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?

 

[tetrasodium]

(Emphasis added.) Maybe I'm not following what you're trying to say, but your response appears to me to be circular reasoning. The bolded clause is only true under our definition of the scope of play, so it really can't be relied upon as a reason to assert that our definition is superior.

If you don't use that "definition", you run into the problem of hardcore railroading that is also denied by way of claiming the players agreed to it. Players agreeing to it or not, the question of how players are supposed to stay within the concrete prewritten world when it contains no mix of adlib.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I keep wondering how a player could possibly know if a DM used prepared notes or total improv. I mean, I guess if the DM showed the players their notes at the end of each session to prove that all the things the PCs had encountered were prepared ahead of time. Unless that happens I can't see how players would know if it's all prepared or improv.

I know in my own experience as the forever DM who just makes it up on the fly, my players have told me that my games are some of the best they have ever participated in, mostly because of how engaging I make the world. I tried one time a long long time ago to do the prepared setting thing, it turned out so bad that my players still laugh about how bad that game was. They even threw stuff at me until I promised never to do that again.

I can see how people like to put forth their own preferences as somehow objectively better than other methods, but this simply cannot be true. Personal preferences are just that, a preference. Improv is not inherently better than prep, and prep is not inherently better than improv, it's all just a matter of personal preference.

I also have very serious doubts that a player could tell the difference between a good improv DM and a good prep DM. Unless of course the DM reveals their method.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, they can and do feel more real to a lot of people. No amount of arguing on your part can change that fact.

Except that feeling more real is the reason and it does increase it for them. You might not agree with it, but people don't need your agreement to feel like it's more real.

This runs headlong into saying that "real" = prep. Is this your argument? That "real" equals prepped material only? That improved material must always, no matter how much or when or why, be less "real" than prepped material? Because, if you're not making this statement, then the argument isn't about prep making thing more "real" but rather the fact that prep makes the game more like what you prefer, and that's the issue I'm getting at. There's no actual "reality" involved, it's all other facets of what you want the game to do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

(Emphasis added.) Maybe I'm not following what you're trying to say, but your response appears to me to be circular reasoning. The bolded clause is only true under our definition of the scope of play, so it really can't be relied upon as a reason to assert that our definition is superior.

I dealt with why I find that definition of the scope of play to be incoherent in the post you quoted.

 

[Oofta]

I keep wondering how a player could possibly know if a DM used prepared notes or total improv. I mean, I guess if the DM showed the players their notes at the end of each session to prove that all the things the PCs had encountered were prepared ahead of time. Unless that happens I can't see how players would know if it's all prepared or improv.

I know in my own experience as the forever DM who just makes it up on the fly, my players have told me that my games are some of the best they have ever participated in, mostly because of how engaging I make the world. I tried one time a long long time ago to do the prepared setting thing, it turned out so bad that my players still laugh about how bad that game was. They even threw stuff at me until I promised never to do that again.

I can see how people like to put forth their own preferences as somehow objectively better than other methods, but this simply cannot be true. Personal preferences are just that, a preference. Improv is not inherently better than prep, and prep is not inherently better than improv, it's all just a matter of personal preference.

I also have very serious doubts that a player could tell the difference between a good improv DM and a good prep DM. Unless of course the DM reveals their method.

Ditto. I don't know why it makes any difference if I made up something 2 months ago or 2 seconds ago. Does it matter if my preconceived notion was written down or just something I've kept in mind?

Is the world logical, consistent within it's own narrative, sensible, believable and coherent? Then it doesn't matter how the DM got there. It feels like the real complaint is "sloppy" DMing, not improv.

 

[Maxperson]

This runs headlong into saying that "real" = prep. Is this your argument? That "real" equals prepped material only? That improved material must always, no matter how much or when or why, be less "real" than prepped material?

Massive Strawman dude. How did you miss all the "feels" and "for a lot of people" that I included? Very, VERY clearly I wasn't trying to establish those things as objective facts.

Because, if you're not making this statement, then the argument isn't about prep making thing more "real" but rather the fact that prep makes the game more like what you prefer, and that's the issue I'm getting at. There's no actual "reality" involved, it's all other facets of what you want the game to do.

Once again, prepping makes it FEEL real for a LOT(not all) of people. This is a fact.

 

[Krachek]

Wotc should develop a web site where DM can publish their notes before gaming.
In case of cheating the players could sue the DM in civil court.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Ditto. I don't know why it makes any difference if I made up something 2 months ago or 2 seconds ago. Does it matter if my preconceived notion was written down or just something I've kept in mind?

Is the world logical, consistent within it's own narrative, sensible, believable and coherent? Then it doesn't matter how the DM got there. It feels like the real complaint is "sloppy" DMing, not improv.

Ideas are like wine- they mature with age, and also are great not with age.

Mm, wine.

 

[Oofta]

Massive Strawman dude. How did you miss all the "feels" and "for a lot of people" that I included? Very, VERY clearly I wasn't trying to establish those things as objective facts.

Once again, prepping makes it FEEL real for a LOT(not all) of people. This is a fact.

But how do people know? Unless the DM tells them or somehow indicates?

 

[Maxperson]

But how do people know? Unless the DM tells them or somehow indicates?

Unless you're playing at a convention or game store or something, you're going to know your DM's style. People talk about the game.