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?

 

[Emerikol]

I'm confused by the latest turn in this thread where somehow Sandbox and improv are on opposite sides and party focused (from the poll and the OP) isn't even mentioned.

I just don't see how improvisation is somehow contrary to a sandbox campaign, especially as defined in the OP.

I mean maybe the DM improvises, maybe he doesn't but that can be true in either a sandbox or a party focused campaign without having any bearing on either of those. Am I missing something?

I think improv is orthogonal to both styles of play and the poll creater just assumed normal prepped D&D.

 

[Emerikol]

Improver's,
I have no problem whatsoever with your style and your enjoying it. I do not want to stomp it out or in any way diminish its success.

I do though feel that you approach these discussions with almost a religious zeal. That if only we would see the light everyone would become an improver. This is insulting to those of us who are not. When someone says X is a reason and you say but we do X with improv, it seems you are trying to beat down those peoples defenses so they concede your way is the one true way. Let me say from many years experience there is no one true way. Fun is the goal and if you have fun you are doing it right.

Now as to player agency. I think player agency is the wrong term, at least for me it is. I'd rather say player challenge. Meaning that if my player is fleeing from the monsters having just recently lost a battle and finds an escape tunnel that was already there in the design (G2 Frost Giant Jarl) and escapes that is the stuff of legend in a group. If though that tunnel appears on player command, it's ho hum. Even if it appears 55% of the time on player command it's ho hum.

The players are wanting to defeat the monsters, traps, etc... by being challenged. They want to put their minds to the job of defeating the environment around them. So combats are tactical and decided mostly by how skillfully players use their powers and maneuver/flee as necessary. Dungeons are explored and treasures found based on how well the players engage the adventure. So that is part of it.

Now to a lesser degree, the players want that everywhere they go. If they need a cleric to heal the party and go into a town they want there to be a cleric there only if there was a cleric there. That means the DM prepped the cleric ahead of time OR the DM prepped that there was an X% on any given day of a cleric being in town and rolled that number. If the DM just says "Sure there is a cleric there" then that is a form of agency stealing. So a living breathing world is one where they know the DM is playing it straight (yes that is a degree of trust but that is just one part of it) and that the NPCs exist outside of the players purview.

So I apologize if in any way I am disparaging your playstyle. I do not intend to do so. People want different things out of their roleplaying. My responses of course represent my biases as do all of our responses. I actually enjoy hearing how you all handle things. I like other perspectives. I don't have to partake of every idea I hear but I like to hear of other ideas.

 

[tetrasodium]

Improver's,
I have no problem whatsoever with your style and your enjoying it. I do not want to stomp it out or in any way diminish its success.

I do though feel that you approach these discussions with almost a religious zeal. That if only we would see the light everyone would become an improver. This is insulting to those of us who are not. When someone says X is a reason and you say but we do X with improv, it seems you are trying to beat down those peoples defenses so they concede your way is the one true way. Let me say from many years experience there is no one true way. Fun is the goal and if you have fun you are doing it right.

Now as to player agency. I think player agency is the wrong term, at least for me it is. I'd rather say player challenge. Meaning that if my player is fleeing from the monsters having just recently lost a battle and finds an escape tunnel that was already there in the design (G2 Frost Giant Jarl) and escapes that is the stuff of legend in a group. If though that tunnel appears on player command, it's ho hum. Even if it appears 55% of the time on player command it's ho hum.

The players are wanting to defeat the monsters, traps, etc... by being challenged. They want to put their minds to the job of defeating the environment around them. So combats are tactical and decided mostly by how skillfully players use their powers and maneuver/flee as necessary. Dungeons are explored and treasures found based on how well the players engage the adventure. So that is part of it.

Now to a lesser degree, the players want that everywhere they go. If they need a cleric to heal the party and go into a town they want there to be a cleric there only if there was a cleric there. That means the DM prepped the cleric ahead of time OR the DM prepped that there was an X% on any given day of a cleric being in town and rolled that number. If the DM just says "Sure there is a cleric there" then that is a form of agency stealing. So a living breathing world is one where they know the DM is playing it straight (yes that is a degree of trust but that is just one part of it) and that the NPCs exist outside of the players purview.

