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?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well it wasn't an assertion that it wasn't made up. It was an assertion though that it was living and breathing in a way that a novel would not be. Meaning that the world is changing off camera. Time is passing. People are changing. Wars are being fought. The PCs can interact with the change or ignore it. I've had both happen.

This doesn't require prep, though, it can be done just as well in play.

Of course. I've yet to enjoy a game where the GM just made it up as they went. The reason I didn't was that I felt I was not in a living breathing world. Just the knowledge that what I discovered was unknown even to the GM before the session lessens it for me. Now I would agree that a lousy DM can ruin any playstyle. No argument there.

Again, I find this an odd distinction. You found out when the GM made up what happened, and are disappointed by the timing?

Not to say you don't have a point, just that it's not making any sense to me as presented.

Well, part of my style of play is skilled play. My goal is for the PCs to confront the challenges in the world as if that world were real and the monsters behaved as you'd expect them to behave. That means combating any biases in the DM.


Well that is not the ONLY distinction but it very much is a distinction. If the party is peppering a wizard with arrows and suddenly his list of memorized spells changes so he has protection of normal missiles then that is bad. And that goes to what you are talking about. I do feel though that immersion is affected as well even if you don't. I honestly can't figure out how you can really have a well developed culture by making last second decisions while in the game. What you get to me is a hodge podge that will ultimately lack internal consistency.

Is it bad, though? I'm not an 18 INT wizard, with lots of time, but rather just a GM with a few hours here and there. If it's reasonable that the wizard has this spell, then it doesn't create any internal inconsistency, because it's not real until it enters play and is shared with the table.

I mean, I prefer to not do this, myself, but it's not because of fear of inconsistency.

I don't doubt it. I would just say "for you" somewhere in the sentence above instead of stating it categorically because I seriously doubt they would produce immersive worlds for me. Realize also that we are talking heroic fantasy here and not a moderns detective game where the world, ours, is already well established. Perhaps in other genres it is easier because exploring the world is not really that big a motivation.

I also doubt it, but more because I think you've really latched onto when fiction is written as a key element, and so would be strongly biased at trying out a game where prep is not allowed. It requires a willingness to embrace the concepts and lean into it, because your role as a player is vital in making it work. Starting with the belief you're not going to like it is a strong indicator you won't.

I disagree here when you say impossible. I'd say impossible to be absolutely perfect 100% of the time. I would say very possible to be pretty good and more than sufficient for a fantasy game with friends.

I used to think so as well, but when I took a critical eye to play, I've come to my current understanding. It was painful, and required unlearning some things, but the words "metagame" are only used in game design discussions at my table now, not play.

see my previous comment above.


Maybe you can go a little deeper into what you mean by advocating for the character. Rather than me respond to something you aren't meaning.

It's pretty straightforward -- a principle of your play is that you advocate for your character's wants, desires, and goals. This doesn't mean that you do the best thing all the time, but that you do the thing that best suits your character. If your character has a flaw that they gamble too much, then engaging in gambling, especially when ill advised, is advocating for the character -- the character wants and desires to gamble.

 

[Laurefindel]

I prefer a mix of the two; a sandbox-y approach to the world, and encounters/missions tailored for the PC.

Tier 1: cross the Moria without attracting the attention of the Balrog. When it does have your attention, the challenge is to flee with your skin. Tier-1 encounters ensue.

Tier2: search for something in the Moria and retrieve it, without attracting the attention of the Balrog. When it does have your attention, the challenge is a race to the mcguffin and to get out (with your skin). Tier-2 encounters ensue.

Tier 3: Go the the Moria and delay/fight the Balrog long enough for X to happen. PC face the Balrog knowing they are very unlikely to win. Victory is achieved in another way.

Tier 4: Go to the Moria and take the Balrog down.

But one way or another, the Moria is made dangerous by the Balrog (among other things) and PC with delusions of grandeur will be faced with defeat, whatever that means.

 

[Mort]

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

I Get what you are saying, but I think it can easily swing in the other direction.

With no (to minimal) ad libbing the world can feel static and cold. Like the PCs just walk from diorama to diorama that animates when the PCs get there and then freezes when they leave.

