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]

So you went from complaining that people want to consider player agency as a meaningful thing limited by exclusively stinging to a prepared module when pressed on all the railroading needed to keep from going off the page to hand waving the two by saying that the players agreed to the module and shouldn't try to color outside the lines?

Did you even quote the right person? You responded to things, I don't even know what you are talking about.

There is a reason why so many memes about players doing the unexpected and no plan surviving first contact with players exist. If not by railroading or making things up off page how are the players expected to do the expected? You can look at the pota discussion or any number of "what if my players unexpectedly get the wrong conclusions to x" as examples of why exclusively relying on GM prep or worse, the ultimate in prep, the words published in a module for running a campaign will hit an invisible brick wall without resorting to making things up on the fly.

Amazingling I run campaigns that are generally lauded as great and I could run a game every night of the week if I was willing. I literally could line people up in front of my house. So your claim that I can't run a game in my style would be interesting to the many players who've enjoyed my campaigns.

And what does the fact players improvising have to do with anything. Yes of course when I move the enemies tactically in an attack on the PCs, I don't have that prescripted. That is a strawman if that is your attack on prep. I do though have the plans of the leader under various situations worked out in advance to prevent in game biases from ruling. But if I ever did have to make such a decision, I'd likely dice for it to be fair. My having my NPC well defined I can do that in a reasonable way.

Even if one accepts that sort of "the players agreed it it so..." reasoning there is still the fact that no standard methods of play include the players knowing what is written in the GM's notes and reading the module as a player to prep or even self railroad is pretty universally accepted as egregious levels of meta gaming. How are the players expected to always do the expected?

Again, I think you are responding to me by accident. I don't expect the players to do anything. I create environments and they operate in those environments. With my groups that tend to be "high skill", they are cautious. They make no assumptions that the DM will "protect" them. If something bad happens it happens. I present clues if clues are appropriate given the circumstance. PCs see the clues or they don't. After the game starts, I am a neutral arbiter. My players if successful will know they've been successful by dint of their wits and tactics and that the DM has only presented them a world to explore.

 

[Emerikol]

Oh, but who is organizing the war of an empire vs the PCs? Surely the emperor was not unprotected, and part of the resources, at least those like the CR 20 bodyguards, court wizard, high priest etc. have either surrendered or gone down with the emperor in trying to defend him.

It is true. That is why I said it was not likely they could kill the Emperor but at 20th level it was not impossible. The likelihood is they fail. The odds are the Emperor would survive their attack and of course be looking for them afterwards. Being 20th level though, I thought they'd at least have a chance greater than 0.

]Also this asumes that leveld/classed folks is common, which is not the precndition in every campaign. If you take 2e guidelines for class and level distribution which is a good one, since it is halfway between "every soldier is at least level 3 and his general level 9 plus the village cleric has tobe level 9 at least etc." and "The pcs are the only lonely heroes with something like levels" then it goes like :

Class and leveled folks are more common than perhaps D&D rulebook authors have indicated in the past. It's hard to explain a world full of monsters and humanity even surviving otherwise. I do notice when they write modules that they tend to have leveled NPCs all over the town. So 20th level is rare but in a world they still exist and in a large empire there are likely many. I tend to have a formula for figuring this out per campaign world. As I sometimes increase or decrease the amount of magic using individuals in the world.

About 1 in 100 is a paladin (derived from the standard creation method back then which made it hard to roll the min stats for that class but still a reasonable idea, since not everyone and his mother is a holy man)

With levels it goes like (dunno if iam exact here) : A city of 50000 is guaranteed to have a 9th level cleric
But also: The high priest of a temple does not need to be the cleric with most levels, but often is the most faithful, (a quite stunning and diverse approach for that time)

For the ruler it says: if you want to make a ruler (which is a commoner wit h1d6 hp) a bit tougher, you can give him an extra hd, so he is not easily killled by a lucky dagger attack.

Fascinating isn't it? It also works - even if transponded to 5e wit hsome number crunching. And those ppl who love their PCs having all freedoms should eventualy have some chance to kill (and eventually replace) an emperor, at least at level 20 don't you think?

