D&D (2024) DMG 2024: Is The Sandbox Campaign Dead?

[Guest 7037866]

Yes, they're so terrible that D&D is doing better than it has EVER done. But I'm sure that's just a big coincidence.

Quoting from this article on ENWorld's front page: "the English-language, analog version (ie., physical books) of the 2024 Players Handbook reached the same sales numbers that the 2014 PHB did in three years across all languages."

Feel free to suggest other ways to measure D&D's success. I'm sure there are some, but selling more copies of the PHB in less than three months than the previous version (which, in turn, sold substantially better than all previous edition PHBs) sold in three years seems like a reasonable starting point for assessing how well D&D is going.

Popularity and profitability does not necessarily equate to a superior quality product, however. Quality remains in the eye of each indivivual buyer.

Look at just about any fast-food chains. Popular, profitable, but low-quality more often than not.

To be clear I am not saying 5E and WotC doesn't have some good product, as well, but sales is not the be-all-end-all measure if someone feels WotC has not done a good job as custodian for the game we love.

And it's not close, 5e has simply outsold other editions by a lot.

Sure, but then you have to make that statement with a few caveats (and probbably others I've not thought of):

1. Is it adjusted for inflation (honestly, I have no idea...?)
2. We all know the social stigma agaisnt RPGS is not nearly what it once was during the TSR era. Even 3E had it harder than 5E does.
3. Video game popularity and MMORPGS have helped RPGS, D&D particularly, as well.
4. In 5E's time influencers and social meda has had enormous impact on driving interest (and thus sales).
5. How many people buy 5E products but never use them? IME a fair few (not most maybe, but I know of many who have "buyer's remorse" for 5E products). Is WotC to blame for that? Certainly not and I am not saying they are. But all those get included in the sales numbers.

There is no way to measure the merits or impacts these and other considerations bring to the table. Is D&D making WotC more money than ever? Who knows, since I don't know the net they make, just the sales numbers, but I would guess "yes". Is D&D doing "better than ever" from a quality POV? Not IMO, but that is subjective for each player of the game.

Anyway.... back to the actual topic of sandboxes... (you'll hear no more from me on the above):

Do you know how difficult it is to get players to make decisions? I try to allow agency and tell them they can pursue their own businesses or build keeps etc. I never get anyone to make the effort.

Yep. Totally this. I can present players with a map of the kingdom, a brief history, tell them what is going on locally, and get blank stares back from glazed-eyes.

Unless I give them "hooks" and set them literally on the path, they have no idea what to do.

I blame video games.

 

[Reynard]

The Greyhawk setting in the 24DMG is the support for that style of play in 24.

You can use the Greyhawk.setting in the 2024 DMG in a sandbox campaign, but it isn't actually set up for that or offer any support for it.

 

[mamba]

Popularity and profitability does not necessarily equate to a superior quality product, however.

no, but the measure was PHB 2024 sales

I have no interest or claim to determine which edition is better, as this is a personal judgment.

 

[Guest 7037866]

no, but the measure was PHB 2024 sales

Not originally....

This is a good post, simply as it is another useful reminder (to me at least) that Hasbro is a terrible tender of the garden that is D&D, and that I saved some money completely skipping this book.

Like most such discussions, it reverted to "sales" later on.

At which point I stand by my earlier caveats.

 

[DarkCrisis]

WotC is not going to send the Pinkertons to knock on your door if you decide to run something different last time I che...hold on I have to answer the door, it sounds important.

Right. You CAN run a sandbox. Use any system you want. But 5.5, WotC wants you to buy (and play) their adventures. Nice 1-10 one and done adventures. Buy it, play it, buy the next.

I've been running a Sandbox with OSE and the players have been loving it. And they can love it for another month before we go back to D&D and give 5.5 a spin with a published adventure.

 

[Reynard]

It should be illuminating because my campaign to shake out 5E 2024 will be a sandbox. I will be interested to see (and will keep track of) where I find support in the 3 core, and where I have to go elsewhere for it.

 

[TiQuinn]

I take issue with the definition of Rime as a "sandbox". It is more of a CRPG "open world" -- that is, it is a map filled with side quests of varying quality. It does not actually have much in the way of sandbox elements though, especially since it explicitly limits XP based on story reasons.

I think this underscores that there’s no clear definition of what’s a sandbox, because I found myself nodding in agreement at the idea of Rime as a mini-sandbox the way it plays.

 

[Oofta]

Right. You CAN run a sandbox. Use any system you want. But 5.5, WotC wants you to buy (and play) their adventures. Nice 1-10 one and done adventures. Buy it, play it, buy the next.

I've been running a Sandbox with OSE and the players have been loving it. And they can love it for another month before we go back to D&D and give 5.5 a spin with a published adventure.

They chose the most common type of play and the one that's easiest for new DMs because this DMG is clearly aimed at people who haven't ever DMed and potentially haven't even played the game. Going into enough detail to support a style of play that is only used by a minority of people and that, in my opinion, should only be run by people with significant experience was not justified.

I don't see what the issue is if they also want to sell modules. It's not like they can force you to do anything or that people are somehow blind to the concept that other options may be available.

 

[Stormonu]

If I look at Curse of Strahd as an example, I actually found the sandbox elements of it kind of annoying. You know that eventually you're going to have a big showdown with Mr. Toothyface and at least with the DM that ran it for us the interactions we had didn't really change much. We had X challenges that we had to overcome but it was always going to be the same X challenges no matter what direction we approached them from and there was very little leeway once we triggered a challenge. We never had the option of saying "Gee, it's too bad that this place sucks but nothing we do will really change anything in the long run so let's go over there." It's an inherent limitation of modules and most story based video games for that matter.

Doesn't inherently make them bad modules, I just hesitate to call them sandbox. A sandbox adventure would pretty much just describe the setting the actors and what's going on as a springboard to a campaign. Probably the best example of that I played in would have been the Hoard of the Dragon Queen but the DM had no idea how to make it interesting because there was no linear path option.

That's why I referred to them as a "micro sandbox" - you can go in multiple directions and tackle things mostly in the order you want than a point A-B-C quest (from the skim I've done; I've only run the Castle portion).

I'd personally put Hoard as a path adventure. You hit A then B then C, etc. Not a lot of free roaming that I saw watching my brother run it unless you want to count the trip North - and that is both pretty barebones and has "beats" set to happen). I'd put the biggest sandbox WotC 5E has done with Tomb (mainly because of the vast jungle trekking), but even it still has points you have to hit to "progress" the adventure.

I think I said it initially, but short of the anthologies, all of WotC's adventures have a beginning - middle - end structure, rather than a true sandbox.

It would be interesting what they could put out that would be a true sandbox that doesn't get defined as a "campaign setting".

 

[DarkCrisis]

They chose the most common type of play and the one that's easiest for new DMs because this DMG is clearly aimed at people who haven't ever DMed and potentially haven't even played the game. Going into enough detail to support a style of play that is only used by a minority of people and that, in my opinion, should only be run by people with significant experience was not justified.

I don't see what the issue is if they also want to sell modules. It's not like they can force you to do anything or that people are somehow blind to the concept that other options may be available.

Right. No issue from me. Just saying, WotC wants to sell books. Hence why the DMG may give less space to stuff like running a Sandbox game.

If people just bought the core 3 (please do this, its all you need) and never spent another dime, well WotC wouldnt like that.