Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5123080" data-attributes="member: 80487">I do. I do not accept that it therefore must mean nothing at all. I do not accept that I must be limited to using language dictated by those who pursue such hair-splitting quibbles, disagreement that accomplishes nothing but to be disagreeable.The OD&amp;D instructions are objectively older than any &quot;style&quot; outside of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns. They are also an objective, independently verifiable phenomenon: a text.Finally, and most critically, they are the fountainhead of what -- in my experience -- people have in fact usually been talking about in recent years when they used the term 'sandbox'. That is the only use that I have had for it.The term, as far as I can see, arose precisely because &quot;Dungeons &amp; Dragons campaign&quot; had come not to be commonly understood as possessing that meaning. In fact, it has come overwhelmingly to mean &quot;adventure path&quot;. The old terminology, one might reason, not only no longer facilitated communication but could be made contentious -- as easily as Umbran picked a fight with &quot;old style&quot;. The 'sandbox' usage, at least as I met it, was chosen to serve a practical purpose and avoid tempting such pointless conflict.But now it's a &quot;damned if you do and damned if you don't&quot; proposition. Since it makes no difference whether one bends over backwards to be &quot;politically correct&quot;, why bother?You can accept that &quot;old style&quot; does mean &quot;old OD&amp;D instructions&quot;, regardless of whatever else it might mean. You can accept that my game is a &quot;Dungeons &amp; Dragons campaign&quot;, whatever your &quot;D&amp;D campaign&quot; might be. You can consider context, and treat language as an actual tool for conversation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5123080, member: 80487"] I do. I do not accept that it therefore must mean nothing at all. I do not accept that I must be limited to using language dictated by those who pursue such hair-splitting quibbles, disagreement that accomplishes nothing but to be disagreeable. The OD&D instructions are objectively older than any "style" outside of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns. They are also an objective, independently verifiable phenomenon: a text. Finally, and most critically, they are the fountainhead of what -- in my experience -- people have in fact usually been talking about in recent years when they used the term 'sandbox'. That is the only use that [i]I[/i] have had for it. [B]The term, as far as I can see, arose precisely because "Dungeons & Dragons campaign" had come not to be commonly understood as possessing that meaning. In fact, it has come overwhelmingly to mean "adventure path". The old terminology, one might reason, not only no longer facilitated communication but could be made contentious -- as easily as Umbran picked a fight with "old style". The 'sandbox' usage, at least as I met it, was chosen to serve a practical purpose and [I]avoid[/I] tempting such pointless conflict.[/B] But now it's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" proposition. Since it makes no difference whether one bends over backwards to be "politically correct", why bother? You can accept that "old style" [I]does[/I] mean "old OD&D instructions", regardless of whatever [I]else[/I] it might mean. You can accept that my game [i]is[/i] a "Dungeons & Dragons campaign", whatever [i]your[/i] "D&D campaign" might be. You can consider context, and treat language as an actual tool for conversation. [/QUOTE]

Verification