D&D 5E Do You Prefer Sandbox or Party Level Areas In Your Game World?

So these are two approaches that campaigns can (and do) use. They have various names, but I'm using these names. I've used both approaches in the past.

Obviously there is more nuance than the definitions below, but these are two possible extreme ends of the poll when voting feel free to choose whichever end you tend towards, or embellish in the comments.

Sandbox -- each area on the world map has a set difficulty, and if you're a low level party and wander into a dangerous area, you're in trouble. The Shire is low level, Moria is high level. Those are 'absolute' values and aren't dependent on who's traveling through.

Party -- adventurers encounter challenges appropriate to their level wherever they are on the map. A low level party in Moria just meets a few goblins. A high level party meets a balrog!

Which do you prefer?

 

[Emerikol]

I ad-lib which modules get used when. But the actual activities within those modules have all been nicely plotted out by writers better than me.

My style of DMing is once I've decided on what/where the campaign is set (and it's always an established campaign setting-- I don't make up my own)... I basically Wiki the area to death to get as much info as I can for what's already been written there. Then I rummage through a bunch of the D&D crap I've gathered over the years and find those adventures that could apply to certain places within the area.

And if any of those adventures are off-level... if/when the time comes that the party decides to go there I'll re-do the combat encounters to be applicable to whatever level the party is at the time. After all... these could very well be adventures that are from any of the four previous editions, which means I'm going to be re-writing the encounters anyway using 5E. So if I'm doing that... I sure as heck ain't gonna waste my time re-writing them to be the level that they might've originally been written for if the party is either past it or not even close to being ready. Because what would be the point of that? If some module I re-appropriate was originally written for characters level 1-3, but the story is cool and works well for where the party is headed at when they're level 6 at the time... I'll level the encounters up as part of my re-write so that it's actually useful and fun for them.

I would say that is a very standard and classic way of playing. So you are in good company. In my younger days I used a store bought world and mostly store bought adventures. Now I almost always do my own world (world building is fun to me). I do use third party adventures sometimes but not every time. So I am in no way critiquing your approach to the game.

I prefer the players do not assume I as DM will look out for them when it comes to encounters. It is absolutely a valid situation in my campaign that some encounters are intended to be ran from especially at lower levels. I tend to go with the idea that the wilderness has random encounters and some of them might be too much to handle especially at lower levels. It's best to avoid a long overland journey. Now about 4th or 5th level the PCs get to a level where they can handle the outdoors. They could in theory though encounter a dragon and at their level they should run or hide.

My style is very much old school and I enjoy that approach. If you are having fun with your approach then you are doing it right. What people get out of roleplaying games varies.

Addendum:
And when I say it varies it really does a lot. Look at the games out there. They are all over the play in the style they intend. Some people want to weave a story where they are more author than player. So deliberately having bad things happen to the PC is part of the fun. So we are probably closer in approach than we are with those folks. But if those folks are having fun and enjoying a game then they also are doing it right. Gygax himself said that the dirty little secret is that people could make their own game and part of that is taking a ruleset and making the game your groups.

Addendum 2:
I forgot to mention but in my games I tend to do a lot of preparation before the game even starts or I've even recruited a group. It's why I tend to offer what I have and players accept or they don't. Right now I am building a world. I will then build the sandbox. I will create a bunch of adventures (some of which will be reskinned 3rd party modules). I will create wandering monster tables. Then when the campaign begins I will be running the game but not building the game as much. Now when the PCs outgrow the sandbox, I will have been working on the next "sandbox". At really high levels, the sandbox becomes a bit looser. You have PCs who can travel around the world with ease. Then it perhaps becomes a bit more dangling of various "hooks" as mentioned above and the group biting.

 

[Emerikol]

payn said:
A few years ago id be firmly in the sandbox camp, but its eventually wore at my immersion and sense of narrative. I do like opportunities for the PCs to punch above their weight, but the PCs wandering into something they cant handle and getting TPK'd isn't terribly fun or interesting any longer.

then Maxperson said:

Wandering into something they can't handle can go many different ways. TPK is probably the least interesting, but can happen if the party is dumb about it.

now me:

Yes. A particular style of play such as the sandbox approach is something that is hard to introduce to a group that has not played that way. They tend to get themselves killed quick because they've got a lot of built in assumptions. It's a great way though for a group of brand new players. Because they haven't built up any of these assumptions of safety. Things like the "DM would never allow me to face a monster we can't beat". The thrill of those days is what I try to capture every time in my campaign. It also tends to make groups prepare better. I had one guy who developed an equipment list that he used every campaign. He bought everything on that list from string to chalk to other odd sundry things that he'd found useful over the years.

 

[Coroc]

All those who voted sandbox, you probably say that this is more "realistic" -but do you give clear warnings?

And if you do, is it in your opinion realistic that you always get a warning of an imminent danger?

If you do not give warnings, what is the point in having a party which does well in e.g. following adventure clues etc. perish in some high level encounter just because they took a wrong turn somewhere down the road?

 

[Coroc]

The idea that you have to put a ton of work into sandbox campaigns kind of baffle me. You have to put some thought into directions that your players could take but most of the time it can be a sentence or two.

The way I handle it is that at the end of a session I ask where the group wants to head next time and I prep for that. If they ever manage to stumble into an area I haven't even considered I'll make something up that's consistent with the rest of the campaign world.

I guess I've always been into improv, so much so that people accuse me of magically railroading when I'm making things up on the fly. It's a skill and like all skills is something most people can develop and get better at by doing it.

yea you got an economic approach, but that's not sandboxing.

