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

[Oofta]

Players choose what they do in a sandbox.

Why are you trying to move the goalposts? ETA: Specifically regarding bringing in the trad vs neotrad debate. That would just be a distraction.

I don't consider my campaigns a sandbox. On the other hand, I populate the world, set up factions with their own goals and agendas, set up an intro session or three and then let the players decide what they're going to pursue. When a particular chapter/story arc ends I ask them what they want to do next. I repeat the rumors and possible goals, allow them to suggest something interesting I hadn't thought of. After they choose a goal, for the next few sessions that's what we pursue. Rinse and repeat.

But I still have an overall plot, overall goals the campaign is based on. It's just that those thoughts on where the campaign is headed can change based on character impact on the world and events or what the players are interested and excited about. Those small story arcs end up being quite linear even if I will react and adjust on the fly if and when the group meanders off into left field.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t think a hexcrawl is the same as a sandbox. Lots of published adventures, from very early to very recent, feature hexcrawls. And it’s easy to make one, no instructions required. Classically, it was described as a "wilderness adventure".

But making a sandbox doesn’t require hand-holding either. Make a map (which may or may not have hexes) and put some interesting stuff in it. Not exactly hard to work out. The most significant part of a sandbox is what it doesn't include: a plotline for the players to follow. The rest is just worldbuilding, which I believe features prominently in the new DMG.

This is thread is really about OneTrueWayism. The OP thinks sandbox should be presented as the CORRECT way to play D&D. Which is why they aren't complaining about the absence of several dozen other ways of playing D&D that aren't described in detail in the DMG.

The OP is talking about a style of gaming they like, and not talking about other styles. Weird.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not necessarily. Wide preparation produces better results, but requires considerably more effort, much of which is likely going to be wasted.

I mean, improvisation is always useful, but just as much so if the party chooses a different direction whilst playing an Adventure Path.

Worldbuilding is never wasted.

 

[Remathilis]

Worldbuilding is never wasted.

World-building that never sees play though has far greater diminishing returns on time though.

 

[Reynard]

The OP is talking about a style of gaming they like, and not talking about other styles. Weird.

Why is that weird? Do you expect that every thread on playstyles cover every possible playstyle?

 

[Reynard]

I don't consider my campaigns a sandbox. On the other hand, I populate the world, set up factions with their own goals and agendas, set up an intro session or three and then let the players decide what they're going to pursue. When a particular chapter/story arc ends I ask them what they want to do next. I repeat the rumors and possible goals, allow them to suggest something interesting I hadn't thought of. After they choose a goal, for the next few sessions that's what we pursue. Rinse and repeat.

But I still have an overall plot, overall goals the campaign is based on. It's just that those thoughts on where the campaign is headed can change based on character impact on the world and events or what the players are interested and excited about. Those small story arcs end up being quite linear even if I will react and adjust on the fly if and when the group meanders off into left field.

I am interested in why, specifically, you don't consider that "sandbox" play when it pretty much hits the common definition.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The OP is talking about a style of gaming they like, and not talking about other styles. Weird.

It’s not weird. But it is self-centred, and not taking the viewpoint of others into consideration leads to false conclusions.

There is nothing wrong with sandboxes, but there is no reason to expect the DMG to focus on one particular playstyle, and there has been no change in policy.

And yes of course they want you to buy adventures - and they always have done, all the way back to the 1970s. It would be impossible to make a profit on the core rules alone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The concept of the personal quest is a well known one, that features in Critical Role and many CRPGs. But it doesn’t have to be limited to a sandbox game. DM and player can weave a personal quest into an adventure path just as easily.

Has anyone here said otherwise? This thread isn't about adventure paths. New DMs already get plenty of advice and support for those in the 5.5 DMG already.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why is that weird? Do you expect that every thread on playstyles cover every possible playstyle?

Sarcasm my friend. Sorry that didn't come across.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s not weird. But it is self-centred, and not taking the viewpoint of others into consideration leads to false conclusions.

There is nothing wrong with sandboxes, but there is no reason to expect the DMG to focus on one particular playstyle, and there has been no change in policy.

And yes of course they want you to buy adventures - and they always have done, all the way back to the 1970s. It would be impossible to make a profit on the core rules alone.

You don't think WotC makes a profit on the core books?