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]

Because (most) sandbox world really just have multiple paths that makes it seem like a sandbox IME.

It's also confusing. I'm being told it's not sandbox if I improvise, but if you can't improvise in a sandbox campaign that seems to mean the you would have to have every location, NPC and creature figured out ahead of time. If I had the budget and staff that multi-million dollar video sandbox games have I could approach that. Then again, even sandbox video games aren't "true" sandboxes because programmers can't account for everything the player(s) can do, at least not yet.

In any case, I don't think either choice really matches what I do.

 

[MGibster]

When starting a new campaign, and especially for a new game most of us are unfamiliar with, I do have a designated kiddie pool for the PCs to play in. I tell the players something like, "None of the PCs are going to die this session and when we're done feel free to make any changes to your character you want to make." This gives everyone a chance to get familiar with the rules and the setting before going off to adventure.

 

[iserith]

All those who voted sandbox, you probably say that this is more "realistic" -but do you give clear warnings?

And if you do, is it in your opinion realistic that you always get a warning of an imminent danger?

Yes to both. I don't really care about "realism" to any great degree in my fantasy game. However, whether the warning seems like it fits in the given context is really just a matter of skill in describing the environment and foreshadowing.

 

[MGibster]

I am kind of surprised sandbox is winning so dominatingly in the world of adventure paths etc...

That's the thing with polls. Their accuracy is dependent making sure you have an adequate sample population and good questions. I tend to think of a poll like we have in this thread to be more about stimulating conversation rather than an accurate reflection of any trends. Those who participate in this thread are a self-selected group and it wouldn't surprise me if we have a high percentage of Sandbox style players here.

 

[Oofta]

Perhaps I should say what I mean by sandbox....

The DM preps an area, the sandbox, with many possible adventures. The PCs then do whatever they want within that area. The difficulties may increase the farther out you get from a homebase or even the deeper you get in some dungeon.

I agree, although for me it's not physically close or far. Some major threats may be right next door, just that at lower levels you are below their notice or the group hasn't been able to connect the dots yet.

For example in a previous campaign the captain of the guard was a mini boss, everyone knew he was corrupt. But at lower levels it was quite obvious that taking him on directly was not really even an option. They could disrupt some of his operations but they also knew that trying to take him on directly would be suicidal.

 

[Maxperson]

All those who voted sandbox, you probably say that this is more "realistic" -but do you give clear warnings?

And if you do, is it in your opinion realistic that you always get a warning of an imminent danger?

Define warning. I mean, if the party is level 5 and they come across 4 bodies covered in stab wounds caused by a band of goblins(danger), how is that different than if they come across a half eaten body that a dragon left behind(danger)? Conveying danger is easy. Using the clues to tell the party that the encounter is beyond them isn't as easy.

If the encounter can only go one way(TPK) due to the type of creature, I will have the clue so obvious that it's something way beyond their ability that if they proceed anyway, that's their fault. Otherwise, I'll let the interaction between the party and the encounter determine which way it will go.

If you do not give warnings, what is the point in having a party which does well in e.g. following adventure clues etc. perish in some high level encounter just because they took a wrong turn somewhere down the road?

Warning signs or not, why are you assuming that perishing is the only option? Back in 3e a 1st level group wandered across an ancient red dragon sunning itself on a hill with its eyes closed. The dragon was aware of the group, but full and enjoying itself so it wasn't going to attack. I forget who it was, but one of the players decided to have his PC sneak up and touch the dragon. It did not go well for him.

Another low level group came across a powerful devil. The devil was going to coerce them into delivering a message to someone for it, but before I could get that out one of the players decided to try and bargain with it for power. That was much more interesting, so the devil started bargaining for a new soul.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, if God were running the game, it wouldn't matter. Humans though are limited in their capacities and from what I've seen ad libbed games lack the depth of a well designed world. YMMV.

My mileage does, extensively. I'll tentatively agree that what most consider "ad-libbed" may feel shallow, but this is largely due to the fact that it occurs in game systems that don't have tools to support it very well. D&D is one such. Still, my Sigil campaign had large sections discovered in play, and it had a great deal of depth to it.

I don't think it is getting a leg up on the GM. I also think on some occasions the DM is forced to ad-lib. If you ask the bartender an off the wall question then you have to adlib an answer.

Of course the GM has to ad-lib some things, but if you're preference is to minimize this, you should really ask what that achieves in play -- how does it support what you want. The "depth" argument is weak -- this is often trotted out but it's not every strongly presented. @Lanefan has done the best job I've seen, and what that boils down to is a GM's desire to plant lots of extra details to essentially chaff player skilled play -- it's an additional layer of challenge to skilled play.

I realize though that there is a play style that paints my style of play a certain way and uses words like Force. I see it more as the DM is adjudicator of the actions of things not under the control of the players but as an adjudicator there is a reasonable expectation of fairness. The DM is expected to play the NPCs/Monsters/enemies as unique individuals that have their own attributes and their own plans and fears. To play them with only the knowledge they would have and not with the knowledge the DM has.

