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?

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, he posted that while I was writing. I'd forgotten about that passage. However, I think a) this is a rare occurrence only available to high level characters and b) is the exception that proves the rule.

We agree in part and disagree in part. I agree that it's at the rarer end of things. But I think that's because terrain being about player exercise of power via the PC rather than about a challenge for the player to solve via the PC is relatively rare. But one could imagine an extension/development of Gygaxian play where the exercise of that sort of power would make sense at low level - for instance, if the starting idea for the campaign (or a campaign fragment) is the Orcish attack upon the PCs' village, then it would do no harm to the integrity of the campaign to let the players design the village, subject to some obvious GM stipulations like no 12th level MUs, no in-place anti-tank defences, etc.

To go off on a bit of a rant: I think we can see a recurrent phenomenon in RPGing, where approaches and techniques that had a rationale become fetishised and locked-in even when that rationale is no longer being served. I think a certain sort of approach to GM control over "worldbuilding" is an example of that, where there is a bit of world that shouldn't and isn't going to serve as a challenge to the players, and yet the GM insists on hidden-map-and-key unilateral authorship of that bit of the world.

I'm not a Gygax-can-do-know-wrong fan, but I think he clearly had a good sense for game play and while he may have contributed to some of the dogmatism that we see today I don't think of him as having been a victim of it himself.

To me, the upthread preface DMG quote is about sand box world building, which is very much the DM's ideas for the initial layout of the sand. The whole point of the sandbox metaphor tho, is that the players have freedom to make a MESS inside it. That's the style I got from my reading of the books and my fairly low Gygax number I got from one of the foundational campaigns I played in back in the early 80s.

I don't have a "Gygax number", but when I read the PHB and DMG I don't see any discussion of the fiction or the story. Whereas I do see discussions of sensible techniques for hidden-map-and-key play, and valiant if (in my view) somewhat unsuccessful attempts to extend the idea to non-dungeon contexts like cities and other planes.

It's been a while since I've read the 1E DMG - care to point out the those guidelines on admitting novel magic items?

Pages 111 and 118, on integration of experienced or new players into an existing campaign and non-standard magic items. The advice is to be careful about magic items on existing high-level characters coming in from other campaigns, and doubly so in relation to non-standard ones in respect of which the default approach should be to forbid them. There is no discussion of integration of non-standard spells that such characters might bring with them, but I think the same reasoning should apply.

Again, we can see that the concern is not with creative integrity but rather the integrity of the milieu as a context for play, and in particular appropriately challenging play.

 

[Lanefan]

Nitpicking. DnD is better off having moved away from the early Gygaxian model of play.

A very debatable point, that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A very debatable point, that.

It should support all styles, including Gygaxian.

 

[Lanefan]

I think when Gygax prioritises the campaign over the participants - which on its face I agree looks terrible! - he must mean the campaign as a whole over any particular participant. So I wouldn't see it as world over players but the overall collective project which is intended to serve the interests of many participants over the immediate desires of any one participant.

Your assessment is fine, but I don't agree it looks terrible - in fact it looks good from here.

I think this must always have been a minority approach to D&D play, and frankly an extreme minority approach.

Not in this neck o' the woods. Most of the play I knew or knew of in the early 80's was just as you describe below: each group had a DM and maybe a core few players, a stable setting, other players rotating in and out, and everyone involved had lots of PCs. And many of these groups were either based in or spawned from either a college gaming club or one of a few local tournaments.

There was also some jumping of characters from one DM's campaign to another, though probably not as much as Gygax seemed to expect.

The hundreds of thousands of people who played using Moldvay Basic and then AD&D in the 80s, and the hundreds of thousands playing today using 5e, were not taking part in club-style games with stable settings and rotating casts of players and PCs. They were, and are, predominantly playing in small(-ish) groups of friends, from campaign to campaign with some continuity of characters and perhaps some continuity of broad maps/geography but nothing like the intersecting hex-crawling, dungeon-crawling and politicking in the fashion that Gygax seems to envision (but never fully explain).

 

[S'mon]

It should support all styles, including Gygaxian.

