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?

 

[Xetheral]

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

But your argument in favor of incoherency appears to depend on our preferred definition of scope of play. As I understand it, to those who are defining scope of play to include material that hasn't been presented yet, practical considerations concerning when the DM is able to make changes aren't relevant. So pointing out that the broader definition of what is and is not within the scope of play doesn't line up when the DM will be able to change it (and therefore asserting that the broader definition is incoherent) seems to be missing the point.

But sure, I think it's fair to identify as a strength of our definition of scope of play that it neatly sets the line at in- and out-of-scope at the same point in time that changing the material becomes harder, requiring a retcon. It's nice and consistent that way.

But to those who find value in using a broader definition of scope of play, that advantage may not be compelling. I really think it's valuable to listen to how others are defining the scope of play at their table.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I didn't, I purposefully didn't mention your no-evidence claims and the attempted appeal to popularity inherent in them.

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

Oh, there it is, again.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm with you in terms of personally defining the scope of play to be limited to what happens at the table, and thus that anything not established doesn't exist yet in the game world. But I think it's pretty clear that @Maxperson, @Emerikol, @Lanefan, and others are defining the scope of play more broadly than we do, to include content previously authored but not yet presented. I don't think there are any grounds to say that one definition is superior to, or more useful than, the other.

Nitpick: I'm not defining the scope of play, I'm defining the scope of the setting, which is bigger and covers things that have not yet - and may never - arise in play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But your argument in favor of incoherency appears to depend on our preferred definition of scope of play. As I understand it, to those who are defining scope of play to include material that hasn't been presented yet, practical considerations concerning when the DM is able to make changes aren't relevant. So pointing out that the broader definition of what is and is not within the scope of play doesn't line up when the DM will be able to change it (and therefore asserting that the broader definition is incoherent) seems to be missing the point.

But sure, I think it's fair to identify as a strength of our definition of scope of play that it neatly sets the line at in- and out-of-scope at the same point in time that changing the material becomes harder, requiring a retcon. It's nice and consistent that way.

But to those who find value in using a broader definition of scope of play, that advantage may not be compelling. I really think it's valuable to listen to how others are defining the scope of play at their table.

My argument doesn't depend on my definition of the scope of play. My definition of scope of play depends on the argument -- if the GM's notes are freely changeable at any time, and only become part of the shared fiction at the moment of introduction, then the GM's notes are, at best, a possibility. Saying that it's equal to or even close to the shared fiction, then, is only possible if you ignore that the GM's notes are always in a state of flux. Sure, a GM may not choose to alter their notes, but there is nothing at all binding that prevents it. Unlike, as you note, introduced fiction with at least has the binding nature of having to negotiate it's change with the rest of the players. You cannot say that these things are similar or the same in importance and "real"ness, because it's absolutely obvious that the GM's notes can be changed at any time prior to introduction.

I don't see value in a definition of play that requires ignoring this. It harms understanding of how play happens.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

My players don't know whether I just made something up or had it in my notes unless I tell them (and I'm not terribly cagey about this because I don't view it as anything necessary to hide). In play, there's no noticeable difference. If anything, a good bit of my improv is better than my prep.

Now, when we play Blades in the Dark, it's already on the table that I'm improving, because that's how that game works. D&D? Can go either way, although it's much harder to do lots of improv because the system fights you.

None of this speaks at all to how believable and consistent the game world is.

 

[Maxperson]

None of this speaks at all to how believable and consistent the game world is.

For you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For you.

So you never improv anything?

 

[Mort]

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.

There seems to be a disconnect here.

Backstory is part of the shared fiction because it already happened.
The DMs notes of events that have already occurred in play are part of the shared fiction because they already happened.

The DMs notes of things the players have not seen are not part of the shared fiction - they have not happened and are therefore just possibilities.

Because they are possibilities, they MUST (or at the very least should) be in flux.

If they are not in flux - what you have is not a sandbox, it is a well planned out railroad.

The only question is when the DM changes his notes. If he does it during play, technically, he is improvising (even if the improvisation is just to extrapolate the logical consequences of actions during play). If he does it between sessions, he is prepping.

The point is, the two are not nearly as different as the lines being drawn in this discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

So you never improv anything?

Of course I do. I improv a lot. Probably half to 60%. I've played both with a lot of improv and without much improv(can never be 0), though, so I understand where they are coming from with regard to the more real feel.

 

[Maxperson]

There seems to be a disconnect here.

Backstory is part of the shared fiction because it already happened.

I write it up solo, not as some sort of shared experience. I then bring my already created fiction to the table and introduce it into the shared fiction.

The DMs notes of events that have already occurred in play are part of the shared fiction because they already happened.

Same with this. I don't sit at the table and work out what happens in the game world with the players. It's not at all a shared experience. There is no shared fiction until I bring the already created fiction into the shared experience.

The DMs notes of things the players have not seen are not part of the shared fiction - they have not happened and are therefore just possibilities.

No. They are not possibilities. They are game world fact. They are possible shared experiences, but they are also real world created fiction.

Because they are possibilities, they MUST (or at the very least should) be in flux.

If they are not in flux - what you have is not a sandbox, it is a well planned out railroad.

This is a flawed understanding of what a sandbox is. If I plan a red dragon at Mt. Fufru, it is not in flux. Nor is it a railroad as I do not make the PCs ever go there. If they do, it's their choice as they have full control over their PCs agency.