A living breathing world demands a DM that can go with the flow of the PCs actions and adjust his plans to maximize the impact of the players actions. This often requires ad libbing and junking entire points of a campaign - to add new ones.

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.

This is an interesting analogy. A good book is good exactly because the author has crafted a good story and convincingly conveys that story to the reader.

But in a good session, the players are the ones crafting the story.

Nothing yanks me out of a session faster than realizing that I'm being pulled along the DMs crafted story with my own (and the groups) actions having no meaning. I've walked out very, very few sessions in my time but one of them was when I realized that the DM was literally consulting a novel during the session to dictate what has happening (not a game book, a novel, and everything happened in the order and by the method the novel dictated).

If the players take the game in an unexpected direction, ad libbing may be required. Of course, a well prepared DM is rarely truly ad libbing. There are backup scenarios, drop in encounters, side quests - just in case, NPCs kept around, etc.

Unless what your talking about is free form story telling without a net (backup world and drop in tools) - Very few DMs could pull that off - sure.

 

[iserith]

The way I set up my current sandbox (a hexcrawl campaign) is pretty simple. It's prep-heavy on the front end, but is very easy to run at the table and produces fun results. I'm all for spending a little time out of game to make it easy to run at the session.

I have a forested swamp as the sandbox. There is one town which is a relatively safe place to long rest and do downtime activities. On the map, I placed 20 points of interest in various hexes. When traveling the swamp, if you enter a hex without a point of interest, there is a random encounter. That might be with a few giant leeches or a green dragon or anything in between - it's up to dice. If you enter a hex with a point of interest in it, you experience the point of interest, whatever that may be. These are somewhat detailed, interesting situations that are doing their own thing until the PCs turn up. Then we see what happens. There is also a big threat that wanders the swamp - a horde of undead. When undead are indicated for a random encounter, it also means the horde moves one hex in a random direction. (As it happens, it's getting close to town now!)

There are also several factions. On a weekly basis, I roll randomly and one of the factions does something notable, the specifics of which is also generated randomly. Then I have to figure out what that means in the context of everything else going on and show how the situation changes if it's noticeable. This has meant so far that some weirdness is going on with the adventuring guild and this has ticked off the local church, but has presented an opportunity to the PCs by allowing them to not worry about encountering a normally dangerous faction in the swamp. So this is already creating interesting side effects only 49 days into the game (in-game time). Session 4 is this Friday.

Weather is also rolled randomly on a weekly basis, plus something the cursed land itself does (e.g. floods areas of forest so they aren't suitable for long rests, makes diseases more difficult to shake off, etc.).

Anyway, that's all there is to it. It practically runs itself. The players do what they want given what they know or predict based on their experience so far. And I have no idea how it will turn out which is part of the fun for me. Last week, the party managed to make a big score and level up. They are pumped to head out into the wilds next session to see what else is there.

This is what a sandbox is to me.

 

[Marc_C]

The way I set up my current sandbox (a hexcrawl campaign) is pretty simple. It's prep-heavy on the front end, but is very easy to run at the table and produces fun results. I'm all for spending a little time out of game to make it easy to run at the session.

I have a forested swamp as the sandbox. There is one town which is a relatively safe place to long rest and do downtime activities. On the map, I placed 20 points of interest in various hexes. When traveling the swamp, if you enter a hex without a point of interest, there is a random encounter. That might be with a few giant leeches or a green dragon or anything in between - it's up to dice. If you enter a hex with a point of interest in it, you experience the point of interest, whatever that may be. These are somewhat detailed, interesting situations that are doing their own thing until the PCs turn up. Then we see what happens. There is also a big threat that wanders the swamp - a horde of undead. When undead are indicated for a random encounter, it also means the horde moves one hex in a random direction. (As it happens, it's getting close to town now!)

