Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5042863" data-attributes="member: 177">Pawsplay, sometimes you make me want to rip my hair out in frustration.&nbsp; Your phrasing swaps back and forth between personal-anecdotal (which is fine) and assertion of how everyone else did things (which is much less fine). To be clear - unless you've got some nice comprehensive study in your pocket, you know how most of your non-tournament games used to be played.&nbsp; Yes, well I find it to be a lousy term.&nbsp; Here's why.I can hand you a page of paper, with what looks like text characters printed upon it.&nbsp; Very similar to the Latin alphabet, but which some small variations.&nbsp; The characters are in an arrangement that's much like words, physically laid out like verse.&nbsp; It is not in English, or any other language you speak.&nbsp; Could you tell me if that text has meaning?&nbsp; Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm going to guess you'd say, &quot;Not to me, but maybe to someone who could read this.&quot;Maybe I just handed you a copy of the story of a mythical Baltic cultural hero, or maybe I just handed you the equivalent of a &quot;Lorem ipsum&quot; gibberish.&nbsp; You don't really have a way to tell - whether it has meaning to you doesn't tell you what the meaning might be to someone else.I could hand you an English translation of the story of that cultural hero, and you could say it has meaning.&nbsp; Could you say it has the same meaning as it does to a member of that culture?&nbsp; Probably not.&quot;Meaning&quot; is subjective.&nbsp; Moreover, the term is emotionally loaded.&quot;In sandbox games, player choice has meaning!&quot; implies (and around here, sometimes is followed by an explicit statement that) in non-sandbox games, player choice has no meaning.&nbsp; Hubris.&nbsp; You don't get to say what does or does not have meaning at someone else's table.&nbsp; I don't like the word linear.&nbsp; Rather than &quot;tailored&quot; you suggested &quot;directed&quot;.&nbsp; But then, I'd not compare &quot;sandbox vs directed&quot;.&nbsp; I'd compare &quot;player-directed&quot; vs &quot;GM-directed&quot;.&nbsp; After all, isn't the central issue who has control of the direction? This decouples that central question from the details of implementation.&nbsp; Sandbox play is player-directed, sure.&nbsp; But is sandbox play the only way to get player-direction?&nbsp; I am pretty sure it isn't.&nbsp; If you said, &quot;Sandbox play is strongly player-directed.&nbsp; I find that it gives in-game choices greater meaning for me,&quot;&nbsp; I'd be happy as a clam.&nbsp; Because that's a far cry from, &quot;In sandbox games, player choices have meaning!&quot;-----I now have a bit of an aside that follows on here, though maybe it need to be forked to a different thread.On EN World, and as I understand it in other gaming venues as well, discussion of theory and analysis of games is typically performed by proponents of a particular style or construction.&nbsp; The activities of advocacy and analysis wind up overlapping, and that is not the best route to doing a really good job at either.&nbsp; We've seen this most strongly with the 3e/4e conflicts.&nbsp; But it has continued in the New School/Old School discussion, and now in Sandbox vs non-Sandbox.&nbsp; I expect the similarities of dynamic have been visible to those other than me.&nbsp; It is something for each of us to consider in our individual writings.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5042863, member: 177"] Pawsplay, sometimes you make me want to rip my hair out in frustration. Your phrasing swaps back and forth between personal-anecdotal (which is fine) and assertion of how everyone else did things (which is much less fine). To be clear - unless you've got some nice comprehensive study in your pocket, you know how most of [B]your[/B] non-tournament games used to be played. Yes, well I find it to be a lousy term. Here's why. I can hand you a page of paper, with what looks like text characters printed upon it. Very similar to the Latin alphabet, but which some small variations. The characters are in an arrangement that's much like words, physically laid out like verse. It is not in English, or any other language you speak. Could you tell me if that text has meaning? Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm going to guess you'd say, "Not to me, but maybe to someone who could read this." Maybe I just handed you a copy of the story of a mythical Baltic cultural hero, or maybe I just handed you the equivalent of a "Lorem ipsum" gibberish. You don't really have a way to tell - whether it has meaning to you doesn't tell you what the meaning might be to someone else. I could hand you an English translation of the story of that cultural hero, and you could say it has meaning. Could you say it has the same meaning as it does to a member of that culture? Probably not. "Meaning" is subjective. Moreover, the term is emotionally loaded. "In sandbox games, player choice has meaning!" implies (and around here, sometimes is followed by an explicit statement that) in non-sandbox games, player choice has no meaning. Hubris. You don't get to say what does or does not have meaning at someone else's table. I don't like the word linear. Rather than "tailored" you suggested "directed". But then, I'd not compare "sandbox vs directed". I'd compare "player-directed" vs "GM-directed". After all, isn't the central issue who has control of the direction? This decouples that central question from the details of implementation. Sandbox play is player-directed, sure. But is sandbox play the [i]only way[/i] to get player-direction? I am pretty sure it isn't. If you said, "Sandbox play is strongly player-directed. I find that it gives in-game choices greater meaning for me," I'd be happy as a clam. Because that's a far cry from, "In sandbox games, player choices have meaning!" ----- I now have a bit of an aside that follows on here, though maybe it need to be forked to a different thread. On EN World, and as I understand it in other gaming venues as well, discussion of theory and analysis of games is typically performed by proponents of a particular style or construction. The activities of advocacy and analysis wind up overlapping, and that is not the best route to doing a really good job at either. We've seen this most strongly with the 3e/4e conflicts. But it has continued in the New School/Old School discussion, and now in Sandbox vs non-Sandbox. I expect the similarities of dynamic have been visible to those other than me. It is something for each of us to consider in our individual writings. [/QUOTE]

Verification