D&D 5E Do You Prefer Sandbox or Party Level Areas In Your Game World?

So these are two approaches that campaigns can (and do) use. They have various names, but I'm using these names. I've used both approaches in the past.

Obviously there is more nuance than the definitions below, but these are two possible extreme ends of the poll when voting feel free to choose whichever end you tend towards, or embellish in the comments.

Sandbox -- each area on the world map has a set difficulty, and if you're a low level party and wander into a dangerous area, you're in trouble. The Shire is low level, Moria is high level. Those are 'absolute' values and aren't dependent on who's traveling through.

Party -- adventurers encounter challenges appropriate to their level wherever they are on the map. A low level party in Moria just meets a few goblins. A high level party meets a balrog!

Which do you prefer?

 

[Oofta]

Then said DM is running a hybrid style between prepped and improv....which is, in all likelihood, what most of us are more or less doing in the first place.

What matters is the mindset - the confidence, if you will, in the players' minds - that what's over the hill a) makes sense with itself and what's already been established; b) hasn't obviously just been tailored to the party's specific needs and-or the existence/needs of a specific character; and c) would be more or less the same had they got here six months ago or not got here until five years from now, just like in the real world.

That player-side confidence in the consistency of the setting is what allows them to immerse themselves within said setting, IMO.

The point is though that just because something was prepped ahead of time doesn't mean that it's logical or well thought out. As far as whether it would have been the same if encountered at a different session, there is no way of knowing that.

I have random NPC lists that also have various generated attributes. If I use Gorvenal Drake (red hair, tall moderately muscular with a high pitched voice) as a merchant at Silver Sally's Trade Goods in the city of Timkon, he's not going to be an NPC in Deep Harbor.

To me bad DMs can have multiple strikes. Inconsistencies, lack of knowledge of their own campaign, illogical regions (i.e. a swamp on the side of a mountain), hesitation or fumbling for information. I'm sure there's others.

But that doesn't have much, if anything to do with improv vs prep. I once had a DM decide that it would be hilarious if he had a town called Bobtown where every resident male and female was name Bob. The fact that he had preplanned this town just made it worse. If everything was "enter a hex, roll a die and randomly generate what's in that hex" that might not work for me either but that's one very particular example of improv I've never seen. I guess I'd have to have a real world example of "improv is bad" because I can't imagine anything much worse than Bobtown.

In any case, a particular aspect of a campaign world once the players encounter it. Until it is experienced it doesn't really exist. Until it's revealed it's Schrodinger's campaign element and it's state is indeterminate. IMHO, of course.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That doesn't matter. The good faith DM won't change them. You're arguing that the existence of bad faith DMs makes it an issue. They don't. They're to be ignored.

Wait, let me understand. If a GM changes what's in their notes this is playing in bad faith? I want to make sure that this is what you've said, because this seems extremely wonky, and it can't actually be what you mean. Right?

I'm the DM. I can change things after they're introduced into play as well. I can even come up with an in-fiction reason for it if I want to. And I can change it extensively. Bad faith DMing can strike at any point.

If you change things after their introduced, that's a whole different ball of wax.

I've had storylines going on that the players never found out about. It altered some things in the game that they did encounter, but they never knew why. My notes can have an impact on the game, even if they are never introduced to the players.

I'm not arguing that notes don't have an impact on the game - I'm saying they aren't the fiction of the game until introduced.

No, there are not a lot of bad DMs out there. Or at least the number is a very, very small percentage of DMs. I mean, a million people doing X in the U.S. seems like a lot of people, until you realize that it's just 1 in every 328 people, which makes them very rare.

Sure there are, else how could they learn to be good GMs? And where do all the horror stories come from? A lot doesn't mean a majority, Max. And I, absolutely, without any doubt, was once a very bad GM. Given the threads here, I find it quite nonsensical to imagine everyone starts at good.

When I enter a game, I trust the DM to be fair and impartial until he shows me that he cannot be trusted. I'm not going to waste my time playing if I don't trust the DM. I won't have fun in a game where I'm scrutinizing him to see if he can be trusted.