 

[tetrasodium]

All those who voted sandbox, you probably say that this is more "realistic" -but do you give clear warnings?

And if you do, is it in your opinion realistic that you always get a warning of an imminent danger?

If you do not give warnings, what is the point in having a party which does well in e.g. following adventure clues etc. perish in some high level encounter just because they took a wrong turn somewhere down the road?

I think sandbox splits two ways. First you have a literal sandbox and let the inmates run whatever show they want. Second you have some collection of plot/story & problems in the world with no strictly planned route.the players need to follow.

That second type still allows the GM a lot of influence and there is always the option of a bigger big bad, a big bad existing openly in a way violence wont do much to actually solve, or some combo. Knowing that the local crime boss has some too to mount doom & sauron doesn't mean that you could accomplish anything useful with that knowledge & unlimited power though so they may as well deal with a better fleshed out problem rather than tilting at windmills.

The biggest problem with players getting on over their head tends to be murderjobo impulses "wait... what?... roll me a whatever check... you want to..." followed by a description of what the wanted poster might say of they survive and or "yea you know full well how bad that idea is halfway into that first twitchy impulse of a thought.

 

[Oofta]

yea you got an economic approach, but that's not sandboxing.

I'm not sure what a 100% sandbox would look like or how it would work, but yeah. I'd say it's more player driven responding to events with freedom to pursue whatever they want. Even though I don't decide the goals for the players, I have to set up fairly clear challenges and goals for them.

Whether that's just recapping rumors they've heard at the end of one session so I can plan for the next, ye olde notice board, multiple people asking for help or something else similar. I've never been into hexcrawl style games that are based on random decisions.

Kind of a different discussion though because it gets into player motivations and goals of the game.

 

[Emerikol]

All those who voted sandbox, you probably say that this is more "realistic" -but do you give clear warnings?

And if you do, is it in your opinion realistic that you always get a warning of an imminent danger?

If you do not give warnings, what is the point in having a party which does well in e.g. following adventure clues etc. perish in some high level encounter just because they took a wrong turn somewhere down the road?

I am not sure I even thought about it being realistic. I was just thinking it was more fun.

If you mean at the start of the campaign, then sure I explain the nature of the world if I feel my players are new and don't know my approach. Often they've played before and do know.

If as I suspect you meant right before a bad encounter occurs, then no I do not give a warning if a warning is not warranted. Of course, my group is very cautious and often will spot an enemy first. They also especially as they advance get better at running away.

I try very hard as a DM to play the monsters authentic. If the monster is dumb, I don't play them smart. I play them as they are. This is why sometimes a really smart enemy is undervalued x.p. wise and a dumb enemy is overvalued. I try also to write notes on how a monster would react given different stimuli. That way I don't start using player knowledge against them. Playing the monsters fair is essential I think.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Sandbox. The world is not aisle 7 in Walmart.

 

[Emerikol]

One thing to realize too is that at low levels, jobs are just posted. Some goblins are harassing caravans can you drive them away or kill them. It would be rare for a job to be posted saying an ancient dragon is rampaging and we need someone to kill it. It's just not the sort of job that gets posted at the local tavern.

So as a groups reputation grows, they may get more direct job offers. They've proven themselves capable. At even 4th level, they've likely become locally well known as an effective group. At 9th level, they are regional heroes in all likelihood. In a sandbox world though, a group does not have to take an offered job. They can wait for another or they can just explore and look into something they saw on a previous adventure. To me player agency is a high value.

Another disagreement that is common is where the world stands relative to the party. I've been accused of not keeping the spotlight on the party enough. The reality is that my campaigns are not a novel starring the players. There are NPCs going about the world with their own agendas. As they advance in level, the PCs will of course become more famous and have a greater impact no doubt. So a 9th level group is well known but it is not unique. There are many 9th level groups in the world. Far fewer than there are 1st level groups no doubt. So my world tends to have more high level NPCs than I think others do. Still a small percentage of the populace but not non-existent.

So here is an example. Suppose the group just up and decided they were going to kill the emperor of a large empire (think Rome) in the fantasy world. They are 9th level. Is this a good idea? No it is suicidal. If 9th level groups could easily kill emperors of large empires there would be no large empires. Could they succeed? Sure. But the odds of success would be very low and if they did succeed the odds they'd survive the coming counterattack are vanishingly low. So let's suppose they are all 20th level. Can they do it then? Their chances of success are much higher though not certain. And of course they will have an empire after them if they do succeed. And that empire will have a lot of resources to pursue them. I make the world functional and realistic in that sense. I ask myself, if this is how things worked, what would be the outcome.

 

[jasper]

I do party due to stupid players.
Ex. Elf Soup player. Low level players are on their way to Village of Hommlet (They don't know I using my last group changes to it.) Elf Soup decides he does not want to go and gets the party to strike out north. Goes on how he and the new players want sand box. Next encounter is the sisters from Hocus Pocus. Level 9+ monsters meet new party. I let them escape. Elf Soup sneaks back to witches house and night and offers up half the party as payment for power. Witches decide a elf in the soup is worth more than adventurers in the bush. Gripe session begins.
Ex 2. Foreshadowing done dinner. Have an adult green dragon (end of campaign monster) do a flyby which scare some of horses. Dragon starts to eat one the horses. Stupid fighter (level 2?)low crawls back into arrow range and fires at the dragon. Dragon gives him the hairy eye ball and returns to it meal. Fighter fires again. Dragon decides Fighter is back on the menu. No gripe session but some back channeling later on about encounters should be near party level.