I don't think it works very well. At least it does not for me. I don't want the PCs becoming Gods at 5th level. One of the aspects of making a living breath world as a design goal is rectifying the rules with the world. I tend to accept the explicit rules, not the level density guidelines, as normative and build out from there.

If you are doing it differently and it's working for you then by all means continue. I was speaking from my own experience and how it would work in my world.

I do think despite what he may have written in various places that Gygax followed this strategy. There were a lot of high level individuals in Greyhawk. In the Forgotten Realms, there were even more.

I tend not to use the 0 level human concept. I tend to lean more towards the NPC class concept but I have a different set than they had in 3e. Meaning if the NPC is a warrior he is likely a fighter. I don't have a warrior or adept NPC classes. I tend to have Expert, Laborer, Noble. I tend to give them levels but not a ton of hit points as they advance. This is how I explain master craftsman.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is the issue. No. I do not think that an improv DM can produce the deep and immersive world that I do. I don't believe it for a second. That is the issue here. I'm not conceding this point and we will just have to agree to disagree. You speak in theoreticals but you have admitted that I should be aware it's improv and run with it. Being aware it's improve prima facie will reduce the immersion. There is nothing over the hill. Nothing. I have to run over the hill to make it come into existence. That violated immersion right there. Full stop.

So you are not the arbiter of what is immersive or not. I am not immersed by improv. Let's just agree instead that for some people they can become immersed with different stimuli. If I know certain that the DM is making it up as we go, I will not care a whit about the world. My investment will be nil. In fact, once I figure out what is going on, I will politely bow out of that campaign.

So it is the CERTAINTY you exhibit about these matters that is triggering. You turn an opinion into a scientific fact. Your opinion is yours. It's not a scientific fact. I'm not unique in finding your improv anti-immersive. I'm not claiming my way is the exclusive way but I am say for a lot of people, things like immersion matter in the way they matter to me. It's why they keep using the term. Immersion is a pretty subjective concept.

Of course I'm not the arbiter of what you like -- I've said this multiple times. My point has never been that, if you gave it the chance, you'd find you like improv games -- this would be a silly argument. Instead, my point has been that when the fiction is created is not the point of contention.

Like your opening statement -- if what's over the hill is exactly the same whether improved or prepped, you're saying that your immersion depends not on the level of detail or the fiction presented, but instead on when it was created. If was it created in the moment, it's non-immersive. If it was created last Wednesday, it's immersive. I absolutely think this is silly, but what I don't think and haven't said, is that there's not something important here! I very much think there is something important in the difference between improv and prep, but when the fiction is created is not it. So, then, it remains to examine what it is that is important.

Another poster pointed to the feeling of agency -- that improv feels like they have less agency. And, absolutely, this is a great reason, and in a game like D&D, where the GM holds all the authority over the fiction, it's hard to escape a GM making things up as they go as allowing for suitable agency for the players. This absolutely goes to immersion -- it's hard to immerse in something that you feel you have no control over at all. But, I've pointed out that it's not really improv that causes this divide, but rather authority structures when paired with improv. You can have the same problems with agency in a prepped game -- and this is where railroading comes from.

There's also been talk of skilled play, and this can similarly be very different between prep and improv. I'll readily agree that the kinds of skilled play possible in improv are different from those in prepped play, so this can be a large preference difference. It's not that you can't have skilled play in improv games, it's just the kind of play is different. You're playing the engine rather than the key, whereas in prepped games you're playing against both. Playing against the key is definitely an valid play goal!

I mean, I'm currently running a WotC AP, in 5e, with lots of prep. I'm certainly not one-true-waying here at all, because I'm actively playing in a heavy prep game with strong GM control over the fiction and the plot pacing. It's not like I dislike this approach.

 

[Emerikol]

Of course I'm not the arbiter of what you like -- I've said this multiple times. My point has never been that, if you gave it the chance, you'd find you like improv games -- this would be a silly argument. Instead, my point has been that when the fiction is created is not the point of contention.

Look we are constrained by the written word here so perhaps if I was at the coffee shop talking about this subject everything would be taken differently. You just seem certain about somethings that I think are subjective.