Then how can you notice when he shows you he cannot be trusted? I mean, nothing I said requires or even encourages keeping an eagle eye on the GM to see if they're being untrustworthy. That's not warranted. But unless you're willing to state that a railroad is just as good a game as a non-railroad (and I'm talking blatant, not well hidden, here), then we're going to have to deal with the fact that constraints on the GM are critical to both agency and trust. It might be that a GM self-constrains, and, honestly, this is the default D&D goes to because the game certainly doesn't do anything to constrain the GM, or it might be that a game has a structure that constrains the GM. Take Blades in the Dark, for instance. The GM is very much more constrained in that game than in a D&D game, and this is quite visible to the players. Yet, no one suggests playing BitD if you're not sure you can trust your GM. Constraints can help with trust, though, especially in building it.

 

[turnip_farmer]

I used to think that, until I realized that most of the weakest monsters move just as fast as the PCs and a great many, of not most of the strong ones that you want to run away from move faster. Retreat should be an option, but if you're looking at it realistically, unless the party can teleport or fly away from something land bound, retreat isn't feasible. If you get into a fight with something bigger and badder than you, you're generally dead.

That's why I think options other than combat and death are often the better way to go. Now, if the PCs pick the fight, that's on them.

In reality, though, a lot of things don't want to chase you. If you run away when they roar, they'll leave you alone.

This should not be interpreted as a comment on play. I have found players almost never run away. But if they did, the monster need not chase, unless it had a special reason to kill them.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait, let me understand. If a GM changes what's in their notes this is playing in bad faith? I want to make sure that this is what you've said, because this seems extremely wonky, and it can't actually be what you mean. Right?

That's not what I said. We're talking explicitly about those DMs who prepare everything that they can in advance(no one can do everything) and represent to the players that the world is X way, because they've made it so. It's a style of play. Not everyone plays that way and DMs who don't can change things all they want without it being bad faith.

I'm not arguing that notes don't have an impact on the game - I'm saying they aren't the fiction of the game until introduced.

But they can and do impact the fiction without being introduced to the players. I know this, because I've done it. Without being in the fiction, those events cannot impact the fiction that way. The fiction is more than the shared space.

Sure there are, else how could they learn to be good GMs? And where do all the horror stories come from?

The very vocal minority complaining loudly. That's where they come from. And you aren't a bad DM to start. To be a bad DM takes bad faith, abusive DMing. A bad DM can become average or good, but new DMs who make mistakes and need to learn are not bad DMs.

And I, absolutely, without any doubt, was once a very bad GM. Given the threads here, I find it quite nonsensical to imagine everyone starts at good.

Another Strawman. I never said that everyone starts as a good DM. I said that they weren't bad. I was never a bad DM, but I did make plenty of mistakes. I played with a DM once who would hit the party with unbeatable encounters if you bragged about the PCs or made him upset. I quit his game after my PCs mysteriously died every time I had to work during a D&D day. Back then I had an irregular schedule.

Then how can you notice when he shows you he cannot be trusted?

There are pretty big red flags that jump out and hit you. I don't really worry about it. If it's not noticeable, it's not a big deal.

 

[Maxperson]

In reality, though, a lot of things don't want to chase you. If you run away when they roar, they'll leave you alone.

This should not be interpreted as a comment on play. I have found players almost never run away. But if they did, the monster need not chase, unless it had a special reason to kill them.

Or were hungry, or evil, or...

I agree that not all will chase you, and that players very rarely have their PCs run away, but that doesn't change that a huge number of monsters, if you play them as they are written, will just munch the group and compost the area with them later.

 

[CleverNickName]

In reality, though, a lot of things don't want to chase you. If you run away when they roar, they'll leave you alone.

This should not be interpreted as a comment on play. I have found players almost never run away. But if they did, the monster need not chase, unless it had a special reason to kill them.

And let's be fair: you don't have to outrun the hungry monster. You only have to outrun the dwarf.

 

[Maxperson]

And let's be fair: you don't have to outrun the hungry monster. You only have to outrun the dwarf.

Or the gnome/halfling. For all those people out there who don't see the use of those races.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not what I said. We're talking explicitly about those DMs who prepare everything that they can in advance(no one can do everything) and represent to the players that the world is X way, because they've made it so. It's a style of play. Not everyone plays that way and DMs who don't can change things all they want without it being bad faith.