There are also several factions. On a weekly basis, I roll randomly and one of the factions does something notable, the specifics of which is also generated randomly. Then I have to figure out what that means in the context of everything else going on and show how the situation changes if it's noticeable. This has meant so far that some weirdness is going on with the adventuring guild and this has ticked off the local church, but has presented an opportunity to the PCs by allowing them to not worry about encountering a normally dangerous faction in the swamp. So this is already creating interesting side effects only 49 days into the game (in-game time). Session 4 is this Friday.

Weather is also rolled randomly on a weekly basis, plus something the cursed land itself does (e.g. floods areas of forest so they aren't suitable for long rests, makes diseases more difficult to shake off, etc.).

Anyway, that's all there is to it. It practically runs itself. The players do what they want given what they know or predict based on their experience so far. And I have no idea how it will turn out which is part of the fun for me. Last week, the party managed to make a big score and level up. They are pumped to head out into the wilds next session to see what else is there.

This is what a sandbox is to me.

That is very similar to how I run my solitary D&D games. Set up the systems, let the dice decide the direction and interpret the results in meaningful ways.

 

[Emerikol]

This doesn't require prep, though, it can be done just as well in play.

Not that I've seen. Not denying your experience. Just saying I've not seen it.

Again, I find this an odd distinction. You found out when the GM made up what happened, and are disappointed by the timing?

Again, it's suspension of disbelief. I could be fooled if you were good enough at it but knowing in advance everything is intentionally going to be made up as you go would not appeal to me. It's a preference for exploration vs authoring. I don't prefer to author.

Not to say you don't have a point, just that it's not making any sense to me as presented.

We are so far apart in our preferences that a common baseline is hard to get to I agree.

Is it bad, though? I'm not an 18 INT wizard, with lots of time, but rather just a GM with a few hours here and there. If it's reasonable that the wizard has this spell, then it doesn't create any internal inconsistency, because it's not real until it enters play and is shared with the table.

It is bad to me. A wizard has so many spells at his disposal. He doesn't have all spells at his disposal. If I can just rewrite reality (or maybe in your case write it), by changing something like that then it's being very unfair to the players. They don't have that option. At least not in my games. They have their spell list already chosen ahead of time. I choose the NPCs in advance as well so as to be equally fair.

I also doubt it, but more because I think you've really latched onto when fiction is written as a key element, and so would be strongly biased at trying out a game where prep is not allowed. It requires a willingness to embrace the concepts and lean into it, because your role as a player is vital in making it work. Starting with the belief you're not going to like it is a strong indicator you won't.

I think my bias is just a preference for a different set of game fulfillment goals. The realization that life is short and play time shorter. You could no doubt get me into one of your games if we were traveling cross country in a car and had few options. I am not saying there is 0% chance I'd have fun. I just won't trade the satisfaction of a good form of my game for the satisfaction I'd get from a game played in your style.

I used to think so as well, but when I took a critical eye to play, I've come to my current understanding. It was painful, and required unlearning some things, but the words "metagame" are only used in game design discussions at my table now, not play.

Hey if the change worked for you and you feel your new approach is more fun for you then by all means go with it. I'm not trying to convert you. I would suggest a new player with little roleplaying experience try out both approaches. It does not seem inevitable to me, as it seems to you, that they would always choose your style. That some people would seems obvious to me but I also think that some would choose my approach seems obvious. It's no different than if I offered two games to a group. Some would choose one and others the other.

It's pretty straightforward -- a principle of your play is that you advocate for your character's wants, desires, and goals. This doesn't mean that you do the best thing all the time, but that you do the thing that best suits your character. If your character has a flaw that they gamble too much, then engaging in gambling, especially when ill advised, is advocating for the character -- the character wants and desires to gamble.

Well in that sense, you are just restating what I am saying I am trying to do with NPCs. I want them acting based on their own motives and not being influenced by the game at large or any biases the DM might have. I think a DM can be fairly unbiased but it takes effort.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not that I've seen. Not denying your experience. Just saying I've not seen it.


Again, it's suspension of disbelief. I could be fooled if you were good enough at it but knowing in advance everything is intentionally going to be made up as you go would not appeal to me. It's a preference for exploration vs authoring. I don't prefer to author.

