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?

 

[Scott Christian]

I would say neither. I lay out the quest and they take the path they want. They may encounter something too difficult, but is generally serves a foreshadowing purpose. Sometimes it doesn't and it is just a "be careful the world is dangerous." This goes both ways. Sometimes they encounter things way too weak. They can refrain or destroy. Their choice. Each one might come with a reward or consequence. It just depends.

But it all starts with prep. Laying the land. And writing the quest and the paths they can take. Some areas might have more than one quest, so they can choose. But the quest always has multiple paths.

 

[Gorg]

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.

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?

A little of both, I suppose. There's always the possibility that a party could bite off more than they could chew, and/or be confronted with the reality that they are NOT, in fact, the biggest dawgs on the block, lol. The old Gygaxian way of each succeeding dungeon level being more difficult than the last is a perfect example of the Sandbox philosophy.

Push too far, and you're liable to get your butt handed to you.

Also, in a fantasy world like most we adventure in, the fact that seriously nasty nasties exist means that there is always the possibility that you could encounter one- no matter where you go. Especially true of the BBEG's, and/or their tougher minions. If nothing else, it teaches the players the value of negotiation, hiding, or the concept of "Oh HELL no!!!" It also makes for good plot points, world at large events, or fodder for revenge fantasies or long term grudges.

The perfect example of this, is Fewmaster Teode from the Dragonlance Classics. You aren't supposed to be able to crush him until much later in the saga- HE is supposed to make your life more difficult. Getting captured, taunted, and rolled along in cages made for a powerful motivator, once we escaped. We HATED that guy!! And, boy was it satisfying when the tables turned! This, by the way, is why you should NEVER tell my namesake that he's under arrest... The occasional dragon sighting, Highlord encounter, etc that you had no chance of defeating at the time were important plot devices, and gave players the sense of being truly involved in something monumental and world shaking.

And then there was Fizban.

OTOH, adventures and planned encounters are tailored to the average ability of the group, more or less. Inc wandering encounters. You want to challenge them, keep them on their toes, and give them a chance at a fun time- not arbitrarily smush them like bugs.

Choices should have consequences- and players need to believe that. But a bit of common sense on the DM's part is also in order- if you don't want a super gritty game where players need a stack of backup characters rolled up and ready to go at a moment's notice, lol.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No. It could not have been other things. It was for the reason stated, the world fiction established by my notes, which makes it impossible for it to have been for any other reason. Before the reason was established I could have done it for a variety of reasons, but I didn't. I did it only for the reason stated.

See, I agree with this -- the odds it happened because it was in your notes is 1. This still doesn't address or change my point -- it was only the things you introduced into the game, for whatever reason, that mattered. Everything else in your notes that didn't enter the game didn't matter.

You keep trying to make the fiction require shared experiences in order to be fiction. That's wrong. I have created it as fiction for my world, therefore it IS fiction for my world. I have established it via my notes, even if the players have not encountered it yet.

It's an RPG. The only fiction that matters in the context of an RPG -- a group activity -- is the fiction that shared by the group. Otherwise what I'm imagining could happen as a player is part of the fiction of the game -- even if it never comes to pass. This is, of course, silly, and GMs are not privileged such that their imaginings that never make it into the game are due special consideration as being part of the fiction of the game.

Are the GM's notes fiction? Sure, by a definition not useful to the discussion. I mean, he made them up, so that's fiction, but it's fiction that doesn't matter to the game, just like the player's musings in their daydream don't matter to the game until they show up in play.

Acting in bad faith makes for a bad DM, and those are rare.

Right, sure, I've already conceded this point and moved my discussion onto lousy GMs.

I'm not going to play this game. It's pretty apparent when you are dealing with a bad DM.

And it's sweet that you think so. I'll agree that if the GM is being blunt and stupid about it, it's obvious, but I can do lots in bad faith, if I were motivated to do so, in ways that are not apparent at all. It's not hard. Heck, Illusionism is a tool in the box that can easily be done in bad faith, and it's nearly undetectable in play because that's the intent behind it!

 

[Oofta]

For the people pushing the idea that improv and change is "bad form", when does it become "wrong"? I change the fiction of my world occasionally. Even if it was established history I have (rarely) changed the historical record because the record was inaccurate. I've done this because I thought of a better idea, I came up with X which affected Y and so on.

At what point can I change something for it to be acceptable? Can I change something I wrote down two months ago a week before the game? During the game moments before the reveal? After it's been revealed if I can come up with a logical reason (it was a doppelganger, someone you thought was trustworthy was a spy, so on)?

On a related note, how much detail do I have to have about what's over the hill? A general idea? Specifics? I feel like I improv all the time, but I do have a general outline, is that enough prep?

 

[Lanefan]

It's an RPG. The only fiction that matters in the context of an RPG -- a group activity -- is the fiction that shared by the group. Otherwise what I'm imagining could happen as a player is part of the fiction of the game -- even if it never comes to pass. This is, of course, silly, and GMs are not privileged such that their imaginings that never make it into the game are due special consideration as being part of the fiction of the game.

See, that's just it: GMs are thusly privileged, and their imaginings are part of the fiction of the game even if for whatever reason those imaginings are never encountered by the players/PCs.

For example, in my own setting there's a particular NPC who various parties have met and had dealings with at different times during the campaign. In my imaginings I've got heaps of backstory for this guy* and as far as I'm concerned that backstory is very much a part of the setting's fiction even though the odds of the PCs becoming aware of any of it (or, if they did, caring) are extremely low. That said, his background does have a subtle bearing on play in that what he's done in the past had led him to being who and what he is today: the person the PCs are interacting with.

