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

[ECMO3]

Eh, I would say that if 2024 is explicitly pushing folks to "prepared adventures and established campaign throughlines" over the more hands-off style of the 2014 DMG, that would count as something new. But as I don't have the 2024 DMG, can't say firsthand.

I am not a fan of sanbox and although a lot of players say they like sandbox theoretically, they also don't seem to like them as much when actually playing, and those games tend to fizzle out IME.

As such I am not sad to see them go the way of the DoDo.

 

[KYRON45]

The group has decided? Or the DM?

I should probably point out that I don't come from a background where a DM says "I'm up for running [specific adventure path X], who wants to play?" but am instead used to a DM saying "I've made a setting involving [general premises X, Y, Z, etc. and setting conceits A, B, C, etc.] and am starting an open-ended campaign in it, who's in?"

Which means, what I'm used to involves much more player-side freedom in what their characters do and-or who those characters are in terms of personality-alignment-etc. right from the start; and this freedom is what I've come to expect as being the base-line default.

It's ok for you to not like the way others do things. How you do things aren't a red flag to anyone else.

 

[KYRON45]

I am not a fan of sanbox and although a lot of players say they like sandbox theoretically, they also don't seem to like them as much when actually playing, and those games tend to fizzle out IME.

As such I am not sad to see them go the way of the DoDo.

I agree with this. It has been my experience that without well defined goals the party just bounces from thing to thing with no sense of accomplishment.
I'm sure there are DM's (whole groups of players even) who have learned how to make the most of this style of play; from experience, it's just not for me.

 

[Oryzarius]

I am not a fan of sanbox and although a lot of players say they like sandbox theoretically, they also don't seem to like them as much when actually playing, and those games tend to fizzle out IME.

I've encountered DMs who seem to think that a "sandbox" obviates any need from them to provide a plot of any sort: that PCs will "experience" the world; that they will ask questions which can, after suitable deliberation by the GM, be eventually answered; and that it's basically players giving notes to the GM for some light homework. To me, this tends to produce slow, stodgy games where options and information are hard to get at, and players flounder for lack of focus.

In good sandboxes I've experienced or read about, the GM has a set of pre-prepared options to dangle in front of the players; those that aren't picked may get recycled later, or may mutate into worse threats (for the by-then-more-experienced PCs) after being neglected. And, if a player suddenly asks a merchant, "Hey, what's happening over across the mountains in Aquilonia?" the GM will not then mumble something neutral and uninformative, but will instead not only whole-heartedly launch into a (possibly improvised) tale of whatever's going on in that realm, but also be ready if the party of adventurers decides to junk whatever they're doing and travel there.

Yes, that's hard. If running a prepared campaign is playing from sheet music, running a sandbox is improvising jazz. There's a lot of bad jazz out there, and a lot of people who try it and find it not to their liking. But that doesn't mean that, with the right people on the right occasion, it can't be something wonderful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not a fan of sanbox and although a lot of players say they like sandbox theoretically, they also don't seem to like them as much when actually playing, and those games tend to fizzle out IME.

As such I am not sad to see them go the way of the DoDo.

I on the other hand love sandboxes, but would sad for any playstyle to become extinct, even if I didn't like it, because the people who do would be unhappy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree with this. It has been my experience that without well defined goals the party just bounces from thing to thing with no sense of accomplishment.
I'm sure there are DM's (whole groups of players even) who have learned how to make the most of this style of play; from experience, it's just not for me.

Not liking them personally isn't the same thing as being fine with them no longer existing.

 

[Oofta]

Because my character might be interested in something else? Anything else?

This talk of "your character has to be interested" or "make a PC who wants to go on this adventure" is a big red flag: this DM is willing to hammer player agency whenever it suits in favour of telling the players how to play their characters.

For brand new DMs, sure; as players we should cut 'em all the slack they need. Experienced DMs don't get that slack, however, as (due to being experienced) they should know what player agency means in principle and how best to foster it.