I love how 5e supports such a broad range of play styles - including Gygaxian. Most of the options needed (or best-deleted) are presented as such in the PHB & DMG, with more in XGTE.

 

[Manbearcat]

I love how 5e supports such a broad range of play styles - including Gygaxian. Most of the options needed (or best-deleted) are presented as such in the PHB & DMG, with more in XGTE.

I know "such a broad range" is qualitative, but I feel like this is really up for debate. To my mind, there are the 5 identifiable forms of D&D.

1) Classic Moldvay Basic Dungeon Crawling as Skilled Play.

2) AD&D and ECMI/RC Objective-Setting-Centered Hexcrawl or Sandbox.

3) AD&D 2e/3.x GM as Storyteller, Metaplot/AP via Force + Spotlight Rotation + Setting Tourism + Exposition Dump.

4) AD&D and 3.x AP/Module as Skilled Play.

5) 4e Story Now, Mythic-Troped Protagonist Play w/ Thematically/Tactically Deep Combat.


My appraisal of 5e is that it certainly does 2-5 (unsurprising that my appraisal is this as it looked to me like AD&D 3e at end-stage playtest and release) well enough (particularly 3 and 4...which are likely the majority of the hobby by themselves), but 1 and 5 not at all.

1 is not compatible because (a) PCs are FAR too powerful (particularly low level spellcasting/load-outs), (b) PCs have far too much resilience/stamina/ability to dictate the rest cycle, (c) there is no codified and integrated Exploration Turn + Wandering Monster Clock + Required Rest + Reaction Table + Morale (yes, there is a discrete Exploration Turn and NPC Reaction...but that isn't the same thing here), (d) xp model that supports/integrates with delving.

5 is not compatible because the (a) isn't player/table-facing, (b) invests the GM with far too much authority in story trajectory and action resolution (which hooks back into (a) ), (c) doesn't feature scene-based conflict resolution (and all that goes with it), (d) doesn't have a subjective DC framework, (e) isn't possessed of the mythical, thematic PC build tools (Theme, Paragon Path, Epic Destiny) or Quest mechanics that focus on dramatic need, and (f) isn't remotely comparatively tactically deep (for a myriad of reasons including monster depth, PC depth, battlefield/terrain depth, action economy interactions, interaction depth).

"Broad" can mean be looked at many ways. Does it capture a "broad" number of tables? Undoubtedly, as 2-5 are the significant bulk of play.

What % of play styles does it capture? 60 %? I'm not so sure (particularly when 2 of the styles fundamentally are incompatible with the system) that qualifies (at least for me personally). I would say it does 3 and 4 perfect (which is really what the game was made for) and it does Hexcrawl/Sandbox well enough.

 

[S'mon]

I find it does #1 fine; my players would disagree that their PCs are much too powerful or that they get to dictate the rest cycle (my lot tried to Short Rest at the wrong time & place on Saturday - which they only just lived to regret). It does #5 well, although the combat is not as fiddly/tactically deep as 4e, it can certainly be run in a very 4e style. There are some spells that are I-win buttons in certain situations, so maybe the GM can't guarantee "this will be a two hour fight" the way they can in 4e. I've certainly done the mythic-troped protagonist thing; high level 5e PCs are great for that.

 

[S'mon]

1) Classic Moldvay Basic Dungeon Crawling as Skilled Play.

1 is not compatible because (a) PCs are FAR too powerful (particularly low level spellcasting/load-outs), (b) PCs have far too much resilience/stamina/ability to dictate the rest cycle, (c) there is no codified and integrated Exploration Turn + Wandering Monster Clock + Required Rest + Reaction Table + Morale (yes, there is a discrete Exploration Turn and NPC Reaction...but that isn't the same thing here), (d) xp model that supports/integrates with delving.

(a) I have not experienced this, IME level 1-4 5e is very comparable with level 1-3 Moldvay. A partial exception if you allow Feats, notably GWM, PM SS & XBE. If I'm running a #1 style game then I'm not using the OPTIONAL Feat Rules Module.

(b) Unlike 4e PCs, 5e PCS are not particularly resilient IME. There is one Tier 2 spell, Leomund's Tiny Hut, that can enable PC group to dictate the rest cycle. Level 5 PCs are outside the scope of Moldvay Basic, though.