And this is the key point. If you're playing to find out what happens, to borrow the phrase, the player has to lift more weight in the game to make this happen. Preferring to not have that responsibility during your hobby time is perfectly fine, but it's upstream of when the GM authors fiction.

We are so far apart in our preferences that a common baseline is hard to get to I agree.

I think it's less this, and more that I, as recently as five years ago, was making your arguments and felt as you do. I think that my change of opinion has made it more challenging for me to let the realizations go, even as I'm perfectly fine with someone coming to a different conclusion. Or, in other words, my understanding has changed, and I look at these things in a different way, and it's hard to remember not everyone's made that change (or even should).

It is bad to me. A wizard has so many spells at his disposal. He doesn't have all spells at his disposal. If I can just rewrite reality (or maybe in your case write it), by changing something like that then it's being very unfair to the players. They don't have that option. At least not in my games. They have their spell list already chosen ahead of time. I choose the NPCs in advance as well so as to be equally fair.

And this aligns with skilled play. Skilled play, however, is not altogether hampered by ad-libbed material. That's a hard thing to grasp, but it's true. Still, it's an understandable preference, you want the challenge of going against the GM's planning, and if they screw up, them's the breaks. Or vice versa, if you're the GM. I don't really find that terribly appealing in my RPGs. My wargaming, absolutely, but the variable space is usually more confined there.

I think my bias is just a preference for a different set of game fulfillment goals. The realization that life is short and play time shorter. You could no doubt get me into one of your games if we were traveling cross country in a car and had few options. I am not saying there is 0% chance I'd have fun. I just won't trade the satisfaction of a good form of my game for the satisfaction I'd get from a game played in your style.

Thumbs up.

Hey if the change worked for you and you feel your new approach is more fun for you then by all means go with it. I'm not trying to convert you. I would suggest a new player with little roleplaying experience try out both approaches. It does not seem inevitable to me, as it seems to you, that they would always choose your style. That some people would seems obvious to me but I also think that some would choose my approach seems obvious. It's no different than if I offered two games to a group. Some would choose one and others the other.

I don't think it's at all inevitable they'd chose either style. I do, however, think that first experiences, especially if it's prolonged exposure, tend to set people in certain thought patterns as to how RPGs work and make it more difficult to move to a different system.

Well in that sense, you are just restating what I am saying I am trying to do with NPCs. I want them acting based on their own motives and not being influenced by the game at large or any biases the DM might have. I think a DM can be fairly unbiased but it takes effort.

Not quite -- based on motives doesn't mean that other things are excluded. But it's close, and that was the point I was making. I don't even think about what a monster should or should not know -- it's not in my checks. I advocate for them, and follow the established fiction, and that's about it. Concern about "metagaming" is something I've left behind.

 

[Emerikol]

And this is the key point. If you're playing to find out what happens, to borrow the phrase, the player has to lift more weight in the game to make this happen. Preferring to not have that responsibility during your hobby time is perfectly fine, but it's upstream of when the GM authors fiction.

In theory but it works a lot better done in advance from my experience. I mean if God shows up and says he will adlib my style and do it right I won't argue with Him.

I think it's less this, and more that I, as recently as five years ago, was making your arguments and felt as you do. I think that my change of opinion has made it more challenging for me to let the realizations go, even as I'm perfectly fine with someone coming to a different conclusion. Or, in other words, my understanding has changed, and I look at these things in a different way, and it's hard to remember not everyone's made that change (or even should).

You have the zeal of the newly converted. I understand. Relatively newly I guess.

And this aligns with skilled play. Skilled play, however, is not altogether hampered by ad-libbed material. That's a hard thing to grasp, but it's true. Still, it's an understandable preference, you want the challenge of going against the GM's planning, and if they screw up, them's the breaks. Or vice versa, if you're the GM. I don't really find that terribly appealing in my RPGs. My wargaming, absolutely, but the variable space is usually more confined there.

We just don't agree on this point but I think we are understanding each other.

I don't think it's at all inevitable they'd chose either style. I do, however, think that first experiences, especially if it's prolonged exposure, tend to set people in certain thought patterns as to how RPGs work and make it more difficult to move to a different system.