No, we aren't talking explicitly about this, as this is the first time it's been said. That concept is ridiculous to begin with -- no one does this. And, I don't see how this is at all true, anyway -- the promise to not change it may indeed be bad faith, but it doesn't change the argument that it can be changed and doing so doesn't impact what's revealed in play. To put the hypothetical to the test, let's say you have Liar Bob, Dishonest GM, but he's been able to so far trick everyone into think he's on the level, and has promised he's got everything all planned out in his notes (hint: he's lying). The players believe him. He presents a hill, which the player go over. Now, ol' Liar Bob, he looks at his notes (which are a doodle of a dog eating a horse, he's weird) and says, "Oh, well, there's a dragon here!" Now Liar Bob might be a liar, but he's also a mean hand at running a good fight, and has really good descriptive abilities, so the players get a rocking fight that they love.

Bob played in bad faith. Didn't change my point at all.

But they can and do impact the fiction without being introduced to the players. I know this, because I've done it. Without being in the fiction, those events cannot impact the fiction that way. The fiction is more than the shared space.

Nope. What's impacted the players is what you've introduced into the fiction for them. That your reasons for that are you notes is fine and dandy, but it could have been other things. Heck, plenty of times I've suddenly noticed that a pattern of events fits a cool idea and run with it, even though there was no reasoning behind them at the time. That you have notes that gave you a reason is cool, and that reason being why you introduced things into the fiction that affected the players is cool, but having those notes is only sufficient -- it is not necessary.

The very vocal minority complaining loudly. That's where they come from. And you aren't a bad DM to start. To be a bad DM takes bad faith, abusive DMing. A bad DM can become average or good, but new DMs who make mistakes and need to learn are not bad DMs.

Oh, we're back to "Max's personal definitions that he's only shared after multiple posts arguing the point!" I mean, should have anticipated it and done the definition game earlier.

Fine, I'll accept your definition for Bad GM, retract my statement, and reissue it as there are lots of lousy GMs out there.

Another Strawman. I never said that everyone starts as a good DM. I said that they weren't bad. I was never a bad DM, but I did make plenty of mistakes. I played with a DM once who would hit the party with unbeatable encounters if you bragged about the PCs or made him upset. I quit his game after my PCs mysteriously died every time I had to work during a D&D day. Back then I had an irregular schedule.

Was he a bad GM or a lousy one?

There are pretty big red flags that jump out and hit you. I don't really worry about it. If it's not noticeable, it's not a big deal.

Heh. Sure. I mean, most GMs mix prep and improv, and their players can't really tell the difference which is which, so this seems to be less noticeable in the notes-only GM bad faith example you gave above. What are the red flags available to you when you go over the hill and there's a dragon there?

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. What's impacted the players is what you've introduced into the fiction for them. That your reasons for that are you notes is fine and dandy, but it could have been other things. Heck, plenty of times I've suddenly noticed that a pattern of events fits a cool idea and run with it, even though there was no reasoning behind them at the time. That you have notes that gave you a reason is cool, and that reason being why you introduced things into the fiction that affected the players is cool, but having those notes is only sufficient -- it is not necessary.

No. It could not have been other things. It was for the reason stated, the world fiction established by my notes, which makes it impossible for it to have been for any other reason. Before the reason was established I could have done it for a variety of reasons, but I didn't. I did it only for the reason stated.

You keep trying to make the fiction require shared experiences in order to be fiction. That's wrong. I have created it as fiction for my world, therefore it IS fiction for my world. I have established it via my notes, even if the players have not encountered it yet.

Fine, I'll accept your definition for Bad GM, retract my statement, and reissue it as there are lots of lousy GMs out there.

Was he a bad GM or a lousy one?

Acting in bad faith makes for a bad DM, and those are rare.

Heh. Sure. I mean, most GMs mix prep and improv, and their players can't really tell the difference which is which, so this seems to be less noticeable in the notes-only GM bad faith example you gave above. What are the red flags available to you when you go over the hill and there's a dragon there?

I'm not going to play this game. It's pretty apparent when you are dealing with a bad DM.

 

[Slit518]

I can do either or, though my favorite is Sandbox.

I've had a situation where players went to an area where a creature was too high of a level and just fled. It gave them a goal to go back in a few levels and attempt it again. And, in the same world players would hear stories or rumors of certain areas, where they could decide to travel, but the description seemed out of their league so they decided not to go.

It was so funny, too, when the players encountered the tough creature and realized it was a bad idea, they were pumped on the idea of something in the world that could whoop them that they may have to go to. So, I was more pleased with their reaction.

P.S.
They did go back, and they did whoop that creature. I think they were level 3 when they encountered it the 1st time, and level 5 or 6 when they encountered it the 2nd time.