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]

If things are true because I choose them to be true, then this is not a useful definition of true.

But the act of categorization requires the choice of a categorization rule. Since it is that rule which defines the "truth" of the contents of each category, I would argue categorization (unlike, e.g., measurement (edit: although measurement requires the choice of units)) requires the choice of what is true.

So, if one wants to sort game elements into "real" and "not real" buckets, one first must choose where the dividing line is going to be. Which bucket a game element ends up in depends just as much on the choice of where to place the dividing line as it does on the properties of the game element.

You've made excellent arguments for why one might want to choose to make the categorization rule for "real" and "not real" based on what has or has not already entered the shared fiction. But by choosing that rule for your table, you are very much deciding the truth of what is and is not "real".

That a choice is required regarding where to place a dividing line does not lessen the utility of the resulting distinction. If it did, all acts of categorization would be so impaired.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, but then neither does changing what happened in the shared fiction. Nothing is truly permanent in D&D.

Would you say that this perspective is equally shared by DMs and Players?

As a player, I'd feel there's a pretty clear distinction between a GM changing something that has been established in play, of which I am aware and which I may not want changed, and a GM changing something in his notes before it's introduced to play.

I don't think there needs to be a lot of back and forth on this. The two things are clearly different, right? And of the two, which is more impactful to play? And wouldn't that impact be because something knowingly changed to all participants?

The option for a GM to change a detail is far greater prior to that detail actually being established through play, regardless of whether or not the GM exercises that option.

 

[Maxperson]

Would you say that this perspective is equally shared by DMs and Players?

Probably. The reality is that the DM will rarely invoke that power, only doing so when appropriate. The players and DM will likely be on the same page with the DM on the timing and the ability to do so.

I don't think there needs to be a lot of back and forth on this. The two things are clearly different, right? And of the two, which is more impactful to play? And wouldn't that impact be because something knowingly changed to all participants?

Of course they're different. One is game play and the other part of the game world fiction that the players haven't encountered yet. What's right in front of you is almost always going to seem more important than the theoretical. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. That's not the point. The point is that nothing is permanent and that if the DM has made the commitment to not change the game world once something is set in his notes, then saying it's malleable rather than permanent is a distinction without a difference. At that point the game setting fiction is as set as the shared fiction is.

As for which has greater impact, that depends on what is being changed in both places. Something in the game notes might have a tremendous impact on play when it arrives, where the thing changed in the shared fiction could be very minor.

 

[S'mon]

At what point does the draft become the not-draft and thus truth? I mean, you pointed out an inn above, with no map. Then you add a map, and perhaps, because you like the map, made a change to prior prep to accommodate the map. Is this not possible? How can this truth change?

An aside: I find one of the hardest times to maintain continuity is when an area, usually a building, that has been used in play with no map, gets mapped. The players may never notice inconsistencies between prior description & new map, but I certainly do! And one's imagination is not always architecturally feasible... I was really proud of myself when I managed to translate Gurzun's Festhall from imagination to floorplan map late last year while I think maintaining full consistency with what had been described in previous sessions back to 2018. A PC group are now using it as their home base (after killing Gurzun).

I guess that's an argument for more prep - have the map first and you don't risk invalidating prior description.

 

[turnip_farmer]

An aside: I find one of the hardest times to maintain continuity is when an area, usually a building, that has been used in play with no map, gets mapped. The players may never notice inconsistencies between prior description & new map, but I certainly do! And one's imagination is not always architecturally feasible...

Especially not when you didn't bother to draw it but grabbed a map off Instagram that looked close enough to what you described instead!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There's no difference to the players, but there is a difference to the game and fiction. If I have called a place in my world the Shattered Sun, it exists in the world where Tlacalique Cipactomoco never has and never will. One has been created for my fiction and the other hasn't. That's a difference, even if the players don't know about it until they find it, if they ever do.