(c) Hm, I find the main thing with 5e is that while it does not have all the main BX support widgets, it doesn't break the cycle either with badly designed 10 minute/level or 1 minute/level buff spells the way 3e & 3.5e did. Wandering monster checks, reaction checks & morale checks are all DM's-side and trivially easy to add in.

(d) This - XP - is the biggest issue IME. There is some DMG support for non-combat XP awards, but I ended up doing my own non-combat XP awards table:

Low Level (Tier 1) XP awards (per PC)
Easy Achievement: 10 XP (Challenge 0)
Minor Achievement: 25 XP (Challenge 1/8)
Moderate Achievement: 50 XP (Challenge 1/4)
Major Achievement: 100 XP (Challenge 1/2)
Very Hard Achievement: 200 XP (Challenge 1)
Exceptional Achievement: 450 XP (Challenge 2)

Mid Level (Tier 2) XP awards (per PC)
Easy 50 XP (Challenge 1/4)
Minor 100 XP (Challenge 1/2)
Moderate 200 XP (Challenge 1)
Major 450 XP (Challenge 2)
Very Hard 700 XP (Challenge 3)
Exceptional 1100 XP (Challenge 4)

High Level (Tier 3) XP awards (per PC) - not halved
Easy 200 XP (Challenge 1)
Minor 450 XP (Challenge 2)
Moderate 700 XP (Challenge 3)
Major 1100 XP (Challenge 4)
Very Hard 1800 XP (Challenge 5)
Exceptional 2300 XP (Challenge 6)

Epic Level (Tier 4) XP awards (per PC) - not halved
Easy 700 XP (Challenge 3)
Minor 1100 XP (Challenge 4)
Moderate 1800 XP (Challenge 5)
Major 2300 XP (Challenge 6)
Very Hard 2900 XP (Challenge 7)
Exceptional 5000 XP (Challenge 8)

XP awards tend to increase over time, as the scale of achievements increase.
Acquiring significant Treasure is usually worth some XP, as is rescuing prisoners, infiltrating a guarded keep, exploring a cavern network, etc. A typical major session award for non-combat achievements might be 25 XP per PC at level 1, rising to ca 100 XP per PC at level 4.

 

[Manbearcat]

(a) I have not experienced this, IME level 1-4 5e is very comparable with level 1-3 Moldvay. A partial exception if you allow Feats, notably GWM, PM SS & XBE. If I'm running a #1 style game then I'm not using the OPTIONAL Feat Rules Module.

(b) Unlike 4e PCs, 5e PCS are not particularly resilient IME. There is one Tier 2 spell, Leomund's Tiny Hut, that can enable PC group to dictate the rest cycle. Level 5 PCs are outside the scope of Moldvay Basic, though.

(c) Hm, I find the main thing with 5e is that while it does not have all the main BX support widgets, it doesn't break the cycle either with badly designed 10 minute/level or 1 minute/level buff spells the way 3e & 3.5e did. Wandering monster checks, reaction checks & morale checks are all DM's-side and trivially easy to add in.

(d) This - XP - is the biggest issue IME. There is some DMG support for non-combat XP awards, but I ended up doing my own non-combat XP awards table:

Low Level (Tier 1) XP awards (per PC)
Easy Achievement: 10 XP (Challenge 0)
Minor Achievement: 25 XP (Challenge 1/8)
Moderate Achievement: 50 XP (Challenge 1/4)
Major Achievement: 100 XP (Challenge 1/2)
Very Hard Achievement: 200 XP (Challenge 1)
Exceptional Achievement: 450 XP (Challenge 2)

Mid Level (Tier 2) XP awards (per PC)
Easy 50 XP (Challenge 1/4)
Minor 100 XP (Challenge 1/2)
Moderate 200 XP (Challenge 1)
Major 450 XP (Challenge 2)
Very Hard 700 XP (Challenge 3)
Exceptional 1100 XP (Challenge 4)