I wasn't painting your playstyle as anything. If anything I was pointing to how preferring a GM heavy prep in a sandbox world offsets the opportunity for Force. Force isn't a negative thing, in my opinion, but rather something that's a tool in the box -- it can be abused like any other. Heck, if you're dealing with encounters keyed to the players, that's using Force -- the GM is using their authority to generate a preferred outcome regardless of the player choices, in this case a balanced encounter.

The DM is called upon to be a character actor and play a role many times over.

100% agree.

Doing a good job is keeping those roles separate.

And disagree -- I think this is actually impossible, and what's considered this is more a specified approach as to how you're expected to do this. Like pretending that your character doesn't know fire hurts trolls -- when is it okay to stop pretending you don't know this? I mean, your actions are already impacted by doing so -- there's never going to be that spontaneous "I hit it with a torch" that a newbie could do, because it'll be labeled, so play is already distorted. I think that persisting in believing you can actually separate these things prevents understanding what it is you actually do want out of play and doing things to get that.

 

[Oofta]

Warning signs or not, why are you assuming that perishing is the only option? Back in 3e a 1st level group wandered across an ancient red dragon sunning itself on a hill with its eyes closed. The dragon was aware of the group, but full and enjoying itself so it wasn't going to attack. I forget who it was, but one of the players decided to have his PC sneak up and touch the dragon. It did not go well for him.

Is there a D&D term for The Darwin Awards?

 

[Maxperson]

Is there a D&D term for The Darwin Awards?

I don't know, but while I've seen a number of things that could qualify, that one incident still tops the list.

 

[Emerikol]

My mileage does, extensively. I'll tentatively agree that what most consider "ad-libbed" may feel shallow, but this is largely due to the fact that it occurs in game systems that don't have tools to support it very well. D&D is one such. Still, my Sigil campaign had large sections discovered in play, and it had a great deal of depth to it.

I think the game itself though is a different type of game. I'm pretty open to trying things but again a D&D campaign for me is a commitment of time and energy and I want the biggest bang for my buck so I tend to favor what I like a lot in those situations.

Of course the GM has to ad-lib some things, but if you're preference is to minimize this, you should really ask what that achieves in play -- how does it support what you want. The "depth" argument is weak -- this is often trotted out but it's not every strongly presented. @Lanefan has done the best job I've seen, and what that boils down to is a GM's desire to plant lots of extra details to essentially chaff player skilled play -- it's an additional layer of challenge to skilled play.

Well by minimizing ad libbing, it means the world pre-exists the PCs. It is a living breathing world.

I think a way to think of it is a book analogy...which would you prefer an author who just off the cuff tells a story that he makes up from scratch or would you prefer an author who spends time crafting the story which you then consume as a book. Now I'm not saying it would be impossible for me to enjoy an off the cuff story made up from scratch but the odds astronomically improve that the well crafted book will be better.

So again, when I've played in games where the DM makes it up as he goes I've left the session, my last one by the way, feeling code and not like I had much fun. Obviously, if the ad libber could fool me utterly then it wouldn't matter but I don't see myself being fooled too many times. Definitely not across an entire campaign.

I wasn't painting your playstyle as anything. If anything I was pointing to how preferring a GM heavy prep in a sandbox world offsets the opportunity for Force. Force isn't a negative thing, in my opinion, but rather something that's a tool in the box -- it can be abused like any other. Heck, if you're dealing with encounters keyed to the players, that's using Force -- the GM is using their authority to generate a preferred outcome regardless of the player choices, in this case a balanced encounter.

And disagree -- I think this is actually impossible, and what's considered this is more a specified approach as to how you're expected to do this. Like pretending that your character doesn't know fire hurts trolls -- when is it okay to stop pretending you don't know this? I mean, your actions are already impacted by doing so -- there's never going to be that spontaneous "I hit it with a torch" that a newbie could do, because it'll be labeled, so play is already distorted. I think that persisting in believing you can actually separate these things prevents understanding what it is you actually do want out of play and doing things to get that.

Well now you've digressed into player characters. I've given up fighting the player knowledge battle by trying to keep the books from them. I just rename and change up a lot of things so that it remains new each campaign. They may figure out something is a troll eventually but again perhaps trolls are somewhat in the collective knowledge of society. Dragons breathing is definitely something that most peasants know not because they've seen a dragon but have heard the legends.

When I play the monsters, I have a reason for their existence and I have their motives and plans mapped out. I then go through some scenarios. I ask questions. For example, if the orc chieftain hears swords clashing in the next room what does he do? If I say he charges into battle, I don't change that up when the players deliberately set a trap for him and clang their swords. I try to assess the monsters intelligence and other factors like instincts, cleverness, craftiness, etc... Those things decide how I devise their response plans.

There may come times when I have to make a decision. Sometimes I dice for that decision based on probabilities. I try to avoid just choosing the obvious course given DM knowledge versus monster knowledge.

I do enjoy our conversations and the fact that we can debate this issues civilly.