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?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I can't grasp how you arrive at this conclusion from these premises.

Take the real world as an example. Everything in it is what it is and where it is but you're not railroaded into doing whatever you do in this world: you have choices and options, and the options and choices you make don't validate or deny the existence of those parts of the world you don't happen to interact with.

Well, the same thing goes for the PCs in a setting, with the only - but rather huge - limitation being the DM-side practicalities of designing and then narrating a game setting to the level of detail our real world provides our senses with.

Except this isn't the real world, it's made up entirely, so we can't at all say what exists until it's shared with the group and entered into the fiction.

Put another way: let's say the DM is using real-world Earth as the setting, with all the adventuring taking place in either North America or the Caribbean. The PCs will never get within 3000 miles of Istanbul and may in fact never even hear of the place, but that doesn't mean Istanbul doesn't exist in the setting; ditto for Beijing or Manila or Singapore. None of this is in flux, but there's still no railroad whatsoever provided the DM allows freedom of choice for the PCs as to what they do, and how, within this setting.

The fact the setting is real-world Earth has either already been entered into the fiction, in which case we're on the same page, or it hasn't been, in which case the the GM can change their mind.

 

[S'mon]

For me as GM I'm often playing to see what happens, and procedural content generation in play can be more immersive for me than me scripting it out in advance. Some players feel this way too, others feel the opposite.

In terms of what gives the highest quality play experience for me, I think it's probably a mix of pre-written & improv-in-play. Pure improv can feel shallow, especially if there are not good content generation tools to work with. Purely scripted can feel leaden, dissociated from what's been happening in play (esp if it's published material), and if GM-created can risk getting into ruts ("oh look, another damsel in distress...") I find riffing off a mix of pre-written material (good maps, especially) and good content-generation tables seems to work best for me.

 

[Krachek]

A good poker face from the DM is essential to give a good playing experience.

 

[Maxperson]

Except this isn't the real world, it's made up entirely, so we can't at all say what exists until it's shared with the group and entered into the fiction.

Except that even after the DM's fiction has entered the shared fiction, it's still made up entirely and doesn't exist. The only difference is now the DM's fiction has been entered into the shared fiction. It's a game of imagination.

DM's imagination - Game world(fiction) ------> shared imagination(fiction) <------ Players' imagination - PCs(fiction).

 

[Oofta]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't rely 100% on improv or random generation all the time. Not really sure how you could do that. But every once in a while? When the players go off in a direction you never expected? What choice do you have? Even in my normal prep, I'm considering who's who, what the conflicts are, who the opposition will be. I prep an extra encounter or two that's adjacent to what I expect.

Do I have an overall idea of what's over the next hill? Sure, in a vague kind-of-sort-of way. I just don't see how it would be even theoretically possible to plan out everything the players might encounter if you have a sandbox campaign. So some percentage simply has to be improv, perhaps improv in the context of a framework but improv nonetheless. It's one of the things I get from D&D that I don't get from a video game.

As far as "I can tell when the DM is doing improv" ... I simply don't see how unless the DM is actively rolling and looking up info on charts. Can I tell if the world building is sloppy? Sure. That doesn't tell me one way or another whether it was improved, just that the DM isn't particularly skilled at how they build their campaign.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's one of the things I get from D&D that I don't get from a video game.

Plenty or video games use proc generated/random content. They are frequently called "rogue-like" rather than CRPG, but the Elder Scrolls games managed to be so big by having a huge amount of procedurally generated content.

 

[turnip_farmer]

As far as "I can tell when the DM is doing improv" ... I simply don't see how unless the DM is actively rolling and looking up info on charts. Can I tell if the world building is sloppy? Sure. That doesn't tell me one way or another whether it was improved, just that the DM isn't particularly skilled at how they build their campaign.

And this is the point. Improv vs prep is a false dichotomy. Good improv requires good prep, as the preparation in figuring out a consistent and coherent setting is what makes you able to improvise something that feels like it belonged there all along.

 

[S'mon]

Plenty or video games use proc generated/random content. They are frequently called "rogue-like" rather than CRPG, but the Elder Scrolls games managed to be so big by having a huge amount of procedurally generated content.

I think with Oblivion they procedurally generated a bunch of stuff then went over it curating/editing it, which seems like a good analogy to what a good GM does.

Skyrim I think they pretty much crafted every landscape element by hand, though with a lot of copy/pasting of assets of course, and procedural generation of brigand groups & some spawned encounters.

 

[S'mon]

And this is the point. Improv vs prep is a false dichotomy. Good improv requires good prep, as the preparation in figuring out a consistent and coherent setting is what makes you able to improvise something that feels like it belonged there all along.

Yeah. I think the synthesis of prep & improv pretty much always makes the best game. GMs who can't improv, and GMs who can't prep, both tend to lack something at the table IME.

 

[Maxperson]

And this is the point. Improv vs prep is a false dichotomy. Good improv requires good prep, as the preparation in figuring out a consistent and coherent setting is what makes you able to improvise something that feels like it belonged there all along.

And that's a Strawman

We haven't been presenting improv vs prep as a dichotomy. In fact, most of us have said that we use a mix of both. The issue is whether prep can make the game feel more real to some people, and that answer is factually yes, as it does to some of those in this thread and it has to me in the past. Others here would like to tell us that we are wrong with our experiences and that they really know better.