So I apologize if in any way I am disparaging your playstyle. I do not intend to do so. People want different things out of their roleplaying. My responses of course represent my biases as do all of our responses. I actually enjoy hearing how you all handle things. I like other perspectives. I don't have to partake of every idea I hear but I like to hear of other ideas.

You can't simply omit player agency because its inconvenient to strictly following a prepared module without engaging in improv any more than you can ignore that strictly following a prepared module involves some level of railroading to avoid falling off the page into improv.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

My next two coppers in this topic.

The idea of a published Fantasy World, or its parts in many cases, such as adventures that are fitted to such a tapestry, is at best linked to a median approach meant for median start-base use.

The DM then takes it from there and at whatever level they see fit to expand upon their unique interpretation of the matter. This "unique use spread" abstraction can be represented on a 1 to 100 scale, with point 1 being STATIC (no variation from the base information) and then scaling point-wise to 100 (edge of chaos, with almost complete disregard for the information). I assume (though I cannot validate this) that a majority of DMs fall somewhere in the low to middle ranges (30-60).

As an example, and IME, ODD74 started as a system design at about 50-60 on that scale; and do remember that we had no premade materials. All gaming-adventure matter, everything, had to be "made up", i.e., CREATED, either in situ, away from game, etc. . The latter, "away from game" and the former "in situ" (in-game and at the point of departure) are really no-wise different. The premade (up-front) model uses the same design approaches as the in position one; both have the latitude of being able to use known world information.

As most Fantasy Word environments are considered infinite in scope--and thus it is assumed that the access to it by its players could be infinite in choice--I do not get, thus, that the idea of creation "in" or "out" of game should be consigned to a limited category of applicable circumstances except as dictated by choice. This in itself would point back to the idea's unlimited scope (the 1-100 scale) and the many variations produced/possible; and it also leads back to Gary Gygax's quote in Alarums & Excursions, paraphrased, "If the day ever comes when D&Ders agree on how the game should be played it will have become staid and boring indeed."

 

[Emerikol]

You can't simply omit player agency because its inconvenient to strictly following a prepared module without engaging in improv any more than you can ignore that strictly following a prepared module involves some level of railroading to avoid falling off the page into improv.

I'm not 100% sure I understood you so forgive if my reply indicates I whiffed on what you meant.

Obviously in a sandbox, you have a glaringly big limitation for the players to recognize and that is the sandbox itself. You've prepared the sandbox. In a real world there would be no sandbox but the world itself right?

Inside that sandbox though you've created a multitude of adventures both big and small. Lots of points of interest. You've detailed out the villages, towns, and cities (though a city is typically not done especially right away). So if a party doesn't want to finish a dungeon they just leave and go somewhere else. There is no railroading. That is the point of a sandbox approach. No railroads. I also think us sandboxers tend to avoid adventures that have world ending (sandbox ending) consequences.

 

[Emerikol]

As most Fantasy Word environments are considered infinite in scope--and thus it is assumed that the access to it by its players could be infinite in choice--I do not get, thus, that the idea of creation "in" or "out" of game should be consigned to a limited category of applicable circumstances except as dictated by choice. This in itself would point back to the idea's unlimited scope (the 1-100 scale) and the many variations produced/possible; and it also leads back to Gary Gygax's quote in Alarums & Excursions, paraphrased, "If the day ever comes when D&Ders agree on how the game should be played it will have become staid and boring indeed."

I think one problem is that roleplaying is not really one thing. There are various styles as evidenced here and there are different games that are a cross section to those styles. It's why in the past, I tried to come up with some sort of language to describe each style but I soon learned that there was resistance to categorization.

It's kind of like roleplaying is racquet sports. It started out we had tennis but now we have table tennis, racquetball, and pickleball too. There is a broad similarity in that you are hitting a ball back and forth and trying to get it past your opponent. There are also vast differences and people enjoy some more than others. We should be happy this is true for the reasons you quoted Gygax above.

 

[Coroc]

t

One thing to realize too is that at low levels, jobs are just posted. Some goblins are harassing caravans can you drive them away or kill them. It would be rare for a job to be posted saying an ancient dragon is rampaging and we need someone to kill it. It's just not the sort of job that gets posted at the local tavern.