This is one of the key things that differentiates a GM from a player, particularly in a homebrew setting: a GM can (and IMO should) look beyond the limits of just what the PCs see and-or interact with, and imagine what's out there, and make it part of the setting lore whether or not it ever arises in play.

* - were I a better author - or an author at all, for that matter - I'd be writing this guy's life story as novels, but alas; novel-writing just ain't my thing.

 

[TheSword]

This is the issue. No. I do not think that an improv DM can produce the deep and immersive world that I do. I don't believe it for a second. That is the issue here. I'm not conceding this point and we will just have to agree to disagree. You speak in theoreticals but you have admitted that I should be aware it's improv and run with it. Being aware it's improve prima facie will reduce the immersion. There is nothing over the hill. Nothing. I have to run over the hill to make it come into existence. That violated immersion right there. Full stop.

So you are not the arbiter of what is immersive or not. I am not immersed by improv. Let's just agree instead that for some people they can become immersed with different stimuli. If I know certain that the DM is making it up as we go, I will not care a whit about the world. My investment will be nil. In fact, once I figure out what is going on, I will politely bow out of that campaign.

So it is the CERTAINTY you exhibit about these matters that is triggering. You turn an opinion into a scientific fact. Your opinion is yours. It's not a scientific fact. I'm not unique in finding your improv anti-immersive. I'm not claiming my way is the exclusive way but I am say for a lot of people, things like immersion matter in the way they matter to me. It's why they keep using the term. Immersion is a pretty subjective concept.

It’s a similar reason to the reason that I never really got on with the computer game No Mans Sky. When you realize that something is procedurally generated and essentially random, it loses significance. If what is over the hill is meaningless and the next hill is too, what’s the point of exploring.

 

[Lanefan]

For the people pushing the idea that improv and change is "bad form", when does it become "wrong"? I change the fiction of my world occasionally. Even if it was established history I have (rarely) changed the historical record because the record was inaccurate. I've done this because I thought of a better idea, I came up with X which affected Y and so on.

While I don't like changing things once they've gone player-side, I have done this now and then: (spoilered just in case any of my players wander by...)

Spoiler

Intentionally put erroneous or inaccurate information right from day one into the player-viewed setting lore or history, to later be updated if-when the players/PCs ever learn the truth through play. This potential discovery-of-truth sets up some adventuring possibilities down the road; and if those possibilities pan out then great, and if they don't it's no worries.

At what point can I change something for it to be acceptable? Can I change something I wrote down two months ago a week before the game? During the game moments before the reveal? After it's been revealed if I can come up with a logical reason (it was a doppelganger, someone you thought was trustworthy was a spy, so on)?

Things like this I do like to have in place beforehand, if only to allow me to play the NPC in full knowledge of what it is and-or what it's trying to do. Put another way, if someone's a spy they're either a spy from day one or they've been bought off (or charmed) at some identifyable-in-hindsight point along the way.

On a related note, how much detail do I have to have about what's over the hill? A general idea? Specifics? I feel like I improv all the time, but I do have a general outline, is that enough prep?

Sure is. Just be consistent with what's already present - don't, for example, plonk a mountain just over that hill that the PCs could in theory have seen this morning from miles away.

 

[iserith]

It’s a similar reason to the reason that I never really got on with the computer game No Mans Sky. When you realize that something is procedurally generated and essentially random, it loses significance. If what is over the hill is meaningless and the next hill is too, what’s the point of exploring.

Does that mean that random encounter or wandering monster tables are off limits?

 

[TheSword]

Does that mean that random encounter or wandering monster tables are off limits?

They only make sense in relation to a good reason why the wandering monster is in the area to start with. If there is a gnoll lair in the hills nearby then it makes sense that there be a chance of encountering their patrols.

That said, my preference is not to have random wandering monsters. Mainly because all this does is move an arbitrary line slightly. After all the DM has still chosen exactly which monsters are in the table and the chance of them being met. It’s an illusion to think that the DM isn’t in control of these things.

The players don’t know the difference, it’s just a way of making things interesting for a DM.

 

[Maxperson]

See, that's just it: GMs are thusly privileged, and their imaginings are part of the fiction of the game even if for whatever reason those imaginings are never encountered by the players/PCs.

For example, in my own setting there's a particular NPC who various parties have met and had dealings with at different times during the campaign. In my imaginings I've got heaps of backstory for this guy* and as far as I'm concerned that backstory is very much a part of the setting's fiction even though the odds of the PCs becoming aware of any of it (or, if they did, caring) are extremely low. That said, his background does have a subtle bearing on play in that what he's done in the past had led him to being who and what he is today: the person the PCs are interacting with.

This is one of the key things that differentiates a GM from a player, particularly in a homebrew setting: a GM can (and IMO should) look beyond the limits of just what the PCs see and-or interact with, and imagine what's out there, and make it part of the setting lore whether or not it ever arises in play.

* - were I a better author - or an author at all, for that matter - I'd be writing this guy's life story as novels, but alas; novel-writing just ain't my thing.

I think what @Ovinomancer is not understanding is that the DM has a fiction, which includes the world he has created or is using, and the players have a fiction, which is their characters, including background. They get together and share those fictions together to create a shared imagined space and greater story as a group activity. There are three fictions going on, only one of which is shared.