What makes a Sandbox?

[Snoweel]

The Director of Central Intelligence can file that one away for the next big surprise attack.

A party of PCs will have far more limited collection capabilities than the CIA, especially if they're always out exploring the map.

Since you're so happy to keep spouting theory, why don't you tell us how it might work in practice, for a party of PCs to become embroiled in the investigation of a mystery, if the only mystery on offer is what's off the edges of the map/inside these known dungeons.

Should they ask around if anyone knows of any mysteries? I bet that works a treat for Panetta.

 

[Snoweel]

Well, "collaborative world-building" was not mentioned in the game description. I don't recall encountering it in the description of Contract Bridge, or Rise and Decline of the Third Reich, or Football, or any one of most other games either. And most people somehow don't get thereby paralyzed when it's their move.

The fact that all these games are extremely narrowly focused aside, don't confuse boredom with paralysis.

"Dude, do you want to play Dungeons & Dragons or not?"
"Well, personally I don't like dungeons, for a variety of reasons. And I don't like this, or that, or ..."
"So, who put a gun to your head and forced you to come to the table? If you'd rather play Ticket to Ride, or Settlers of Catan, then you could have said so and I could have brought that instead."

Is that all you've got? 'My way or the highway'?

Does a middle ground exist in your world?

 

[FireLance]

Well, "collaborative world-building" was not mentioned in the game description. I don't recall encountering it in the description of Contract Bridge, or Rise and Decline of the Third Reich, or Football, or any one of most other games either. And most people somehow don't get thereby paralyzed when it's their move.

You seem to be coming from the angle that D&D automatically excludes collaborative world-building. I don't see why that must necessarily be the case.

However, if you want to argue that it is only sandbox-style gaming that automatically excludes the possibility of collaborative world-building (and not D&D in general), please carry on.

 

[Ariosto]

I'm coming from the plain factual angle that D&D does not automatically include collaborative world-building, any more than Baseball automatically includes Frisbees.

There's nothing "wrong" with playing such a game. To assume that everyone else in a discussion of Baseball happens to have Frisbees in mind, though, would be confusing and remarkably odd.

The particular case is especially strange because

(A) Snoweel makes dogmatic assertions as to what "sandbox" means; and
(B) The only practically useful meaning I have encountered is "a game set up basically as described for old D&D"; and
(C) Snoweel -- along with others propounding intentionally impractical definitions -- seems not only directly hostile to that game form but not to have much of a clue as to what it's all about.

 

[Snoweel]

I'm coming from the plain factual angle that D&D does not automatically include collaborative world-building, any more than Baseball automatically includes Frisbees.

I think a less snide and more appropriate question for this particular thread, is whether 'sandbox' automatically excludes collaborative world-building.

Or we could carry on with another 8 pages of you attempting to muddy the waters.

There's nothing "wrong" with playing such a game. To assume that everyone else in a discussion of Baseball happens to have Frisbees in mind, though, would be confusing and remarkably odd.

Almost as odd as these incredibly irrelevant-yet-condescending analogies you keep trying to pass off as wisdom.

The particular case is especially strange because

(A) Snoweel makes dogmatic assertions as to what "sandbox" means

Cite?

I'm asking the questions mate, and attempting to clarify your vague and evasive answers.

(B) The only practically useful meaning I have encountered is "a game set up basically as described for old D&D"

Well since some of us don't have the same old-skool credibility or right to an opinion as you, could you explain why this is any more helpful, or even correct, as a definition than just clearly stating what is and isn't allowed?

I only just yesterday found out that collaborative world-building = badwrongsandbox, which surprised me since I thought we had the term more-or-less pinned down.

(C) Snoweel -- along with others propounding intentionally impractical definitions -- seems not only directly hostile to that game form but not to have much of a clue as to what it's all about.

Maybe you should be clearer instead of inventing new and pointless analogies.

So far the only position I've seen approaching consensus is that sandbox is a theoretical absolute, and even then a couple of posters disagree.

As for hostility, get over yourself. Ariosto =/= 'sandbox' so try and be a bit objective. There is no reason for anyone to be hostile to a play-style we can't even satisfactorily define, and besides, people will play how they play, regardless of what they call it.

Which brings me back to the key point. This is entirely a matter of terminology; what exactly is a 'sandbox' and can it only be defined by what it isn't?

 

[pawsplay]

I'm coming from the plain factual angle that D&D does not automatically include collaborative world-building, any more than Baseball automatically includes Frisbees.

Afraid I'm going to have to disagree. As in other things, it is a matter of degree. In point of fact, players regular engage in world-building in D&D, simply by creating PCs. Every PC represents the birth and life of one person in the game world. Even the least collaborative games have such elements.

 

[Ariosto]

I only just yesterday found out that collaborative world-building = badwrongsandbox, which surprised me since I thought we had the term more-or-less pinned down.

You pinned it down to "not really what people mean when they say they run sandboxes."

Don't you see the hubris in that?

 

[Ariosto]

Afraid I'm going to have to disagree. As in other things, it is a matter of degree. In point of fact, players regular engage in world-building in D&D, simply by creating PCs. Every PC represents the birth and life of one person in the game world. Even the least collaborative games have such elements.

That's fine metaphysics -- but I was not talking metaphysics. Neither are normal people, when they say, "Hey, guys! Want to play Game X?".

 

[Snoweel]

You pinned it down to "not really what people mean when they say they run sandboxes."

Don't you see the hubris in that?

I think you've misquoted me. I wrote about twenty lines.

Or is 'smug and dismissive' your answer to everything?

 

[pawsplay]

That's fine metaphysics -- but I was not talking metaphysics. Neither are normal people, when they say, "Hey, guys! Want to play Game X?".

It's not metaphysics, it's basic roleplaying. When people say you need imagination and some dice, that's the imagination part. I'm pretty sure this qualifies as a non-Cheetohs thread, in any case, so if metaphysics, then metaphysics. Although perhaps you meant semiotics...