D&D 5E D&d is not a good sandbox?

[Rhenny]

Another option is to place potential encounters status-quo, but tailor presentation. So if there's a Dragon on Mt Crumpet, there's a dragon there, whether the PCs climb it at 3rd level or 13th. At 3rd level, though, the challenge is 'hide from the dragon' as it flies overhead on its way to something more interesting, while at 13th, it might be 'kill the dragon.'

This is really good advice that capitalizes on the likelihood that a party could easily find itself in a situation not particularly suited for its level. Alternate goals become a feature of that type of world and often they can plant the seeds for future endeavors too.

 

[feartheminotaur]

Another option is to place potential encounters status-quo, but tailor presentation.

This is another great idea.

I tailor mine based on Encounter Difficulty. Say, the encounter is a demon out looking for prey on the Prime and I want it to be a 'Hard' encounter.

It would be a Barlgura if they run across it at 4th level (a Hard encounter for 4 PCs), a Glabrezu at 7th level, or a Nalfeshnee at 10th level. So on the random encounter table is "Demon Hunter - Hard", and no matter what level they are, the encounter scales with them.

This doesn't break realism at our table since it doesn't have to be a certain type of demon or an ancient dragon on Mt Crumpet to be realistic - just a demon and a dragon.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If the danger the creature represents is well-known that's not exactly meta gaming. OK, the killing goblins to go up a level is...

Another option is to place potential encounters status-quo, but tailor presentation. So if there's a Dragon on Mt Crumpet, there's a dragon there, whether the PCs climb it at 3rd level or 13th. At 3rd level, though, the challenge is 'hide from the dragon' as it flies overhead on its way to something more interesting, while at 13th, it might be 'kill the dragon.'

A certain amount of this comes for free with a sandboxed world. If you give players a menu:

(1) Run from the dragon
(2) Talk to the dragon
(3) Steal from the dragon
(4) Kill the dragon and take its stuff
(5) Enslave the dragon and make it dance for you

and you give them some idea of the relative difficulty of each of these options (Augury FTW!), they will naturally gravitate to an option which provides appropriate risk/reward given their current capabilities.

And that is why recon is to vital in sandbox games. One of my favorite things to do with important enemies like vampires and death slaads is to (1) make everybody aware that I can and do customize monster stats per-campaign; and then (2) make everybody roll blind knowledge checks (based on Arcana or History or Nature) and then give them all individualized stat readouts on vampire/dragon/demon lore, with varying amounts of false information based on how well they rolled. They get to compare notes, and of course they're usually inclined to believe the guy with the highest bonus on his roll... but what do you do when that guy's the outlier who says vampires are afraid of cheese and everyone else thinks they're afraid of garlic?! Probably you decide to get both cheese and garlic just in case, and as a DM that is terrifically entertaining to watch. Ditto for info on typical monster HP, immunities, spellcasting, etc. "Yeah, vampires are overrated. They only have 70 HP." Right.

 

[OB1]

Absolutely agree on recon being vital to sandbox games, and its a key component to controlling pace as well. I've set up the campaign I'm currently running in what I think of as Metal Gear Solid 5 style. The players have a large area to explore, and just by walking around, may run into a combat or two. They will also run into story hooks.

Once they take one of those hooks, they are in a mission. That mission will have between 10 and 15 combat encounters possible in it. Through recon, the players may learn ways around some of those encounters. Through skill checks, they may get around others. Their goal is to reduce the number of encounters they will face to a number low enough to accomplish their goal, typically between 6 and 8 (including multi-part encounters) since abandoning their goal to take a long rest will almost always lead to either failure to accomplish the goal, or at the very least when they return will find the difficulty went up. Short rests also risk upping future encounters as the enemy has time to regroup and prepare, but I will provide hints through the recon or skill checks as to when and where the players may find opportunities to short rest without that concern.

Along the way, I'll tempt them with encounters that lead to treasure but don't directly affect their goal. If they've successfully avoided other encounters, they may have the resources to go for it, if not, they may have to decide whether to give up their primary objective.

If they are attempting to do something "beyond their level" and they did not discover that in recon (or ignore what they discover), I telegraph early into starting the mission proper just how tough the situation is by throwing a deadly fight at them. They should win that fight, but also should be very nervous about pushing on further until they have acquired more power, which leads to another story hook as they go looking for the magic sword or staff of power that can help them accomplish that goal.

