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?

 

[Maxperson]

I've been saying this for years. Retreat is always an option--sometimes it's the best (or only!) option.

I used to think that, until I realized that most of the weakest monsters move just as fast as the PCs and a great many, of not most of the strong ones that you want to run away from move faster. Retreat should be an option, but if you're looking at it realistically, unless the party can teleport or fly away from something land bound, retreat isn't feasible. If you get into a fight with something bigger and badder than you, you're generally dead.

That's why I think options other than combat and death are often the better way to go. Now, if the PCs pick the fight, that's on them.

 

[Mort]

I've been saying this for years. Retreat is always an option--sometimes it's the best (or only!) option.

I'll provisionally agree.

In 5e retreat is only an option if the DM ensures it is an option.

Otherwise, if the DM just plays it "straight" there are many, many monsters the PCs simply could never outrun.

 

[Mort]

I used to think that, until I realized that most of the weakest monsters move just as fast as the PCs and a great many, of not most of the strong ones that you want to run away from move faster. Retreat should be an option, but if you're looking at it realistically, unless the party can teleport or fly away from something land bound, retreat isn't feasible. If you get into a fight with something bigger and badder than you, you're generally dead.

That's why I think options other than combat and death are often the better way to go. Now, if the PCs pick the fight, that's on them.

And that's the crux of it. In a sandbox, where the Power level of the monsters may be completely out of step with the power level of the PCs, there has to be some way to resolve encounters without a fight (be it run, negotiate, the "monster" has something other than death in mind etc.).

And this is often ignored - especially in published adventures.

Heck Lost Mine of Phandelver, often touted as one of the best starting points for a new/newbie campaign, has a monster which the PCs very well might encounter by chance.

And if the DM isn't prepared to give them an out (and makes sure they understand they should probably take it) there is a near certain probability of TPK. Especially with a new group.

 

[tetrasodium]

That statement right there is where a lot of these discussions run hard aground.

The point in a prepped-style game is that - in the minds of both the players and the DM - what's beyond the hill does already exist, and while whatever's there hasn't been seen yet by the PCs it has been seen by all sorts of other inhabitants of the setting*. Moreover, it would have continued existing even if the PCs never looked that way.

* - maybe even including some inhabitants that don't yet realize they're PCs! (in meta-terms, player-characters brought in later in the campaign that at this point haven't been rolled up yet)

Not really... Since @Ovinomancer 's example seems too unreasonable for the absolutist position of 100% prep 0% adlib with no qualifiers that would indicate anything inbetween is acceptable that keeps getting pushed

Spoiler: here's a printed version

Where is the line that the folks speaking with absolutes in favor of prep style gm'ing? rolling is prepared deciding is prepared using the examples is prepared. Until the dm does one of those things and says he's in the town you just arrived in he's not anywhere just as nothing is over the hill until the gm describes it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The game fiction is what is the fiction created for the game. There is the shared fiction, and there is the fiction that the DM creates for his world when he creates it. The work he does is fictional, involves the story of the world, and fully qualifies as game fiction. The stories, lore, creatures, treasures, etc. are pre-established in that fiction. That fiction is just not shared until the players interact with it.

Can it be changed between when the GM first writes the notes and when it's introduced in play? How extensively can it be changed?

Things are only part of the game's fiction when they're introduced to the players as part of that fiction. Prior to that, it's just some notes. And, as far as the players go, there's no real difference between made up a year ago and made up 10 minutes ago, and there shouldn't be for made up right now. Except, I'm being told there's some real difference in the fiction existing between all of these.

And you have multiple people telling you that when the fiction is created is the issue, or at least an issue. You don't get to tell them that they are wrong

I haven't, I've said that the reason for it mattering is not what's being argued. I say this because the GM's notes have no impact on the game until they're introduced in play, so caring that things were thought about before isn't really because of what happens in the fiction, but rather what other things that entails. I think there's a very real difference between improv and prep, and have been saying this all along.

I'm sure that for some people that's true. For others when the fiction is created matters a great deal. They are not wrong. For them it is about when the fiction is created.

Yup, it matter to me, for sure, but not because of any idea that it's more real if the GM wrote it down before telling it to me.

For a lot of us, if you trust the DM then there are no issues to address. We understand that the DM is human and has human failings, but we also understand that he's doing his best to be fair and impartial. That latter understanding removes any fear we have that our agency is being impinged upon.

The lack in this argument is how trust is established. This isn't blind, but instead established through either long play that shows a GM can be trusted, or through known constraints applied that let's you begin to trust the GM. You can't just say "trust the GM" and have that happen, and you really shouldn't. There's lots of bad GMs out there.

