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

[PatriotofKarrnath]

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!"

If they had a real clever plan to get 1 troll, might be a thing, setting up a "fool proof" plan, that may be open for some hilarity at the least.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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!"

Unless, of course, the party is aware of level advancement mechanics in a concrete, in-character way. My standard matter-of-fact explanation to players/PCs for kill XP is to let them know that, "You are, in fact, life-force vampires. You get stronger by participating in the death of powerful creatures." Highlander: there can be only one!

If the party fighter is aware of the fact that his flesh is physically getting tougher and his eyesight sharper since he started murdering goblins, then it's not metagaming for him to change his attitude toward trolls. It's more like a comic book movie origin story.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

The only thing to be cautious of is the power schedule of classes is different, and the rest schedule they pick is may advantage some classes over others. This has been extensively discussed in the 6-8 encounters a day thread.

You might want to keep an eye on this and if you think the classes have 'to many' long rests, giving the short rest classes some sort of bonuses, or converting the 'short rest' classes to long rest classes by letting them use their short rest abilities three or four times per long rest. Conversely you could divide a long rest class by three or four to get make it a short rest class if you think the issue is the other way around.

Moving all the classes to the same power schedule frees you from the concerns about managing pacing.

 

[happyhermit]

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?"

Wait, what? A person might think it is more interesting to hop into a UFC ring, than to practice some mixed martial arts or boxing at a local gym. Unless they are insane though, they are going to choose an appropriate challenge.

... 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. ...

There is nothing meta about a character assessing approximate strength of an enemy, it is something that we all are inherently capable of to varying degrees and it only makes sense that sentient creatures in-game would also be able to do so. As to the "come back in x amount of time when we are more powerful", that is not something that should be asked or answered. There might be a way for the PCs to kill that giant in non-traditional ways for example. Or, as mentioned they could choose to come back when they have worked themselves up to that metaphorical UFC level that I mentioned. Whether or not it is weeks or years in-game for them to be capable depends entirely on how the game is run.

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!"

Again, that is not at all metagaming if approached from a character perspective. The characters see themselves improving, on whatever timescale is used, and if they can kill a giant rat without batting an eye it makes sense that they would be more confident to take on stronger foes.


I got a lot out of this thread, haven't seen so many open world type people in awhile. Sandbox style games are by far my favorite these days and I have found 5e really handles them fine. Bounded accuracy has helped me a lot. I don't often get to held up on numbers, as it has rarely ever taken away from the sandboxy feel, so I tend to use them to create the effect desired. The fact that a horde of goblins remains a threat even to higher level characters (albeit a somewhat annoying one) has been really nice. That little goblin lair you left a year ago shouldn't be much of a problem now... unless there are a lot more of them Or more often, the PCs know that there are goblins in the area, but the number they encounter at any particular time is not definite.

I have played some really simulationist type games in the past, either by rolling or actually determining where darn near everything is, but I found all that really matters is the "feel". What matters is that the players feel like their characters can try to do anything it makes sense for them to try.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Sandbox gaming is about dynamic player agency--that the players can dictate the goals, methods and even pacing of their adventuring. Obviously players want their characters to be at full strength as much as possible. This is especially true in a sandbox where an inadvertent level-inappropriate TPK encounter could be right around the corner. On the other side of the equation is the DM's desire to challenge the players, which often means foiling their ability to recover resources. A big flaw of 5E is to not address this natural tension and give DMs advice on how to navigate it.

A case in point might be the newbie DM who creates a great little Lost Crypt dungeon of 6-8 encounters with a boss monster at the end. The DM carefully budgets out the encounters with XP and CRs and is very proud of all the work that went into it. The PCs go through it and do fairly well but then, instead of facing down the skeletal knight at the end, they retreat to take a long rest before the final battle. The final encounter isn't that hard and a refreshed party will wipe the floor with it. What's the DM to do? Let the anticlimactic showdown happen as is? Retcon the final encounter? Retcon the Lost Crypt so that it's restocked enough to suitably and conveniently drain the PCs once again?