If all that sounds like a lot of work, well, running a sandbox is IMO! That said, I'll typically have a "patrol" type encounter for each mission that can be reused 4-6 times either on their own or as the back of a multi-part encounter if the players let someone in the first group sound an alarm. Several other encounters may be duplicates that are in different areas, and are only triggered with unlucky skill check rolls to avoid.

 

[PatriotofKarrnath]

my 2 cents is that D&D and similar class/level games are usually not very good for "unstructured" sandbox gaming. There is a certain almost video game type advancement going on and certain creatures stop being a threat early on, building a playable sandbox that is keeping to some kind of theme can get wonky. points of light really had us frustrated early on in 4th, 5th didnt seem to fix it much, bounded accuracy somewhat helps, but doesnt save it. I would recommend a "structured/restricted" sort of sandbox, made level equivelant with enough plot hooks to make it seem "open"

 

[steeldragons]

You are, apparently, missing somethings....maybe a few things.

 

[Greg Benage]

In addition to just rolling lots of random encounters, roll random (mini-) adventures. This can violate some purist tenets of sandbox play (modular lairs and mini-dungeons you can drop in when the dice or your DM instincts tell you to) but not every sandboxer is a purist. Also, random mini-adventures don't have to violate these tenets. This is something I used in B/X and AD&D back in the day. For example, if you roll an encounter with 24 orcs, it doesn't have to be one big group. It's one encounter with four orc scouts, then you track them back to the raiding party's camp, then you find a burned out farmhouse with a dead mom and dad and empty crib, then you're harassed by skirmishers all day, then you find out they've been herding you toward their outpost. Now you've got the outpost in front of you, you hear a baby crying, the skirmishers are behind you and you've been expending resources all day. What do you do?

The point is, you can roll for a random adventuring day of six to eight encounters as easily as you can roll for a random encounter. You just set up your tables a little differently and probably do a little more work. It's a big payoff, a lot more interesting, and (I think) offers greater verisimilitude. Sprinkle these adventuring days in with your set adventure locations, and the game will run just fine.

 

[ninjayeti]

I don't think I really agree with this. I've been running, and playing in, sandboxes for 35 years. And there doesn't have to be any metagaming at all. For example, a CR5 creature is probably going to leave clues around that an observant party will find long before they ever run into it. That might be rumors of ogres in the hills, nothing alive in a swamp area, but plenty of bones and remains, or finding out that the goblins are all working for a much tougher boss. Part of a living world is that all the creatures interact with each other as if...in a living world. You're not going to have that vampire lair over there without everything within miles of it being affected in some way.

My main point (which perhaps I did not make clearly enough) is that in an *ideal* sandbox, characters faced with the option of fighting ogres or hunting vampires would ask "what sounds more interesting?" rather than "what is an appropriate challenge for a party of our level?" IMHO the point of sandbox-type campaign is to maximize player agency and options. But the level system D&D uses (where a party can go from fighting goblins to gods over the course of a campaign) artificially constrains those options because a party's level is going to take options off the table as too hard or trivially easy.

In many ways the D&D leveling system works great - it keeps players motivated and allows for new abilities on a regular basis. But for purposes of running an open world sandbox, I think systems with a flatter power curve work better, because they make it easier for players to pursue what they want, rather than what their current level allows for.

To your specific point, above: I am not saying you can't drop "in character" clues as to what monster lives where. But if players have to ask - tacitly or expressly - "OK given our current level, can we handle this monster, or should we come back in a few weeks or months when we are more powerful" I'd call it metagaming. But your definition may vary, and frankly I don't think the terminology is the important thing here.

 

[PatriotofKarrnath]

looking at some of these responses makes think that the size and scope of the sandbox may be just as important as the system its in. A small island like in Ark, could have that 1 critter a bit too high for the party (the apex pred) and then some on down the scale. A city could have a situation where good rp and good ideas could nullify the advantage an enemy may have. I guess "scale" may be a more important factor than I initially considered

 

[ninjayeti]

If the danger the creature represents is well-known that's not exactly meta gaming. '

I agree its not metagaming for a party to know, for example, that a troll is a fearsome beast that can tear through a squad of armored soldiers in seconds.

I would argue that it IS metagaming when a party that almost died fighting kobolds and giant rats a few weeks ago says "Yeah, lets go kill us a troll!"