To me it's not "make a character interested" it's more "Are you guys interested in X and if so, make a character that is also interested." Players are always welcome to make suggestions as well but it goes both ways, I have to be interested in their suggestion as well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've encountered DMs who seem to think that a "sandbox" obviates any need from them to provide a plot of any sort: that PCs will "experience" the world; that they will ask questions which can, after suitable deliberation by the GM, be eventually answered; and that it's basically players giving notes to the GM for some light homework. To me, this tends to produce slow, stodgy games where options and information are hard to get at, and players flounder for lack of focus.

In good sandboxes I've experienced or read about, the GM has a set of pre-prepared options to dangle in front of the players; those that aren't picked may get recycled later, or may mutate into worse threats (for the by-then-more-experienced PCs) after being neglected. And, if a player suddenly asks a merchant, "Hey, what's happening over across the mountains in Aquilonia?" the GM will not then mumble something neutral and uninformative, but will instead not only whole-heartedly launch into a (possibly improvised) tale of whatever's going on in that realm, but also be ready if the party of adventurers decides to junk whatever they're doing and travel there.

Yes, that's hard. If running a prepared campaign is playing from sheet music, running a sandbox is improvising jazz. There's a lot of bad jazz out there, and a lot of people who try it and find it not to their liking. But that doesn't mean that, with the right people on the right occasional, it can't be something wonderful.

Yes, I doubt any fan of sandbox play is in favor of the "bad" sandbox as you described it.

 

[Oofta]

I've encountered DMs who seem to think that a "sandbox" obviates any need from them to provide a plot of any sort: that PCs will "experience" the world; that they will ask questions which can, after suitable deliberation by the GM, be eventually answered; and that it's basically players giving notes to the GM for some light homework. To me, this tends to produce slow, stodgy games where options and information are hard to get at, and players flounder for lack of focus.

In good sandboxes I've experienced or read about, the GM has a set of pre-prepared options to dangle in front of the players; those that aren't picked may get recycled later, or may mutate into worse threats (for the by-then-more-experienced PCs) after being neglected.

Which of course goes back to what a sandbox is. Having multiple plot threads that they can follow is not a linear game but it depends on who you ask for a definition of sandbox because one definition is that the only goals are the goals set exclusively by the players.

And, if a player suddenly asks a merchant, "Hey, what's happening over across the mountains in Aquilonia?" the GM will not then mumble something neutral and uninformative, but will instead not only whole-heartedly launch into a (possibly improvised) tale of whatever's going on in that realm, but also be ready if the party of adventurers decides to junk whatever they're doing and travel there.

But what if it's just a mountain with nothing going on? As a DM I suppose I an always add something, but if the player is just picking a random spot on my map sometimes it's just going to be boring. Of course I wouldn't actually play that out, if they really insisted I'd just narrate something maybe with some RP that it's just a boring old mountain.

Yes, that's hard. If running a prepared campaign is playing from sheet music, running a sandbox is improvising jazz. There's a lot of bad jazz out there, and a lot of people who try it and find it not to their liking. But that doesn't mean that, with the right people on the right occasional, it can't be something wonderful.

 

[TheSword]

Currently running the sandbox campaign Dungeons of Drakkenheim for D&D 2024. Finished the second day long session today. Absolutely loving it and the players seem to be feeling that too.

I do think there are a few reasons it’s very strong and not all Sandboxes have that.

• A really strong theme that makes the setting for the sandbox very vivid.
• Tangible goals for PCs that provide impetus for them to keep exploring
• Excellent NPCs that are organized into factions that create a web of interaction
• ‘Rules’ for the sandbox that the players can uncover, that makes them feel like they’re growing in a fundamental understanding of the setting.
• Mystery that the players can uncover that keeps them guessing.

I think the predictable and the mundane are killing blows for a sandbox campaign.

I heartily recommend DoD if anyone hasn’t seen it.