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?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I feel like the best answer is a mix. Like, the default should be party based, but specific areas should be whatever makes sense for those areas, and they shouldn’t be blocked in any way of the PCs want to go there.

But, if I had to actually gun-to-the-head pick only one....I think it’d depend on the group I was expecting to play with.

I’d probably most prefer a sandbox myself, but I wouldn’t say that’s absolute.

 

[Xetheral]

I run sandboxes, but my sandboxes are not divided into areas with set difficulty. Instead, most combat encounters at my table are initiated by the PCs, and it's up to them to decide if they have sufficient information as to the level of threat posed by their foes. I don't use random encounters or wandering monster tables--instead I place threats deliberately, but I balance them based on what makes sense within the context of the game world, ignoring the party's level.

The only time I take the party's level into account is when an antagonist is responding to the actions of the PCs, and trying to neutralize them. Then the antagonist is going to balance (what they know of) the capabilities of the PCs against their available resources. Even then, however, the PCs will still have the ability to make choices regarding how to deal with the threat. It's not going to be "Ninjas! Roll initiative!" (unless, of course, the PCs knowingly and deliberately pissed off the Ninja guild while simultaneously failing to neutralize or intimidate it).

The closest I come to separating areas by difficulty is that the type of threats vary by region. The threat posed in civilized areas stems from the presence of higher-level NPCs, whereas the threat in wilderness areas comes from hostile fauna, marauders/armies, and environmental dangers. And some specific cities and/or wilderness areas may be more dangerous than others (e.g. lawless cities or territory held by enemy forces). But I'm not going to have a zone where all the cities and wilderness areas contain threats of a specific level, neighboring another zone where the cities and wilderness areas are all a different level.

While there is an immersion cost in making sure that the PCs always have an opportunity to learn about threats in time to make a (hopefully) informed choice whether or not to engage in combat, I find it less than the immersion cost of dividing the world into specific geographic areas of set difficulty.

 

[Bigsta]

Players should learn to flee when it is necessary.

Why?

 

[Helldritch]

Why?

To survive!

 

[tetrasodium]

Why?

There's a lot of useful storytelling that can happen when running away is an option. sadly d&d doesn't really have any good way of doing a fate style concede.
edit:There's nothing wrong with sometimes doing the equivalent of cthulu in power armor at a party to make it clear that running is a very good idea though

 

[NaturalZero]

I would be unsatisfied both as a player and as a DM if everything was ad libbed all the time.

I think this presents a completely different axis to the original premise. "Sandbox vs. Party-appropriate" and "Planned vs. Ad-libbed" are spectra that interact in all sorts of ways.

 

[Stormonu]

Why?

There's ALWAYS a bigger fish.

It's not realistic that everything is level appropriate, every time, all the time. There are some things that are just more powerful than the PCs, and this is one way of communicating they are out there. And it can be used to foreshadow the party to returning when they are ready to face it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not a fan of sandbox as described here.

In general, I just plain don't like the play style where you're supposed to avoid or run away more often than not. And even when it's time to run, I prefer it to be because the tactical advantage has turned, not because I somehow happened to wander into the maw of a living hurricane made of teeth just because it was there for some reason.

I do like running sandboxes in the sense the GTA is a sandbox where the PCs are off the chain doing what they want with the main and sub plots hanging about if they so choose. I advance the plots on a timeline whether the PCs address them or not, but I also 4e monsters so they can be adjusted to be within the scope of a reasonable fight.

Just in general, I value telling the story and simulating the genre more than realism or verisimilitude vis-a-vi the real world.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The 'thesis' with which you disagree is not one I presented.

Then I apologise, I misinterpreted your meaning.

Anyway, what I have found is it doesn't matter what you put on the map. The players aren't going to go there unless and until the have a reason to go there. Otherwise they just sit in the tavern drinking ale and discussing the weather.

So, what matters is the plot hooks. If you want to make it a more open game you can dangle lots of plot hooks and leave it up to the players to decide which to bite. However, it's very unlikely that the D&D is going to dangle a plot hook that is inappropriate for the level of the PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

Anyway, what I have found is it doesn't matter what you put on the map. The players aren't going to go there unless and until the have a reason to go there. Otherwise they just sit in the tavern drinking ale and discussing the weather.

The players might not go there, but their characters might...

More seriously, some players (and their characters) really do take the attitude of "where the map is blank, I'll go", and often manage to haul the party along with them.

So, what matters is the plot hooks. If you want to make it a more open game you can dangle lots of plot hooks and leave it up to the players to decide which to bite.

Exactly.

However, it's very unlikely that the D&D is going to dangle a plot hook that is inappropriate for the level of the PCs.

Not exactly.

At those times I'm running it more sandbox, I put the hooks in the water. It's then on the players/PCs to do their due diligence to figure out which are worth biting and which are killers; and-or be ready to bug out if they do end up taking on more than they can handle.