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

Is something like Curse of Strahd a sandbox to you? I haven't read the module but when we played it we had some intro scenes, told the basic end goal that if we wanted out of Ravenloft we'd have to deal with Strahd and then were just given a map. But we all knew the end goal and the encounters we had were, of course, pre-written set pieces.
I think a lot of people forget that a sandbox is actually a finite playing area.
Screenshot 2025-01-16 101530.png

I would classify CoS as a sandbox campaign because the players are in control of where they go and how they handle challenges. Like a real sandbox, there are a limited number of places you can go and tools you can use, but you get to decide how you play with what's there.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


If someone has put you on ignore, then they shouldn’t be able to see your thread, let alone post in it. Right?


Mm. I think the best example of an official 5e sandbox adventure is Princes of the Apocalypse.

Tomb of Annihilation only works as a sandbox if you ignore the ticking clock death curse plot and the eponymous tomb.

Storm King’s Thunder has a nice sandboxy bit in the middle where the PCs are free to explore the region at their whim. When I ran this adventure, the group included two players who are big Skyrim fans, and they absolutely loved that part of SKT.

You could also argue that Dungeon of the Mad Mage is a megadungeon sandbox. I mean, unlike every other 5e adventure, it has zero plot. There are just some optional quests and some suggested motivations for Halaster and that’s it. The level limits on the portals do restrict the sandboxy nature of it somewhat, but they are not way enough to ignore, which is what I did.
I believe you can see threads started by a person who has blocked you, but no other posts of theirs beyond the OP.
 

I believe you can see threads started by a person who has blocked you, but no other posts of theirs beyond the OP.
Yes. Although this can create awkward situations, I believe that it is a desirable behavior from the software, because the alternative gives the OP of a thread the "authority" to kick people out of a discussion. IMHO.
 


If @Reynard believes my game is a sandbox then I'm confused. I went back and reread the campaign building guidelines and I don't see anything in the DMG that dissuades DMs people from running sandboxes, quite the opposite. The encounter design is pretty straightforward and doesn't really affect style of campaign. The campaign development guide doesn't really talk in terms of linear or sandbox one way or another. What they do discuss is keeping an ongoing journal, keeping track of adventure ideas, keeping the campaign premise flexible and based on character actions and player feedback. I just read through it again and it seems pretty neutral as to actual campaign style while focusing on mechanics of running and tracking a campaign, along with a bit of advice on how to keep the campaign interesting. Basically if it's pushing any style of campaign, it's the type of game I run.

They don't include things like specific random encounter tables, but I've never wanted to use them anyway. If you want them I'm sure you can find them online which makes more sense to me anyway because of the lag time from the DMG to MM and an online version can be updated as new monsters are added. A random monster generator becomes outdated the moment you any book not included when the generator was created. I guess I just don't see much correlation between using random tables to help build encounters and sandboxes.

Looking at the intro to the Campaign Design section
Campaign Premise
Everything outlined about the story of an adventure in chapter 4 is true of a campaign’s story as well: a campaign is like a series of comics or TV shows, where each adventure (like an issue of a comic or a TV episode) tells a self-contained story that contributes to the larger story. Just like with an adventure, a campaign’s story isn’t predetermined, because the actions of the players’ characters will influence how the story plays out. [bold added]​

So nothing is predetermined and then go into talking about a campaign that is based on episodes.

Episodes​

An episodic campaign is a campaign in which the component adventures don’t combine to form an overarching story. Episodic adventures are stand-alone quests, and the villains who appear in one adventure rarely resurface to trouble the characters again. If your game group plays infrequently, an episodic campaign might be ideal because the players can enjoy the current adventure even if they’ve forgotten the details of earlier adventures.​
Starting a New Episode. In an episodic campaign, the start of a new adventure doesn’t necessarily have any connection to the end of the last one. The action might pick up immediately after the end of the previous adventure, but it might instead begin weeks, months, or years after the last adventure, allowing interim events to unfold while the characters take a break from adventuring.​
They refer to "adventures" when I've typically called them chapters or story arcs but it's the same basic idea. I have to plan for something that is going to keep the players busy and engaged for at least the next session. So if my campaign is a sandbox, then they explain how to run a sandbox. They just don't use that exact term.

Am I missing something? Because I see them talking about Serials and Episodes, where I would say that serials are more typical linear campaigns like we find in most WotC modules while episodes describe my home campaign which I've been told is a sandbox. :unsure:
 

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.
Count yourself lucky compared to some - at least your players bite your hooks. :)
 

If @Reynard believes my game is a sandbox then I'm confused. I went back and reread the campaign building guidelines and I don't see anything in the DMG that dissuades DMs people from running sandboxes, quite the opposite. The encounter design is pretty straightforward and doesn't really affect style of campaign. The campaign development guide doesn't really talk in terms of linear or sandbox one way or another. What they do discuss is keeping an ongoing journal, keeping track of adventure ideas, keeping the campaign premise flexible and based on character actions and player feedback. I just read through it again and it seems pretty neutral as to actual campaign style while focusing on mechanics of running and tracking a campaign, along with a bit of advice on how to keep the campaign interesting. Basically if it's pushing any style of campaign, it's the type of game I run.

They don't include things like specific random encounter tables, but I've never wanted to use them anyway. If you want them I'm sure you can find them online which makes more sense to me anyway because of the lag time from the DMG to MM and an online version can be updated as new monsters are added. A random monster generator becomes outdated the moment you any book not included when the generator was created. I guess I just don't see much correlation between using random tables to help build encounters and sandboxes.

