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

[Guest 7037866]

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

Some of the time, anyway. Usually I can offer them two, maybe three choices, but more than that and they get confused.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

One of the reasons 4e didn't feel like D&D. You do realise lots of people don't actually like story now?

 

[Lanefan]

Random encounter tables.
Faction relationship maps.
Tools for other random/procedural generation.
Sandboxes require all of these things.

To a point.

If you've ever seen City State of the World Emperor (a 1e-era Judges' Guild release) it has everything you need for a full-on sandbox: a big map with some blank space; numerous completely-disconnected adventure sites and locations (covering all character levels) scattered around that map with short one-paragraph (if that!) write-ups on what each one is about; and if memory serves, just a few tables to help you populate blank hexes.

It - and its sister release City State of the Invincible Overlord - was pretty popular back in its day and is hella expensive now, if you can find one.

 

[Reynard]

Hexcrawling CAN be part of a sandbox campaign, but it isn't a necessity.

 

[Lanefan]

Whenever I think of people's sandbox campaigns, I think of stories of players who've had campaigns that they've stated have run for years, if not several decades, wherein their players are something of a revolving door (not always), have had many, many characters, including children of characters, and so on. And I always think to myself, what does that REALLY look like? Is there an "arc" to these campaigns?

From experience, the answer is "yes and no".

Yes in that there are - or can be - one or more very long-term stories embedded in the greater campaign that rear their heads now and then and eventually come to a conclusion, while at the same time other long-term stories are starting or continuing. As an example, my current campaign has for a very long time had a story arc involving a deity that has been captured and replaced by an evil imposter, and what that's done to his (often-now-corrupted) followers and Clerics, and the effect that's had on the world(s). Hints and effects of that arc first showed up in about 2009 (campaign started in 2008) and have continued ever since as a series of adventures that people eventually realized were connected; but only just now am I running an adventure that could - if they're lucky - see that deity freed. This won't be the end of that arc, however - at least, I hope not! - as freeing that deity could lead to all kinds of downstream effects and activity, the sort that'll keep adventurers busy.

Meanwhile another very long-term story arc (started in about 2011) just finished last year and this one was much more closed-ended.

No in that a closed-ended arc means a closed-ended campaign and part of the point is that the game and campaign be open-ended, fit to last as long as anyone's interested in playing it.

 

[TwoSix]

One of the reasons 4e didn't feel like D&D. You do realise lots of people don't actually like story now?

Some people also hate puppies and rainbows.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

The ask, if I'm reading things right, isn't for the DMG to focus on one particular playstyle (sandbox) but to NOT focus on one particular playstyle (adventure-path) and instead give relatively-equal airtime to some other styles of play including sandbox.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Oofta]

One of the reasons 4e didn't feel like D&D. You do realise lots of people don't actually like story now?

I think you have to squint really hard to see story now in 4E any more than other editions, but I agree. I don't want a story now game, that's one of the reasons I play D&D.

 

[Oofta]

The ask, if I'm reading things right, isn't for the DMG to focus on one particular playstyle (sandbox) but to NOT focus on one particular playstyle (adventure-path) and instead give relatively-equal airtime to some other styles of play including sandbox.

Seems reasonable to me.

Which then begs the question of why there's the belief that more than one play style is not given equal airtime. They don't go really into detail on different campaign styles, none of the DMGs ever have as far as I can recall* because for purposes of the book there's no need to do so. They do talk about serial and episodic campaigns with the former being more of a linear game and the latter describing what many people seem to consider a sandbox.

*then again, I forget what I had for breakfast

 

[MGibster]

One of the reasons 4e didn't feel like D&D. You do realise lots of people don't actually like story now?

Stories are for roleplaying nerds. I'm just hear to eat pretzels, drink beer, and beat monsters to death. Huzzah!