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

I usually find that people play D&D to do things they can't do in real life. So running a business is pretty much something we could all do if it interested us, and is pretty much a game in itself. I have a family member who likes exploring, so they explore in real life. And the other thing D&D lets them do that they can't do in real life is make the world better.

But running a business, like running a kingdom, if you do it conscientiously, is really just work, very hard work, and no fun at all.
I would say you should no more assume moral heroism from the PCs than you should assume a lack of entrepreneurial spirit or the desire to rule a kingdom.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I would say you should no more assume moral heroism from the PCs than you should assume a lack of entrepreneurial spirit or the desire to rule a kingdom.
🤷‍♂️ I know what my players enjoy. I do think some of the original ideas where influenced by the culture of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. Gary Gygax obviously thought starting a business and making a heap of money was a worthwhile goal.
 


I usually find that people play D&D to do things they can't do in real life. So running a business is pretty much something we could all do if it interested us, and is pretty much a game in itself. I have a family member who likes exploring, so they explore in real life. And the other thing D&D lets them do that they can't do in real life is make the world better.

But running a business, like running a kingdom, if you do it conscientiously, is really just work, very hard work, and no fun at all.

Some people really like running a business in D&D. I've had whole campaigns where that is what the players wanted to do (and I as a GM would have preferred they wanted to adventure). Didn't mean interesting things weren't happening or they weren't also having adventures, but the focus was building a trade empire. I think what it comes down to is some players like focusing on the politics, social interaction, and strategizing that can come with that sort of campaign.
 

The GM doesn't have to make assumptions - the GM can ASK the players.

A game designer, though, has to make some assumptions, or at least some choices.
It doesn't have to make those choices, and doing so closes off (or at least makes more difficult) avenues of play that would otherwise be available. And before you trot out the limited space argument, the actual choice they made was to reduce the amount of information and options they could put in the books by stuffing them with huge amounts of expensive artwork. Now I'm not saying that they made the wrong choice here (certainly given their financial motives), but it was the choice they made: they compromised on content for fancy visuals. I expect enough people will be ok with that for them to feel their choice was justified.
 

It doesn't have to make those choices

It? A game designer is a person, not an object.

Games have limited pages. The writer has limited time to write before going to print. Choices must be made on what to include.

...the actual choice they made was to reduce the amount of information and options they could put in the books by stuffing them with huge amounts of expensive artwork.

Even if you took the art out (which would be a bad choice, imho, because art pieces in a book have multiple good purposes). The game would still have limited space - and you have to choose, say, between content aimed at adventure, or content aimed at playing Papers & Paychecks instead of Dungeons and Dragons.
 

It? A game designer is a person, not an object.

Games have limited pages. The writer has limited time to write before going to print. Choices must be made on what to include.



Even if you took the art out (which would be a bad choice, imho, because art pieces in a book have multiple good purposes). The game would still have limited space - and you have to choose, say, between content aimed at adventure, or content aimed at playing Papers & Paychecks instead of Dungeons and Dragons.
"It" meaning the game, not the designer. Did you really think I meant otherwise?

Your disparaging other playstyles aside (Papers & Paychecks, really? Seriously, who are you trying to score points with here?), I have actual real fantasy RPGs that cover a lot more ground than WotC 5e in their corebooks, so as I said, your limited space argument simply doesn't stretch nearly as far with me as you think it does (which is why I pre-emptively called it out).
 

"It" meaning the game, not the designer. Did you really think I meant otherwise?

Your disparaging other playstyles aside (Papers & Paychecks, really? Seriously, who are you trying to score points with here?), I have actual real fantasy RPGs that cover a lot more ground than WotC 5e in their corebooks, so as I said, your limited space argument simply doesn't stretch nearly as far with me as you think it does (which is why I pre-emptively called it out).

While I don't care one way or another whether people have their PCs run businesses, I believe P&P was a reference to this
fa594583c6e00ee6f8f024c31f9e8cb0_original.jpg
 


I'd like to believe that. Didn't seem very tongue-in-cheek to me.
I'm not getting involved in this one way or another, the P&P reference sounded familiar so I thought I'd share.

I have had players do some minimal business stuff in my games, but it's always been more something that explains what they're doing in their downtime than anything. So it's never been central to a campaign and the minimal rules we have from XGtE(?) work fine. But there is no one true way.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top