In such a scenario the DM could certainly conclude that 5E doesn't support sandbox play or, make it very easy. There are solutions, of course, but the rules don't do a very good job of explaining how to tackle attrition and rest management in content design. Which is odd, because D&D adventuring is traditionally attrition based. It's not like 3.X or 4E rest mechanics didn't suffer from the same destabilizing tension. The 3.X-era 5MWD is the poster child of the issue. The trickiness of 4E and 5E is the addition of the short rest which gives an even easier to pull off rest mechanic.

For my sandbox game, I do the following to make it work (more or less):
1. Use slower rest rules. Having 6-8 resource-draining encounters per day is absurd in my campaigns.
2. Never create static (unchanging) situations. I'll rarely track events outside of the PCs' experience but once they enter a 'zone' and start interacting with it, all the major elements will pursue their goals as they see fit. The classic dungeon setup of the monsters waiting patiently in room B-5 while the monsters in room B-4 are dispatched is the biggest culprit here.
3. Stretch out random encounters. A random night encounter at the PC camp might just be 1d6 kobolds. Do they attack? Of course not. They throw stones and mocking laughter just outside of sight for hours at a time. Do the PCs pursue them into the night? If the kobold taunts are true, the whole tribe might be out there or on its way. Another encounter during a rest might just be a dragon's roar unsettlingly close. Don't just attack the party, disrupt the party.
4. My current setting is magic-lite which goes a long way towards curbing convenience and exploration magic like rope trick, create food and water, endure elements, etc. I've managed to get the party to hurry through inhospitable areas as a result.

 

[S'mon]

To me the biggest mechanical issue for running sandbox adventures in D&D is the huge power difference even a couple levels makes. If you are running a true sandbox, then low level parties are likely to get into encounters they can't handle. The only real solution is metagaming by players ("That's a CR5 creature, we can't beat it. Lets go kill some goblins and come back here in a couple of weeks when we have leveled up.").

I don't think it's metagaming for PCs to be able to assess the threat level of most monsters and know when not to fight. I do think that D&D's steep power curve is an issue for status-quo sandboxing
. In traditional D&D this was handled by keeping the wilderness sandboxing to a defined level range, roughly 3rd or 4th level to ca 10th level. Levels 1-3 were the newbie starter dungeon levels, levels 4-9 allowed wilderness sandboxing, levels 10+ were 'end game' dominion rulership & occasional high level dungeons. 5e models this somewhat with its tiers; you can build your default wilderness
sandbox around the Heroic/5-10 tier. Lower level PCs should stick to short expeditions; high level PCs should mostly be doing other stuff.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I know some people really like playing d&d as a sandbox. However it seems to me that the rest mechanics have never worked well for that style of play. Am I missing something or are some people just trying to fit a square peg into a round hole?

D&D was designed for sandbox play - but the rules that have been taken out across the editions were the ones that made it suited to such. For example the wandering monster rules that made you want to rest somewhere safe rather than try to take on wilderness wandering monsters, and the XP for GP rule that provided drive, motivation, and intended play style.

 

[the Jester]

I know some people really like playing d&d as a sandbox. However it seems to me that the rest mechanics have never worked well for that style of play. Am I missing something or are some people just trying to fit a square peg into a round hole?

You are totally missing something. D&D is the original sandbox game. The mechanics support sandboxing just fine, I assure you, and they always have. I've run a sandbox from 1980 to the present with no problem.

 

[the Jester]

How do you prevent too many long rests. How do you allow just enough short rests?

What does that have to do with a sandbox?

 

[the Jester]

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.

As an inveterate sandbox DM, I couldn't disagree more. So what if the 10th level pcs want to take on a tribe of kobolds? They are choosing a very low-risk, very low-reward option. That's fine. That's their choice. So what if the 4th level pcs decide not to run away from the CR 13 random encounter? Maybe they tpk, maybe they win big. That's fine, too; it's also their choice. There is no need to artificially constrain their choices; there is a need to respect the players' agency. One thing about a sandbox is that, as the DM, you simply don't need to worry about what an "appropriate" challenge is- that's up to the pcs to decide.