Looking at the intro to the Campaign Design section
Campaign Premise
Everything outlined about the story of an adventure in chapter 4 is true of a campaign’s story as well: a campaign is like a series of comics or TV shows, where each adventure (like an issue of a comic or a TV episode) tells a self-contained story that contributes to the larger story. Just like with an adventure, a campaign’s story isn’t predetermined, because the actions of the players’ characters will influence how the story plays out. [bold added]​

So nothing is predetermined and then go into talking about a campaign that is based on episodes.

Episodes​

An episodic campaign is a campaign in which the component adventures don’t combine to form an overarching story. Episodic adventures are stand-alone quests, and the villains who appear in one adventure rarely resurface to trouble the characters again. If your game group plays infrequently, an episodic campaign might be ideal because the players can enjoy the current adventure even if they’ve forgotten the details of earlier adventures.​
Starting a New Episode. In an episodic campaign, the start of a new adventure doesn’t necessarily have any connection to the end of the last one. The action might pick up immediately after the end of the previous adventure, but it might instead begin weeks, months, or years after the last adventure, allowing interim events to unfold while the characters take a break from adventuring.​
They refer to "adventures" when I've typically called them chapters or story arcs but it's the same basic idea. I have to plan for something that is going to keep the players busy and engaged for at least the next session. So if my campaign is a sandbox, then they explain how to run a sandbox. They just don't use that exact term.

Am I missing something? Because I see them talking about Serials and Episodes, where I would say that serials are more typical linear campaigns like we find in most WotC modules while episodes describe my home campaign which I've been told is a sandbox. :unsure:
Is this a trick?

You described a scenario in which the players choose what to deal with and where to go. That's a sandbox. If that's not what you do, I misunderstood you.

The DMG does not describe that situation. They tell the DM to create adventures and campaigns with A STORY. They don't dissuade player input, but they also do not say that player agency is choosing what to engage with is key -- and that's what makes it ("it" being the campaign, whether in a frontier realm or a megadungeon or the Astral Sea) a sandbox.

If I am coming off as frustrated, it is because I legitimately feel like you are trying to twist my words into somehow admitting I was wrong from the jump.
 

Feature, not a bug
I was responding to someone who was claiming that this was what 5e was designed to facilitate. Hence, whether it is feature or bug is irrelevant: you agree with me that it isn't meaningfully designed to support a story-telling experience.

, and has nothing to do with 5e.
Er...no. It has quite a bit to do with 5e. Since, as stated, the person I replied to was making a claim about what 5e was specifically designed to do.

It's been part of D&D since the start, as it was never designed as a storytelling game.
4e had elements of it. It wasn't the main focus, but it was certainly there. Others have quite persuasively argued that 4e has the ability to be run in a "story now" fashion, and the tools to do so are actually present in the text of the rules themselves, not simply ported in by DMs wanting it.
 
Last edited:

Is this a trick?

You described a scenario in which the players choose what to deal with and where to go. That's a sandbox. If that's not what you do, I misunderstood you.

The DMG does not describe that situation. They tell the DM to create adventures and campaigns with A STORY. They don't dissuade player input, but they also do not say that player agency is choosing what to engage with is key -- and that's what makes it ("it" being the campaign, whether in a frontier realm or a megadungeon or the Astral Sea) a sandbox.

If I am coming off as frustrated, it is because I legitimately feel like you are trying to twist my words into somehow admitting I was wrong from the jump.
It seems like you're getting caught up in the use of the word "story" and putting too much emphasis their use of it. If you look at the adventures section, it's just general advice on how to present and tie together encounters and how to wrap things up with an emphasis on more than one possible ending. But I think the adventure section clarifies what they mean (bold added)

But while it’s worthwhile to compare an adventure to these other forms of storytelling, remember that an adventure isn’t a complete story until you play it. Your players are coauthors of the story with you, and the events of the story shouldn’t be predetermined; the actions of the players’ characters have to matter. For example, if a major villain shows up before the end of the adventure, the adventure should allow for the possibility that the heroes defeat that villain. Otherwise, players can feel as if they’ve been railroaded—set onto a course that has only one destination or outcome, no matter how hard they try to change it.​
You might find it helpful to think about an adventure not as a narrative that arcs from beginning to end with little chance for deviation, but more in terms of situations that you are presenting to the characters. The adventure unfolds organically from the players’ responses to the situations you present.​
So yes, the DM sets the stage and introduces the protagonists, but the outcome is dependent on what the characters do. As a side note, I'm glad they emphasize this and that sometimes the villain loses when you didn't expect it.

So I'm just trying to understand what the issue is by going back to what the book says.

EDIT: to be clear I'm doing my best not to twist anyone's words but the section on designing adventures one of the things they talk about is that what you plan should be based on player input. It's basically how I explained what I do in my campaigns.

Direct Input. Ask your players what they want to do in a campaign. Regularly inquire about how they think the campaign is going, what they’d like to experience more of, and what elements they’d like to explore further. After a session concludes and between sessions are great times to ask players for thoughts about the campaign.​
Indirect Input. The choices a player makes, starting at character creation, can indicate what they want to see in the game. For example, a Rogue player likely wants opportunities for subtlety or skulduggery, while a Barbarian player likely craves combat. Take note of what encounters players are enthusiastic about, and seek ways to help the players’ characters shine.​
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top