the vast majority of people that Darth Ultron succeeded in trolling. (which I guess also includes me if you happen to be that troll I have been avoiding as per forum rules)

When you attempt to argue a word as 0 linguistic value, then any demonstration of linguistic value disproves your pet theory.

[Max_Killjoy]

Look at OldTrees1. Came out of nowhere. Same belligerent posting style as you. Same belief in the 'Sandbox is defined in the Linear Game to Sandbox continuum' as you. Same everything as you.

Not really, OldTrees1 has been on this tread for quite a while. Not that you can be expected to remember that, since you don't pay any attention to what anyone actually posts, other than to skim for buzzwords you can lash out at.

But that sort of superficial misreading and willful ignorance is what gives you away -- the more you post on this account, the less doubt you leave.

Yet, one of us has an open mind. One of us does not feel obliged to defend a phrase, which is frankly meaningless. So one of us doesn't have to accuse everyone who disagrees with us on the meaningless of the 'Sandbox' of being the same person.

Do you happen to remember earlier in the thread where you lot were being rude to Darth_Ultron as you complained about how rude he was and were mocking him for his claim that you were all a sort of hivemind of shared giantitp-approved opinions?

You are much, much worse than Darth Ultron.

OK, Darth Demonking.

Using a second account won't keep you off the ignore list.

/plonk

[OldTrees1]

Not really, OldTrees1 has been on this tread for quite a while. Not that you can be expected to remember that, since you don't pay any attention to what anyone actually posts, other than to skim for buzzwords you can lash out at.

But that sort of superficial misreading and willful ignorance is what gives you away -- the more you post on this account, the less doubt you leave.

Actually, besides the 3 PM replies I sent rather than actually posting in this thread, that page 51 post was my first reply to this thread. Just not replying to Darth Ultron's trolling is difficult but grows easier each time.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Darth Demonking is asserting that OT1 and I are the same poster based on an uninformed, belligerent reading of my comment about their use of two accounts.

I was gonna avoid poking my head in this uh... delightful conversation but aside from writing like non-native English speakers and sharing a particular opinion nothing I see indicates these are anything but two different people and I did investigate. Accusing Demon king of being DU is not productive and straight up a bit mean. I do not agree with their stance at all but let's please not dig at the people.

[Milo v3]

While Darth Ultron has account-hopped before (he was originally Jedipotter), I don't feel there is enough evidence to be making accusations in this situation.

[Max_Killjoy]

Actually, besides the 3 PM replies I sent rather than actually posting in this thread, that page 51 post was my first reply to this thread. Just not replying to Darth Ultron's trolling is difficult but grows easier each time.

I must be thinking of one of the other discussions Darth Demonking has threadcrapped, they're starting to blur together.

I was gonna avoid poking my head in this uh... delightful conversation but aside from writing like non-native English speakers and sharing a particular opinion nothing I see indicates these are anything but two different people and I did investigate. Accusing Demon king of being DU is not productive and straight up a bit mean. I do not agree with their stance at all but let's please not dig at the people.

Exact same phrasing and comments, exact same habit of willfully ignoring what people are saying in favor his own deliberate misreadings and strawmen, exact same belligerent disdainful attitude... plus DU has a known history of creating new accounts as if to move on to a new pool once he's pissed in the last one too much... plus Darth/Emperor Ultron/Demonking, even the naming structure is a giveaway.

At any rate, I've put this other account on ignore too, no use in wasting time on someone who clearly is just here to crap on threads.

[Scripten]

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. Until that happens, it's not really useful to use suspicions of account hopping to discredit arguments. The argument that "sandbox" is a meaningless phrase is moot on its own merits.

And anyway, regardless of whether or not this thread's argument is resolved favorably, we now have at least two people here with the express purpose of parachuting into threads that mention the word "sandbox" so that they can rail against it. Bonus points if the trolling comes along with barely veiled insults slung at other DMs' abilities and massive misrepresentations of what people are saying.

[Florian]

I must admit that I´d be really impressed if that was the case of one user, two accounts. As a non-native english speaker with functional knowledge of half a dozen languages, I generally find it quite easy to figure out where some of the users on this board come from, because it really is hard to avoid certain speech patterns and axioms.

[Max_Killjoy]

And anyway, regardless of whether or not this thread's argument is resolved favorably, we now have at least two people here with the express purpose of parachuting into threads that mention the word "sandbox" so that they can rail against it. Bonus points if the trolling comes along with barely veiled insults slung at other DMs' abilities and massive misrepresentations of what people are saying.

Plenty of "bonus points" already built up... which is why I figure that at the end of the day, it might as well be the same person, and it doesn't matter if they're not. I'm not putting up with months of that crap this time either way.

[Segev]

I have never been 100% sure jedipotter and Darth Ultron were the same person. (In fact, the thing that makes me most suspicious of it is the thematic similarity of the names.) For all the faults in jedipotter's positions, that poster never really seemed to be as dense and intellectually dishonest as Darth Ultron. Emperor Demonking is also demonstrating more clarity of thought than Darth Ultron tended to, though the near-identical nature of arguments makes the speech pattern seem very similar. I am more suspicious of ED being DU than I am of jp being DU, though if all three are the same person, I would at most be mildly surprised.

If they're the same person, I do have to applaud his ability to shift writing tone and style. He didn't do as good a job of it with the DU->ED transition as with jp->DU, but it's still different enough that I'm not immediately 100% certain. (Unlike with a certain poster whose stopped even pretending he's not flagrantly violating forum rules to post his sorcerer-king over and over again.)

[Pleh]

One person said that. The very next person said "Darth Ultron" and "Emperor Demonking" certainly seems a suspiciously similar naming criteria, but the tone this time arpund seemed marginally more polite, so I was willing to offer benefit of the doubt until everything devolved back where it was (which we've almost got there again). ", the " I was willing to offer benefit of the doubt " is an accusation not a discounting.

Not an accusation at all. Rather an agreement that the similarities are uncanny and a reaction of suspicion seems rather warranted, even if no particular further reaction is necessary.

My point was that you've circular logic'd the discussion back into the ground same as the thread creator (whether that's a coindence or not), so I've got nothing left to add. Feel free to read back through the thread if you're interested in my thoughts. Most of what's left here is nothing more than cyclic reiteration of points already established (which I'm happy to do for new participants who might be trying to learn another person's perspective, rather than engage in futile efforts to disprove the meaning of sandbox).

[Milo v3]

I have never been 100% sure jedipotter and Darth Ultron were the same person. (In fact, the thing that makes me most suspicious of it is the thematic similarity of the names.)

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.

[Scripten]

If they're the same person, I do have to applaud his ability to shift writing tone and style. He didn't do as good a job of it with the DU->ED transition as with jp->DU, but it's still different enough that I'm not immediately 100% certain.

Ok, but you are confused about how easy it is to switch "writing style"... Everyone thinks its oh so hard to do... it's really not that hard. Maybe its difficult for Casual internet posters to change "style"... but in reality they just have to pick One style and mimic it. Good Posters just know how to do it and Bad Posters... don't.

[Segev]

Ok, but you are confused about how easy it is to switch "writing style"... Everyone thinks its oh so hard to do... it's really not that hard. Maybe its difficult for Casual internet posters to change "style"... but in reality they just have to pick One style and mimic it. Good Posters just know how to do it and Bad Posters... don't.

*slow claps*

I have attempted, and failed, to mimic DU's argumentation style that well when discussing with him. Well played, sir.