That's a pretty big Strawman. This is about agency, not about whether or not you like improv. There are lots of reasons you might or might not like improv or pre-determined settings, but the one we are discussing right now is agency.

It's a strawman to say that the argument that lack of trust in the GM is why people don't like improv is a bad argument that shouldn't be made? Weird.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That statement right there is where a lot of these discussions run hard aground.

The point in a prepped-style game is that - in the minds of both the players and the DM - what's beyond the hill does already exist, and while whatever's there hasn't been seen yet by the PCs it has been seen by all sorts of other inhabitants of the setting*. Moreover, it would have continued existing even if the PCs never looked that way.

* - maybe even including some inhabitants that don't yet realize they're PCs! (in meta-terms, player-characters brought in later in the campaign that at this point haven't been rolled up yet)

So, can the GM change what's over the hill prior to the players headed over the hill? If so, when can this change be made? I'm not asking for your preference, here, but a statement about when it's possible to change the fiction.

The answer to this will illuminate whether or not prep actually means things are there prior to being introduced in play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For everyone talking about when fiction is "real." Me saying that fiction doesn't really "exist" until it's introduced in play says absolutely nothing about the value of prep. I find it can be extremely valuable, but that value isn't at all rooted in having things over the hill exist prior to play.

 

[iserith]

I'll provisionally agree.

In 5e retreat is only an option if the DM ensures it is an option.

Otherwise, if the DM just plays it "straight" there are many, many monsters the PCs simply could never outrun.

The way I do it, particularly for wilderness encounters, is that if the PC can make it "off the map/grid" then (if the monster wants to chase) we dump into a chase scene which is resolved more like an exploration challenge - avoiding obstacles and trying to hide, which is similar though less clunky than the DMG chase rules.

I typically have a 25 x 25 square map on display. A random encounter starts at d3 x 30 feet. So the closer they are to the monster at the outset, it's a bit harder to get into a chase scene and they may have to work to make that happen since the edge of the map is farther away. But if they start at say 90 ft. distance, then it's easier. If a PC has a higher speed than the monster, they just succeed.

I've had one PC die so far in my current campaign during a chase. Poor paladin just could NOT hide to save his life. He died so others could live. A fitting end really.

 

[Mort]

So, can the GM change what's over the hill prior to the players headed over the hill? If so, when can this change be made? I'm not asking for your preference, here, but a statement about when it's possible to change the fiction.

The answer to this will illuminate whether or not prep actually means things are there prior to being introduced in play.

And the answer is really relevant.

Because if the answer is, the GM cannot (for whatever reason) change what's over the hill -then what you have is a railroad. Something (that should be) completely anathema to sandbox play.

 

[Maxperson]

Can it be changed between when the GM first writes the notes and when it's introduced in play? How extensively can it be changed?

That doesn't matter. The good faith DM won't change them. You're arguing that the existence of bad faith DMs makes it an issue. They don't. They're to be ignored.

Things are only part of the game's fiction when they're introduced to the players as part of that fiction. Prior to that, it's just some notes. And, as far as the players go, there's no real difference between made up a year ago and made up 10 minutes ago, and there shouldn't be for made up right now. Except, I'm being told there's some real difference in the fiction existing between all of these.

I'm the DM. I can change things after they're introduced into play as well. I can even come up with an in-fiction reason for it if I want to. And I can change it extensively. Bad faith DMing can strike at any point.

I say this because the GM's notes have no impact on the game until they're introduced in play, so caring that things were thought about before isn't really because of what happens in the fiction, but rather what other things that entails. I think there's a very real difference between improv and prep, and have been saying this all along.

I've had storylines going on that the players never found out about. It altered some things in the game that they did encounter, but they never knew why. My notes can have an impact on the game, even if they are never introduced to the players.

The lack in this argument is how trust is established. This isn't blind, but instead established through either long play that shows a GM can be trusted, or through known constraints applied that let's you begin to trust the GM. You can't just say "trust the GM" and have that happen, and you really shouldn't. There's lots of bad GMs out there.

No, there are not a lot of bad DMs out there. Or at least the number is a very, very small percentage of DMs. I mean, a million people doing X in the U.S. seems like a lot of people, until you realize that it's just 1 in every 328 people, which makes them very rare.

When I enter a game, I trust the DM to be fair and impartial until he shows me that he cannot be trusted. I'm not going to waste my time playing if I don't trust the DM. I won't have fun in a game where I'm scrutinizing him to see if he can be trusted.