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?

 

[CleverNickName]

In the DM guide there is a section about using the dice.
For the sandboxer this section is catastrophic.
The DM has the authorization to not roll the dice and decide the outcome.
You may want to play strict sandbox, but you use a framework that allow to completely dismantle it.

Oh come on. "Catastrophic"? What kind of catastrophe is going to happen if the DM decides to choose a result vs. rolling on a table? And how can a DM's decision to use dice or not "completely dismantle" the game?

The absolute worst thing that can happen in a D&D game, ever, is that someone doesn't have as much fun as they might have had otherwise. That's it. That's as bad as it can get. Nobody is going to be arrested or hospitalized over it, sheesh. And if someone does get unhappy enough to involve law enforcement or emergency medical services, there are several deeper issues at play than how the DM uses their dice.

It's a game, folks. A toy. A child's plaything.

 

[Maxperson]

My argument is focused on the statement that prep is just as "real" as the shared fiction, and this is obviously incorrect because it can be changed at any time prior to introduction.

So we shouldn't treat you as a free man now, because at any time prior to your introduction to the afterlife you could rob a bank or something and be imprisoned?

Possibilities in the future don't really matter. If I after all my brainstorming and drafts introduce a permanent addition to my game world, it's a permanent part of the game fiction and is every bit as real as what happens in the shared fiction.

As the DM, I can unwind anything that happens in game play, so nothing there is particularly hard to change. I can make that change in a few seconds and with less effort than it took to type this response. So I guess by your argument above, since the shared fiction can be changed at any time, it's not "real" either.

Now obviously I'm not going to alter the shared fiction lightly, but I can and have done it in the past when there is good reason. It took a few seconds and was really easy to do.

 

[Krachek]

Oh come on. "Catastrophic"? What kind of catastrophe is going to happen if the DM decides to choose a result vs. rolling on a table? And how can a DM's decision to use dice or not "completely dismantle" the game?

The absolute worst thing that can happen in a D&D game, ever, is that someone doesn't have as much fun as they might have had otherwise. That's it. That's as bad as it can get. Nobody is going to be arrested or hospitalized over it, sheesh. And if someone does get unhappy enough to involve law enforcement or emergency medical services, there are several deeper issues at play than how the DM uses their dice.

It's a game, folks. A toy. A child's plaything.

But some seem so irritated that the DM might change what he has wrote down, I just can’t imagine what they would feel if they knew that the DM don’t even roll on the encounter table, or some saving throw.
Of course it’s only a game, and nobody gets hurt in a DnD combat.
it is just funny how serious the tone go in this thread.

 

[Xetheral]

Well, there's a bit of a shift here. I'm saying that prep is does not cause nor is it at the same level as the shared fiction. I haven't said prep is not part of the game -- this is silly because it would require also removing character building and similar tasks, all of which are absolutely part of the game. My argument is focused on the statement that prep is just as "real" as the shared fiction, and this is obviously incorrect because it can be changed at any time prior to introduction.

I apologize for the apparent shift. By continuing to use "scope of play", I was trying to avoid that problem. But upon rereading I can see that some of the language I was using with @Lanefan to resolve the terminology question made it into my response to you.

To try to recast my argument in the same terms you just used: I'm saying that tables can choose what is "real" at their table, either limiting it to the shared fiction, broadening it to include created-but-not-presented material, on even excluding some or all of the shared fiction. And since I see it as a choice, I expect inconsistencies between the various approaches.

Maybe "canon" as used above might be the best term rather than "scope of play" or "real" or "part of the game". Although that doesn't remove the argument, as I see each table as able to choose what to consider canon at their table, and based on your response to @Jack Daniel above, you do not.

 

[Xetheral]

Oh come on. "Catastrophic"? What kind of catastrophe is going to happen if the DM decides to choose a result vs. rolling on a table? And how can a DM's decision to use dice or not "completely dismantle" the game?

The absolute worst thing that can happen in a D&D game, ever, is that someone doesn't have as much fun as they might have had otherwise. That's it. That's as bad as it can get. Nobody is going to be arrested or hospitalized over it, sheesh. And if someone does get unhappy enough to involve law enforcement or emergency medical services, there are several deeper issues at play than how the DM uses their dice.

It's a game, folks. A toy. A child's plaything.

I mean, it's pretty common to see threads about players dying during a TPK....

 

[CleverNickName]

But some seem so irritated that the DM might change what he has wrote down, I just can’t imagine what they would feel if they knew that the DM don’t even roll on the encounter table, or some saving throw.
Of course it’s only a game, and nobody gets hurt in a DnD combat.
it is just funny how serious the tone go in this thread.

I know right? It's easy to get swept up in an argument and forget what we're actually trying to accomplish. Last week, @Morrus asked us to pick our favorite of two different (and equally-valid) approaches. It looks like most of us prefer Sandbox, and that's cool.

But now we're insulting each other for not picking the correct answer, and making each other angry over "shared fiction experiences" or what-have-you, and that's not cool.

 

[tetrasodium]

I mean, it's pretty common to see threads about players dying during a TPK....

Wow... some people must be playing d&d extremally different from me

 

[BookTenTiger]

Hey @Ovinomancer and @Maxperson could you either cool it or take it to PMs? I actually find conversation about Sandbox gaming interesting, and I'm getting tired of scrolling past your back and forth bickering.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I apologize for the apparent shift. By continuing to use "scope of play", I was trying to avoid that problem. But upon rereading I can see that some of the language I was using with @Lanefan to resolve the terminology question made it into my response to you.

To try to recast my argument in the same terms you just used: I'm saying that tables can choose what is "real" at their table, either limiting it to the shared fiction, broadening it to include created-but-not-presented material, on even excluding some or all of the shared fiction. And since I see it as a choice, I expect inconsistencies between the various approaches.

Maybe "canon" as used above might be the best term rather than "scope of play" or "real" or "part of the game". Although that doesn't remove the argument, as I see each table as able to choose what to consider canon at their table, and based on your response to @Jack Daniel above, you do not.

If it's not shared, and can be changed prior to sharing, then it's not at all on the same level of real as fiction that is shared and can't be changed. That this is controversial at all is of real confusion to me. It's a reification of a reification.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hey @Ovinomancer and @Maxperson could you either cool it or take it to PMs? I actually find conversation about Sandbox gaming interesting, and I'm getting tired of scrolling past your back and forth bickering.

I haven't responded to @Maxperson in two or three pages, now -- since @Umbran's post -- thank you very much.