That's....literally what I'm saying. Again. How is it that we keep having these conversations where you respond as though I have grown a horn on my head, and then repeat exactly the argument I'm making?

There are three fictions involved in D&D. The DM's fiction, which is the game setting. The players' fictions, which are their PCs and associated backgrounds and experiences. And the shared fiction which merges the two.

If I have decided not to change things once placed into the world, it's as permanent as the PCs are. Moreso, because it's pretty easy within the fiction to remove a PC from the world, but not so easy to remove a place.

I honestly do not understand what you're saying here. And if your PCs are so easily removed, how do their players feel about it?

I have no such attitude and never have. I understand that the DM wields all of the power, but the reality is that the vast majority of DMs, myself included, take the players into consideration and don't beat them over the head with it. We want the game to be enjoyable for everyone.

If you would never beat them over the head with it because that would make a not-enjoyable game, you don't actually have all the power. You may have a lot of power, but you recognize an obvious limit on that power: that certain uses of it would be un-fun or even anti-fun. Rationality and the goals of your activity limit your power, and those limits are not trivial or pointless, they're literally the thing that makes you not actually all-powerful.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah my big campaigns are a bit like this. There ar threads they can follow that will eventually lead to a somewhat linear story arc, but it’s an open world otherwise.

Question: after that somewhat linear story arc is finished, what then? Campaign over, or can they bash around until they find another such arc?

I ask as this is kind of how I do it - it's open-field until they get into something which will then become linear for a while (almost like an adventure path) until it's done, after which it's open-field again until they find their way into another longer-term arc; lather rinse repeat. During the open-field sections they can always find stand-alone adventures if they want to; and there's a few story threads running underneath just about everything which rear their ugly heads now and then.

I'll have some arcs planned out ahead of time, as in "if they get into adventure A it will almost certainly lead to B to C to D to E" because I've found (or written) a decent way of stringing those modules together; but how those arcs will fit in with and-or relate to each other in the bigger picture, or which ones will even get run or not, I often have no real idea until-unless they arise in play. That, and sometimes a series of what seem like stand-alone adventures can almost string themselves together into something bigger either via what the players/PCs do with them or via some pleasant coincidences that arise as things go along.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't really agree that you can do this and still have a game. It's a theoretical position that says that the GM has authority over everything, including player action declarations, albeit in a retroactive sense. I mean, if this is the position you're staking, then the game is really Mother May I with a side of "pray I don't alter the deal further."

I agree with the aphorism that "Whatever the DM says goes and if he says enough bad stuff (word changed to protect the innocent), the players go too". That does not change the truth of my assertion in any way.

There's a pretty notable difference between changing what's in the GM's notes, which requires only the GM, and changing what happened at the table, in the shared fiction, which requires checking with everyone. I mean, if you don't, then you're one of those stories.

You point was that something changeable was not established fiction despite me saying that by my rule I would not change what I had established even if the players didn't know about it. You said this because "in theory" I could change it. Well very much so, I can "in theory" change anything.

I strive to always assume good faith gaming. Don't make your argument contingent on bad faith just to make a point.

I consider all of my approaches good faith gaming. When I don't change the world under my characters feet I consider that good faith gaming. If I suddenly cause one of my villains to suddenly change his spellbook to a different spell, I consider that bad faith whether the PCs are aware of his spell book or not.

We aren't going to agree on this and I don't think you've made your point. We can agree to disagree as I don't think we are making progress on this particular point.

Yup, and you don't really know, do you? What's a dissociative mechanic if not hitpoints and character levels? These seem fine. Every complaint I've seen that throws mechanics under the bus because they're "dissociative" is usually ignoring massive "dissociative" mechanics all around, just because they're used to those mechanics, so of course they're not a problem.

We've debated this ad infinitum. I don't think you are even capable of comprehending OR you are so blind to the other side you can't allow yourself to see the truth. We've debated this enough though and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. Again we just need to agree to disagree.