Yeah. I also think it comes from how much you like that first experience. If it's frustrating for you or tiresome then something new might appeal. If you derive a lot of fun from it then you aren't looking for something different. In fairness while I think many fit this description perfectly on all sides, I am a self-contemplative person, hey I'm here chatting with you, and I do think I know myself better than most people know themselves. So I will grant you that there are likely people perhaps in time on both sides who never give the other a chance and might like the other better. For now the preponderance may be my style but that is changing fast. There are plenty on here who list 3e as their first rpg experience. And hey that was 20 years ago. Amazing how time flies.

Not quite -- based on motives doesn't mean that other things are excluded. But it's close, and that was the point I was making. I don't even think about what a monster should or should not know -- it's not in my checks. I advocate for them, and follow the established fiction, and that's about it. Concern about "metagaming" is something I've left behind.

Yeah I guess I do have an aversion to the metagame that goes beyond even my preferences above. It's why games like Cortex or Fate that appeal to me greatly in some ways ultimately don't get played by me. So I am not wanting to be offensive in my naming but there is some category for Fate Points, Hero Points, etc... and I refer to them as plot coupons. You use the coupon when you the player find it handy and in all honesty the character would be oblivious of the existence of such things in the game world. I still end up buying some of those games just for reading pleasure.

 

[tetrasodium]

@Emerikol from your posts you seem to be arguing that a gm who wings it in a sandbox never plans anything while a gm who plans ahead and runs some module (published or self written) is never going to encounter a situation where a player does something not covered in the module. You may not mean it that way, but that's how your posts come off sounding.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In theory but it works a lot better done in advance from my experience. I mean if God shows up and says he will adlib my style and do it right I won't argue with Him.

It works in practice, too.

You have the zeal of the newly converted. I understand. Relatively newly I guess.

Zeal's pretty strong. It's more a blindness to what I see as obvious now rather than then.

We just don't agree on this point but I think we are understanding each other.


Yeah. I also think it comes from how much you like that first experience. If it's frustrating for you or tiresome then something new might appeal. If you derive a lot of fun from it then you aren't looking for something different. In fairness while I think many fit this description perfectly on all sides, I am a self-contemplative person, hey I'm here chatting with you, and I do think I know myself better than most people know themselves. So I will grant you that there are likely people perhaps in time on both sides who never give the other a chance and might like the other better. For now the preponderance may be my style but that is changing fast. There are plenty on here who list 3e as their first rpg experience. And hey that was 20 years ago. Amazing how time flies.

I think it's independent of how much you like the first experience. There's a lot more to this, but it involves critical observations that aren't necessarily flattering, so it's not really a topic that wins over hearts and minds. The short form is that RPGs rarely do what we were sold, but now we're locking into thinking that's as close as it gets and how it's done and that's what we can do. This pairs off with opportunity costs, sunk cost fallacies, and social costs for not doing the popular thing, etc.

3e is very much in line with how you've described your style -- or, as I've understood you. It's heavy prep, rules first, little room for winging it until and unless the GM has a very strong system mastery to know which bits you can wink at and which you can't.

Yeah I guess I do have an aversion to the metagame that goes beyond even my preferences above. It's why games like Cortex or Fate that appeal to me greatly in some ways ultimately don't get played by me. So I am not wanting to be offensive in my naming but there is some category for Fate Points, Hero Points, etc... and I refer to them as plot coupons. You use the coupon when you the player find it handy and in all honesty the character would be oblivious of the existence of such things in the game world. I still end up buying some of those games just for reading pleasure.

The character is still oblivious to it in those games -- it's the player that's aware of it. It, really, it's not much different from how you use the plot coupons, excuse me, hitpoints, in D&D. "The orc hits you with his sword and kills you." "No, wait, I want to use my hitpoints to not have that happen, how many does it cost?" <GM rolls> "Eight." "Oh, man, I only have seven." "Whelp, too bad, I'll take those since you spent them, and you're still dead!" " Oh, wait!, I use the dead and dying rules for some death saves!" "Alright."

So many metagame mechanics that are just learned and not considered odd anymore.