High Level (Tier 3) XP awards (per PC) - not halved
Easy 200 XP (Challenge 1)
Minor 450 XP (Challenge 2)
Moderate 700 XP (Challenge 3)
Major 1100 XP (Challenge 4)
Very Hard 1800 XP (Challenge 5)
Exceptional 2300 XP (Challenge 6)

Epic Level (Tier 4) XP awards (per PC) - not halved
Easy 700 XP (Challenge 3)
Minor 1100 XP (Challenge 4)
Moderate 1800 XP (Challenge 5)
Major 2300 XP (Challenge 6)
Very Hard 2900 XP (Challenge 7)
Exceptional 5000 XP (Challenge 8)

XP awards tend to increase over time, as the scale of achievements increase.
Acquiring significant Treasure is usually worth some XP, as is rescuing prisoners, infiltrating a guarded keep, exploring a cavern network, etc. A typical major session award for non-combat achievements might be 25 XP per PC at level 1, rising to ca 100 XP per PC at level 4.

Good stuff S'mon. I'm going to disagree and see how you feel about the areas I disagree with. I'll just do Moldvay Dungeon Crawls for now. My thoughts on the issues (if you want to enumerate your answers the same for references, that would be awesome):

1) The Exploration action economy in 5e is much more extreme than in 5e. Your basic dungeon map and explore rate in 5e is 300 SF/Min vs 120 SF/10 Min in MB. That basic unit incompatibility is a massive change and has a lot of downstream consequences on the scaling of environs, the base competency of characters vs the obstacle course, and trying to rejigger Wandering Monster Clock et al (and having it make sense), and the Rest Cycle (having to Rest 1/6 Exploration Turns makes no sense when a Turn is 1 Minute vs 10).

Even if you scale everything up by 10 and work off the 10 Min, you're still mapping/exploring at a much higher clip in 5e. And THEN you have to rejigger all of the player and equipment effects that are (presumably) balanced around/integrated with the 1 Min turn.

These differences have to be addressed.

2) The action resolution systems are significantly incompatible and this goes both into PC build and core resolution. Basic competency for listening/searching (etc) is 16.7 and 33.5 % in MB and has niche protection breadth limitations vs a massive competency spoke on both axis in 5e (you're succeeding at significantly higher rate in 5e and much more broadly competent). Then you have Passive Perception which is an action economy compatibility problem between the two (it would have to be stripped out).

These differences have to be addressed.

3) Now you have to create a Wandering Monster Clock and figure out a Rest Cycle (and its impact - Fatigue?) whole cloth and integrate it with the 1 Min Turn (and have it make sense). You've got to do the same with Reaction and Morale. You've got a Light problem with Lanterns lasting 1.5 * as long (and this profoundly being amplified by the movement discrepancies) and Cantrips that cast Light at-will. You also have other exploration Cantrips at-will like Mage Hand, Minor Illusion, Guidance, Resistance, Friends.

These differences need to be addressed.

4) You've got a much increased spell loadout (particularly amplified by Cantrips and Rituals) and just more broad competency and high-end competency built into PCs even at the lowest of levels. Forget about HP and combat. Exploration competency has increased significantly.

These differences need to be addressed.

5) XP for Gold has to be built from the ground up. I'm pretty sure (though I can't remember off of the top of my head) Encumbrance is considerably less an issue in 5e than in MB. These things cut into the heart of the risk: reward aspect of delving.

These differences need to be addressed.

6) Restoring and protecting against HP loss is just much easier in 5e (even if you fiddle with the Short/Long Rest and HD Recovery mechanics significantly). Characters are just much more resourceful and capable (particularly low level spellcasters); deeper pool of resources, more potent resources, better intraparty synergy to force-multiply team PC (even at the lowest of levels).

These differences need to be addressed.

 

[S'mon]

I generally use the 10 minute OD&D Turn when calculating progress in a dungeon; 5e doesn't really have any rules for out of combat passage of time - it certainly doesn't say you can explore a dungeon at a 300'/minute walking pace. 5e is silent on how long it takes to search a 40' x 40' room; I'll typically default to 10 minutes.

10 minutes is how long it takes to cast a Ritual in 5e, making it a handy time unit aside from its forebears.