So as a groups reputation grows, they may get more direct job offers. They've proven themselves capable. At even 4th level, they've likely become locally well known as an effective group. At 9th level, they are regional heroes in all likelihood. In a sandbox world though, a group does not have to take an offered job. They can wait for another or they can just explore and look into something they saw on a previous adventure. To me player agency is a high value.

Another disagreement that is common is where the world stands relative to the party. I've been accused of not keeping the spotlight on the party enough. The reality is that my campaigns are not a novel starring the players. There are NPCs going about the world with their own agendas. As they advance in level, the PCs will of course become more famous and have a greater impact no doubt. So a 9th level group is well known but it is not unique. There are many 9th level groups in the world. Far fewer than there are 1st level groups no doubt. So my world tends to have more high level NPCs than I think others do. Still a small percentage of the populace but not non-existent.

So here is an example. Suppose the group just up and decided they were going to kill the emperor of a large empire (think Rome) in the fantasy world. They are 9th level. Is this a good idea? No it is suicidal. If 9th level groups could easily kill emperors of large empires there would be no large empires. Could they succeed? Sure. But the odds of success would be very low and if they did succeed the odds they'd survive the coming counterattack are vanishingly low. So let's suppose they are all 20th level. Can they do it then? Their chances of success are much higher though not certain. And of course they will have an empire after them if they do succeed. And that empire will have a lot of resources to pursue them. I make the world functional and realistic in that sense. I ask myself, if this is how things worked, what would be the outcome.

That's a tough task you took upon yourself. I understand your angle, but have you considered:
1. The party having demonstrated their toughness and ruthlessness are considered the better choice to be ruler of the empire, or at least no one will volunteer to be next victim of the party.
2. Assuming it instead goes your way,
what motive has the empire to avenge the dead emperor? And if it has one then it is a load of work determining what resources come into play now, is it just sheer man power of soldiers?

 

[S'mon]

If your sandbox is a generic fantasy land it doesn't really make much sense to have many threats higher than tier 1, otherwise you need to explain why all those powerful monsters haven't exterminated the entire population. Even a single dragon in the region is going to dominate the ecology.

One thing I do is nested map scales; so the local 2 miles/hex map shows mostly Tier 1 threats, the national 10 miles/hex map shows mostly Tier 2 threats, the continental map has Tier 4 threats. It does vary depending on how gonzo the setting is though; you're more likely to run into a random ancient dragon in Wilderlands than Faerun.

 

[iserith]

I’m up against this problem right now, as I prepare to start running a campaign of Princes of the Apocalypse.

For those unfamiliar with that adventure, it’s a sandbox multi-dungeon crawl. It’s a great book that still holds up in a lot of ways, but it deserves its poor reputation, which rests on two things: the absolutely DM-unfriendly way the info in the book is organized (which I won’t go into here), and the problematic nature of sandbox dungeon crawls.

There are a bunch of dungeons you can access in any order (within the chapter they’re currently in; for example the first chapter is levels 3 to 6). The problem is, each dungeon is designed for a specific party level. So at the start of the campaign, when the party is at 3rd level, they could go to the 3rd-level dungeon—or they could easily wind up in the 6th-level dungeon instead. There’s nothing to stop them, and, at least in the module as written, there’s nothing even to signpost that they should do this one before that one.

It seems that many DMs running PotA choose to railroad their parties into doing things in level order. I don’t want to do that, but I also know my players can’t possibly take on a level 6 dungeon at 3rd level.

What I really want is a “level adjuster” for the campaign, so that each dungeon would include info on how to run it for a party of each level that could access that dungeon. This would make thematic sense (unlike the Shire/Moria example in the OP) because the cults in charge of those dungeons are supposed to be growing in power as time passes. You hit the fire cult first? OK, that gave the air cult more time to beef up.

But that’s a ton of work—I find that it’s harder to bump a whole dungeon up three levels than it is to just make a new dungeon from scratch.

As long as you telegraph the difficulty and have a fair means of adjudicating escape (e.g chase rules), then you should be fine and need no additional prep.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

I would agree on what we might call villains in disguise. I meant traditional dungeons. So sure there are threads of activity running through my villages, towns, and cities where bad people are up to no good. In those instances, the PCs would be wise to look into who these villains are before taking them on.