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?

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. I understand exactly what you're tying to say, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency. Whatever your personal "fiction" is, it's completely malleable right up until it's introduced into the game fiction, at which point it becomes actionable. Prior to that, it's just some notes, however much you're personally in love with it. The idea that there's some form of permanence to notes not shared is baffling. I mean, by this logic, I've written several novels because I've imagined a good bit of them.

It's only malleable if the DM chooses for it to be. Those notes are as permanent as he decides.

 

[tetrasodium]

While, of course, the note can be changed if they haven't been presented, there are important nuances to consider.

I don't write down everything that I say over the course of a game session. Sure, I might think that the players have never been to Bumbleton, so I can put whatever I want in Bumbleton. But I might have forgotten that Irrelevant NPC #38 made some small talk about Bumbleton several sessions ago that the players remembered. When they encounter a Bumbleton very different to that described by 38, they either notice that the fiction is changing or they start developing elaborate theories about 38's deception. Meanwhile, I've forgotten 38's existence, and the player is going to end up confused and frustrated why I set that all up with no payoff.

If you have a firm idea of how things work; who's who; and what's where in your campaign, you play things consistently. This is especially important if your campaigns have a lot of intrigue and mystery and the like. I do need to know what's over the hill from the beginning, because otherwise the subtle hints I forgot I dropped last year confuse and infuriate my players.

The NPC itself could have been mistaken confused or even deliberately attempting to mislead as well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm with you in terms of personally defining the scope of play to be limited to what happens at the table, and thus that anything not established doesn't exist yet in the game world. But I think it's pretty clear that @Maxperson, @Emerikol, @Lanefan, and others are defining the scope of play more broadly than we do, to include content previously authored but not yet presented. I don't think there are any grounds to say that one definition is superior to, or more useful than, the other.

I disagree. And I absolutely value notes and pre-planning -- it's not nothing. It's just not part of the game until it's in the game. This does help, in that it prevents the reification of notes as somehow providing a more real game just because you did them first and can pretend that it was always there. When it hits the fiction, it's always been there no matter if you wrote it down last month or just made it up. I'm not arguing that notes and prep don't have value, or don't influence play, but rather than there's nothing inherently special about the notes. It's all still ideas you have that get introduced into play, and when you had those ideas doesn't make them any different or special.

So, yes, I absolutely see value in prep, but it's not more value than I see in a good improv framework. Both are ways to structure thinking so that the game fiction is engaging and fun.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's only malleable if the DM chooses for it to be. Those notes are as permanent as he decides.

No, this makes no sense. If they GM can choose the notes to be malleable, then they are malleable. If the GM choses to not alter the notes, this doesn't make them non-malleable, it's just a choice by the GM to not change them.

 

[Maxperson]

No, this makes no sense. If they GM can choose the notes to be malleable, then they are malleable. If the GM choses to not alter the notes, this doesn't make them non-malleable, it's just a choice by the GM to not change them.

It becomes a non-choice choice. I mean, I can go take a sledgehammer to my car, but the odds of that are pretty much nil. If a DM makes his notes permanent, the odds of his changing them are the same. They are effectively non-malleable. But yes, you are technically correct, and that's the best kind of correct.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It becomes a non-choice choice. I mean, I can go take a sledgehammer to my car, but the odds of that are pretty much nil. If a DM makes his notes permanent, the odds of his changing them are the same. They are effectively non-malleable. But yes, you are technically correct, and that's the best kind of correct.

Right, so if notes can be altered at any time, then they're not any extra amount of real compared to making it up in the moment -- they cannot be. Instead, what's being smuggled in here is a GM's preference -- and it's perfectly fine to want to have largely unchanging campaign notes -- and this goes to my larger point: if you want unchanging campaign notes, the reason is not because doing so increases the "real feel" of the game, but rather for some other reason.

 

[Xetheral]

I disagree. And I absolutely value notes and pre-planning -- it's not nothing. It's just not part of the game until it's in the game. This does help, in that it prevents the reification of notes as somehow providing a more real game just because you did them first and can pretend that it was always there. When it hits the fiction, it's always been there no matter if you wrote it down last month or just made it up. I'm not arguing that notes and prep don't have value, or don't influence play, but rather than there's nothing inherently special about the notes. It's all still ideas you have that get introduced into play, and when you had those ideas doesn't make them any different or special.

So, yes, I absolutely see value in prep, but it's not more value than I see in a good improv framework. Both are ways to structure thinking so that the game fiction is engaging and fun.

To clarify, are you disagreeing with my claim that they are using a different definition for the scope of play than we are? Or are you disagreeing with my claim that there is no reason to prefer one definition over another?

If the former, I think my observation on differing definitions being used is well-supported by @Lanefan's disagreement with you up-thread regarding the privileged role of the DM. If it's the latter, why do you think our definition for the scope of play is superior or more useful?

 

[Ovinomancer]

To clarify, are you disagreeing with my claim that they are using a different definition for the scope of play than we are? Or are you disagreeing with my claim that there is no reason to prefer one definition over another?

If the former, I think my observation on differing definitions being used is well-supported by @Lanefan's disagreement with you up-thread regarding the privileged role of the DM. If it's the latter, why do you think our definition for the scope of play is superior or more useful?

Because the wider scope has the feature of reifying prep into established fiction when it's not until it enters play. This is obvious from the trivial point that it can still be changed up until that point. The only fiction in the game that could be considered real, or evaluated for depth and consistency is the shared fiction -- everything else is malleable and unfixed.

Again, I think that prep, and the impacts it can have on presenting the world, are valuable and valid. I think that this is a fair thing to consider. I further think that putting prep alongside the actual game fictional state as somehow equal is balderdash and harmful to understanding what's happening at the table in during play -- regardless of your take on if you prefer prep to improv.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, so if notes can be altered at any time, then they're not any extra amount of real compared to making it up in the moment -- they cannot be.

Yes, they can and do feel more real to a lot of people. No amount of arguing on your part can change that fact.

Instead, what's being smuggled in here is a GM's preference -- and it's perfectly fine to want to have largely unchanging campaign notes -- and this goes to my larger point: if you want unchanging campaign notes, the reason is not because doing so increases the "real feel" of the game, but rather for some other reason.

Except that feeling more real is the reason and it does increase it for them. You might not agree with it, but people don't need your agreement to feel like it's more real.

 

[Xetheral]

Because the wider scope has the feature of reifying prep into established fiction when it's not until it enters play. This is obvious from the trivial point that it can still be changed up until that point. The only fiction in the game that could be considered real, or evaluated for depth and consistency is the shared fiction -- everything else is malleable and unfixed.

Again, I think that prep, and the impacts it can have on presenting the world, are valuable and valid. I think that this is a fair thing to consider. I further think that putting prep alongside the actual game fictional state as somehow equal is balderdash and harmful to understanding what's happening at the table in during play -- regardless of your take on if you prefer prep to improv.

(Emphasis added.) Maybe I'm not following what you're trying to say, but your response appears to me to be circular reasoning. The bolded clause is only true under our definition of the scope of play, so it really can't be relied upon as a reason to assert that our definition is superior.