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?

 

[Minigiant]

Sandbox with Party gates.

The party is in a Sandbox but walking into the off-level areas is not easy or doesn't come without plenty of warning. So to the party it feels like a Party setup.

 

[Maxperson]

If you smell dog poo all day, check your shoes.

This is a Sandbox thread. Cat poo.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Of course both parties bear responsibility, but: if you're regularly getting called out for elitism, there's definitely something you're frequently doing that's getting on people's nerves.

Who said anything about regularly? I certainly didn't. I asked how to avoid it completely.

And frankly I don't think there's a way to argue your "experience" is a key factor in how well you understand game without sounding elitist, simply because there's no way you have so much more experience in how someone else is playing to be able to tall them what they're feeling as they play better than they can tell for themselves.

This is a response I see quite often -- that one already knows enough and needs no more experience to accurately say what they want. It's like someone claiming that they need not try other food because they can say exactly what it is they like about a quarter pounder with cheese. That there's no culinary experience that could improve their ability to say what it is they like. It's pandering to ignorance as a virtue.

It's quite possible that said person will not be benefited by additional knowledge, or that gaining such, will still prefer what they do now. This is fine, better than fine, even. It's the argument that suggesting further knowledge and experience is elitist because, well, people know enough already. It's like being told doctors are unnecessary because we can all already say what hurts. Not that RPGs are akin to medicine -- analogies are all bad and all that.

If you smell dog poo all day, check your shoes.

Yeah, the irony here is that this cuts both ways, but I don't think you think it does.

 

[S'mon]

Sandbox, definitely. Of course the GM should let the level 1 PCs know that going to Mordor is probably a bad idea just yet. Generally I use something akin to the nested circles approach where most stuff near the starting location is low level, with higher level regions further away. And high mountains, glaciers, burning deserts etc will be higher EL than the innkeeper's cellar in Bree.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Who said anything about regularly? I certainly didn't. I asked how to avoid it completely.

You want to never be misunderstood? The don't talk about anything, ever, to anyone.

But for this particular situation: my advice hasn't changed. Don't imply people don't understand what they are thinking and that you do.

It's quite possible that said person will not be benefited by additional knowledge, or that gaining such, will still prefer what they do now. This is fine, better than fine, even. It's the argument that suggesting further knowledge and experience is elitist because, well, people know enough already. It's like being told doctors are unnecessary because we can all already say what hurts. Not that RPGs are akin to medicine -- analogies are all bad and all that.

I don't think anyone's saying experience isn't good - just that if you're response to someone is "you need more experience" then you will come across as elitist. Or if you tell them that they didn't experience what they thought they did. That just is elitist.

Yeah, the irony here is that this cuts both ways, but I don't think you think it does.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a Sandbox thread. Cat poo.

Not quite - that's Litterbox adventuring, in which everything goes to crap no matter what choices the PCs make.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You want to never be misunderstood? The don't talk about anything, ever, to anyone.

But for this particular situation: my advice hasn't changed. Don't imply people don't understand what they are thinking and that you do.

Here's the thing. What's often cited as reasons to want heavy prep is consistency and the feel of depth -- I believe "living, breathing world" was used upthread. But, heavy prep is not necessary to achieve this -- sufficient, yes, but not necessary. Yet, when this is pointed out, people start coming up with other reasons why -- usually that they can tell (talked about that) or that if they found out it would bother them. This is directly saying that there are additional reasons than the ones provided for the preference, and I've encouraged people to do a bit of soul searching to figure out why that is. I've provided some leads that I've noted from other conversations and because they applied to me, at one time, those being a desire for skilled play (which can feel obviated by a GM with no real restrictions on their authority over the fictional state of the game) and/or a lack of trust in the GM to be fair (ditto).

I don't think anyone's saying experience isn't good - just that if you're response to someone is "you need more experience" then you will come across as elitist. Or if you tell them that they didn't experience what they thought they did. That just is elitist.

Good thing I haven't said that, eh? And, when you go to a magic show, and see a great trick, is it elitist to say it was an illusion and what you think you saw isn't what you saw? I don't think so, so as a generality, this admonition is lacking. It's setting it up so that any suggestion to experience more things said by anyone can be easily dismissed as elitism. I've been pretty good about putting in hedges in my statements -- not making absolute statements, avoiding directly telling someone anything, and including plenty of call outs to my experiences and that it's perfectly fine to have a different preference, yet here we are, despite that, with you continuing to admonish me as to be elitist. Yet, I don't really care how you play, except that I hope you have the best experience you can. That's the only thing I wish for because it grows the hobby the fastest, and that benefits me tangentially. However, this is also a board where we discuss games, and if certain things are considered too elitist to bring up, well, that's an interesting position to take for the one calling elitism.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Just that you seemed to intend this as something that applies to me, but it cuts in the other direction as well -- if you're always looking for the hint of elitism, perhaps when you think you smell it you should check your own shoes. I was noting that it didn't appear to be intended ironically by you, but in more of a mic drop manner, which made it unintentionally ironic. Like rain on your wedding day, or spoons.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Yet, when this is pointed out, people start coming up with other reasons why -- usually that they can tell (talked about that) or that if they found out it would bother them.

This cuts to the heart of it for me. I've never encountered a DM who had both a high opinion of his ability to "fool" players by making everything up on the fly and the actual capability to pull off the deception. Hence, I'm naturally skeptical of the possibility.

I run sandboxes because when I'm on the player's side of the screen, I viscerally despise the agency-robbing feeling of having the game-world made up around me as I play.

 

[happyhermit]

So, I'm all ears for a way to talk to people about curried rice when they have no experience with it and make bad assumptions that doesn't run any risk of sounding elitist -- do you have any suggestions? I've tried many ways, many times, and while I've had success in some places, I still get accusations of elitism.

I am no expert communicator by any means, let alone teacher of such things. The earlier food examples are telling though, I mentioned people reacting to foods they are completely unfamiliar with, and while the video aren't without issue, they don't come across as elitist by any stretch despite the massive disparity of experience with a thing.

It's my understanding that it's usually best to avoid assuming other people's level of knowledge/experience on a subject, and let them share it as they want. And it's best to avoid ascribing things to lack of experience/knowledge when there are other possibilities.

Well, I didn't say that. What I said what I couldn't tell because all you told me about was the baggage. And I then extended the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, don't think much good can come of me detailing my issues with those systems in this thread/subforum, and I'm not really up to it anyways. If you were assuming I gave the systems a fair shot, great, I was just saying it didn't really come across that way.

I think Luke Crane got cancelled last week.

I don't think he got cancelled. He has said a lot of questionable stuff before IMO, and now it appears like he may have abused his position at Kickstarter. I haven't looked into the claims that extensively.

... in which everything goes to crap no matter what choices the PCs make.

A bit too much realism for me right now

 

[Mort]

I don't think he got cancelled. He has said a lot of questionable stuff before IMO, and now it appears like he may have abused his position at Kickstarter. I haven't looked into the claims that extensively.

His latest Kickstarter project got canceled because people (including other contributors to the project) found out that one of the contributors /consultants on the project was someone who is currently persona non grata in the gaming /streaming world.

There was enough outcry that the projected was canceled.