I don't doubt your experience. There are plenty of GMs not good a improv. I've played in prepped campaigns that were a mess, too. Does that mean I can dismiss prep? Nope, it's a great way to do things. I'd appreciate some reciprocity (<-- favorite word) on this.

I have repeatedly said that if your game is fun for you and your players are having fun then you are doing it right FOR YOU. I have said that from the beginning. Obviously we know that even a prepped game has a time when the DM has to roleplay and NPC and answer questions (hopefully based on well laid out background) off the cuff. Still the answers are based upon not exactly written down. I minimize these situations as best I can but I cannot detail every brain cell. I do develop enough of a story background though that the answers often spring to mind based upon what I know of that NPC. So I don't make it up as a way of advancing some game agenda. (See the video above for examples)

Shrug, I guess a position where no one can actually say anything is something? It certainly insulates everyone from actually looking at their play in any critical way.

Well for many situations you cannot. I'm not drawing any conclusions beyond gaming. The enjoyment of a game is a very subjective thing. No matter how popular a game is there are people who don't like it and some games while not widely popular have a very fanatically devoted following. That is the beauty of a marketplace. I think the d20 OGL for allowing a lot of the things we all like. I absolutely do not want to convert everyone to one style of gaming. I will speak in defense of my style if I believe it is misrepresented or attacked unfairly.

Thanks for this, but you're in error if you think I'm not extremely aware of your approach -- I just got done responding to you that I've used it, recently. So, try to reconcile that I 1) know your approach, 2) think it's a good approach to use for at least some of my own gaming, and 3) am still saying what I am saying.

You keep saying this yet I've never disputed it. It is possible for all three of these things to be true. Some people like apples and oranges, some people like apples only, and others like oranges only.

What you seem to be missing in my posts is that I'm not arguing that prep isn't an excellent framework from which to provide consistent fiction, even across years, but rather that it is not at the same level of "real" as what's entered into the game. This is because you can change it without repercussions, permission, or issue at any time. You can add to it. You can subtract from it. I mean, your story about the traitor, it's possible that you wrote yourself a nice bit of fiction in the intervening years and changed what you conceived for that character during that time, so maybe it was prepped he was a traitor, but you've changed it. The player reads your fictional piece, and that's the truth now.

But all of this is just because you've decreed it. I've explained above. Also you quoted me many times across several posts and not every response was directed at you. So realize I have others besides yourself that I answer on occasion.

Until someone else knows it, it's not fixed.

For you this is true. For me this is not true.

Is it a fictional story?

No. The story of the characters is the sessions. I think my analogy of the book though fits. You are arguing that the only fiction in a book is what you have read. I am arguing that the rest of the book is still part of the fiction.

Ovi, thanks. No d.

The only "truth" is what's shared. Prior to this, it is, at best, a framework to present the shared fiction, and can be changed. You've locked in on "but I don't change it" and that's cool, but it doesn't change the fact that it can be easily changed. If things are true because I choose them to be true, then this is not a useful definition of true. Your argument here suggests that a thing is true if it isn't changed, and somehow not true if it is changed, when it's occupying the same space. I mean, I might make some notes for a game a year in advance, and then, a week before a game, drag those out, review them, and decided I don't like how they work out and make some changes. Accordingly, I've now rendered them not true? Yeah, I can't get behind this at all. Instead, I present a clean, clear boundary -- it becomes true in the shared fiction only when it's shared. Prior to that, it's only the GM's notes.

You can repeat this one billion times and you still won't be right. So don't bother further restating the same argument in different forms. No point. Let's agree to disagree. You are basing your beliefs on campaign norms and social rules. Me too. Mine are different.

And Rule 0, IMNSHO, is a terrible rule. It's talking about how the rules can be changed to suit the game (ie, they're not locked and inviolable), it's not establishing the GM as dictator, empowered to change anything anytime.