Like your opening statement -- if what's over the hill is exactly the same whether improved or prepped, you're saying that your immersion depends not on the level of detail or the fiction presented, but instead on when it was created. If was it created in the moment, it's non-immersive. If it was created last Wednesday, it's immersive. I absolutely think this is silly, but what I don't think and haven't said, is that there's not something important here! I very much think there is something important in the difference between improv and prep, but when the fiction is created is not it. So, then, it remains to examine what it is that is important.

This is one of those practically vs theoretically. I have said on numerous occasions that if God is running the campaign he can improv all he wants and I absolutely won't be able to tell the difference. I find improvers though are not God and are unable to maintain the consistency and depth that a good prepper can maintain. Now admittedly I've not met a great improver so maybe they exist. I haven't met a ton of great preppers lol. It's why I DM a lot.

So theoretically there could be no difference but practically I see a big difference.

Another poster pointed to the feeling of agency -- that improv feels like they have less agency. And, absolutely, this is a great reason, and in a game like D&D, where the GM holds all the authority over the fiction, it's hard to escape a GM making things up as they go as allowing for suitable agency for the players. This absolutely goes to immersion -- it's hard to immerse in something that you feel you have no control over at all. But, I've pointed out that it's not really improv that causes this divide, but rather authority structures when paired with improv. You can have the same problems with agency in a prepped game -- and this is where railroading comes from.

If not you and I, then at least others and I have debated player agency a lot. Again I think it's a misuse of the term to just say player agency. If I build a sandbox world that is fully prepped. That takes no agency from the players in terms of what they can have their characters do. They can in theory do anything their characters could do just like I can do anything I can do in the real world. We are both limited by the facts of the world. I can't fly by jumping out my window. I can't go to get my haircut at the grocery store because the grocery store is in that spot in reality. I can choose to go where I want in this world though.

Now I know you mean something different by player agency. I just think the very broad term is misused for what you are talking about. It will lead to arguments where people are talking past each other. Maybe add the caveat, player agency outside of their character. Or maybe player authoring agency. Not sure the right term but player agency is not clear as it could just mean acting as you would as your character.

There's also been talk of skilled play, and this can similarly be very different between prep and improv. I'll readily agree that the kinds of skilled play possible in improv are different from those in prepped play, so this can be a large preference difference. It's not that you can't have skilled play in improv games, it's just the kind of play is different. You're playing the engine rather than the key, whereas in prepped games you're playing against both. Playing against the key is definitely an valid play goal!

I mean, I'm currently running a WotC AP, in 5e, with lots of prep. I'm certainly not one-true-waying here at all, because I'm actively playing in a heavy prep game with strong GM control over the fiction and the plot pacing. It's not like I dislike this approach.

I'm actually kind of anti-railroad though I've been a railroader in my younger days. Of course my players didn't care they were happy to jump on the train. lol.

I've been more concerned in my later years with what I call player agency. I want the PCs to be able to operate inside the sandbox and choose the paths they take. I want to have a lot of "plot" threads going with multiple villains and numerous things to be discovered. It's almost like what you throw away is essential to ensuring what you keep is of value. Also realize though that anything not used just gets rolled over to the next campaign so over time you waste very little.

 

[Coroc]

It is true. That is why I said it was not likely they could kill the Emperor but at 20th level it was not impossible. The likelihood is they fail. The odds are the Emperor would survive their attack and of course be looking for them afterwards. Being 20th level though, I thought they'd at least have a chance greater than 0.


Class and leveled folks are more common than perhaps D&D rulebook authors have indicated in the past. It's hard to explain a world full of monsters and humanity even surviving otherwise. I do notice when they write modules that they tend to have leveled NPCs all over the town. So 20th level is rare but in a world they still exist and in a large empire there are likely many. I tend to have a formula for figuring this out per campaign world. As I sometimes increase or decrease the amount of magic using individuals in the world.


I don't think it works very well. At least it does not for me. I don't want the PCs becoming Gods at 5th level. One of the aspects of making a living breath world as a design goal is rectifying the rules with the world. I tend to accept the explicit rules, not the level density guidelines, as normative and build out from there.

If you are doing it differently and it's working for you then by all means continue. I was speaking from my own experience and how it would work in my world.

I do think despite what he may have written in various places that Gygax followed this strategy. There were a lot of high level individuals in Greyhawk. In the Forgotten Realms, there were even more.