It is actually. It's not about houseruling. It's about making in game judgments about what happened and NOT being bound by rule 1.3.2.5 when you as DM deem it does not work for him. In my campaign the game rules that the players read and that the characters understand as the basic physics of the world are the prevailing opinions of that world's society. So they are mostly accurate from experience. If a player says, this situation doesn't comport with the rules I know, I always answer "Are you going to believe your own eyes or what some scholars in musty libraries wrote about years before?"

Now practically I follow the rules of course almost always. I'm just saying what rule 0 means. It's a good rule. If the DM is really working to have a fun game there won't be an issue. And if he is not then no amount of rules is going to save him.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Probably. The reality is that the DM will rarely invoke that power, only doing so when appropriate. The players and DM will likely be on the same page with the DM on the timing and the ability to do so.

So the infrequency of using Rule 0 means it doesn’t matter, but the infrequency of a GM who doesn’t change his prep does?

The simple truth is that if the GM invokes Rule 0, the players will be aware, and they may not like what the change is. When Rule 0 was mentioned it was to point out how the GM is “all powerful”. I don’t really agree....players may not be happy with its use.

Yet of the GM were to make a similar change prior to establishing the detail, the players cannot even be aware of it.

That’s the simple truth. It’s objective. The only confusion is the labeling of one as “more real” than the other.

Of course they're different. One is game play and the other part of the game world fiction that the players haven't encountered yet. What's right in front of you is almost always going to seem more important than the theoretical. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. That's not the point. The point is that nothing is permanent and that if the DM has made the commitment to not change the game world once something is set in his notes, then saying it's malleable rather than permanent is a distinction without a difference. At that point the game setting fiction is as set as the shared fiction is.

So if a GM has committed to not change his prep, we should’t mention that it can be done? But the fact that Rule 0 allows revisions of what’s already been established should be mentioned?

A GM can only change his mind after details are established in play?

As for which has greater impact, that depends on what is being changed in both places. Something in the game notes might have a tremendous impact on play when it arrives, where the thing changed in the shared fiction could be very minor.

I likely should have said more noticeable impact. I’m not talking about the severity of the change so much as how obvious it is. When the entire table is aware of the change it’s a bigger deal when it’s just the GM.

 

[Maxperson]

So the infrequency of using Rule 0 means it doesn’t matter, but the infrequency of a GM who doesn’t change his prep does?

No. That's why I said neither is permanent. The frequency doesn't matter at all. One instance of either and neither are permanent. Heck, even 0 instances of either, so long as it's possible, and neither are permanent.

The simple truth is that if the GM invokes Rule 0, the players will be aware, and they may not like what the change is. When Rule 0 was mentioned it was to point out how the GM is “all powerful”. I don’t really agree....players may not be happy with its use.

Yet of the GM were to make a similar change prior to establishing the detail, the players cannot even be aware of it.

That’s the simple truth. It’s objective. The only confusion is the labeling of one as “more real” than the other.

Cannot be aware of it is wrong. Probably not aware of it is true. I've been in games where DMs talk and sometimes tell us about some of the cool things that they've done with the world.

And there is no confusion, but there is a Strawman with that statement there. Nobody is trying to label the DM's prep as more real than the shared fiction. Some people are saying that when they encounter the prep during game play it FEELS more real if they know it was prepared ahead of time, rather than done as improv. This is also objective. Multiple people in this thread have felt that way, so it's a fact that it does happen.

So if a GM has committed to not change his prep, we should’t mention that it can be done? But the fact that Rule 0 allows revisions of what’s already been established should be mentioned?

If the DM has made that commitment and is holding to it, why would it matter that it can be done?

A GM can only change his mind after details are established in play?

A DM shouldn't be changing things on that basis at all. Gameplay should only be undone to correct a mistake or fix an imbalance that is wrecking the game. If a DM had made the commitment not to change what he has established for the world in his prep, then he should make chances only for the same reasons.