I tend not to use the 0 level human concept. I tend to lean more towards the NPC class concept but I have a different set than they had in 3e. Meaning if the NPC is a warrior he is likely a fighter. I don't have a warrior or adept NPC classes. I tend to have Expert, Laborer, Noble. I tend to give them levels but not a ton of hit points as they advance. This is how I explain master craftsman.

Na i am rather of the folks like you, having some levelled and classed NPCs for key roles like leaders, guards, temple services etc. (Also some classed mobs althoughi overdid it a bit in my own GHK campaign eventually since classed ork army has a very different set of strengths and weaknesses compared to mobs RAW to MM)

A design with almost no classed NPCs requires a different approach, clearly the PCs have to be that good aligned in such a campaign, that they never even would think bout killing the king or such.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course I'm not the arbiter of what you like -- I've said this multiple times. My point has never been that, if you gave it the chance, you'd find you like improv games -- this would be a silly argument. Instead, my point has been that when the fiction is created is not the point of contention.

Like your opening statement -- if what's over the hill is exactly the same whether improved or prepped, you're saying that your immersion depends not on the level of detail or the fiction presented, but instead on when it was created. If was it created in the moment, it's non-immersive. If it was created last Wednesday, it's immersive. I absolutely think this is silly, but what I don't think and haven't said, is that there's not something important here! I very much think there is something important in the difference between improv and prep, but when the fiction is created is not it. So, then, it remains to examine what it is that is important.

As someone who sits in the middle path and preps some and improvs some, I can see where when something is created can matter significantly to a person. Even if the area was prepped a few hours before the game, going over that hill is discovering what is already there. In a fully improvised game, going over that hill creates what is there. It's a fine line, but the discovery is of a different flavor and not everyone has the same tastes.

Another poster pointed to the feeling of agency -- that improv feels like they have less agency. And, absolutely, this is a great reason, and in a game like D&D, where the GM holds all the authority over the fiction, it's hard to escape a GM making things up as they go as allowing for suitable agency for the players. This absolutely goes to immersion -- it's hard to immerse in something that you feel you have no control over at all. But, I've pointed out that it's not really improv that causes this divide, but rather authority structures when paired with improv. You can have the same problems with agency in a prepped game -- and this is where railroading comes from.

I don't believe that agency differs at all from an improv game to a prepped game. In a prepped game the DM can force PCs down paths to where he wants them to go and railroad them. The same can be done by a DM improvising in bad faith. ie every "choice" the players make leads to the Drow war party the DM has just come up with. Now, it's much easier to recognize a railroad in a prepped game, so I can see players being more worried about subtle railroading in an improv game, but assuming good faith on the part of the improvising DM, agency should be the same.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Look we are constrained by the written word here so perhaps if I was at the coffee shop talking about this subject everything would be taken differently. You just seem certain about somethings that I think are subjective.


This is one of those practically vs theoretically. I have said on numerous occasions that if God is running the campaign he can improv all he wants and I absolutely won't be able to tell the difference. I find improvers though are not God and are unable to maintain the consistency and depth that a good prepper can maintain. Now admittedly I've not met a great improver so maybe they exist. I haven't met a ton of great preppers lol. It's why I DM a lot.

So theoretically there could be no difference but practically I see a big difference.

And I've clearly said that there's no reason to attempt to hide improv, so you being able to tell is really not a strong point because it's countering an argument not made -- that improv is indistinguishable from prep. That's a silly argument, and not one I'd make.

What I did say was that in a given moment of play that you cannot tell the fiction generated from one to the other, and that a story hour -- or a presentation of the fiction in play -- you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference if both are well run.

As such, being able to tell the difference isn't really about the fiction created, but rather some other feel in the game. I'd hazard a new guess, here, that it's that you enjoy asking questions about the setting material and getting answers you know were prepared, because this makes the play that involves asking questions rewarding.

If not you and I, then at least others and I have debated player agency a lot. Again I think it's a misuse of the term to just say player agency. If I build a sandbox world that is fully prepped. That takes no agency from the players in terms of what they can have their characters do. They can in theory do anything their characters could do just like I can do anything I can do in the real world. We are both limited by the facts of the world. I can't fly by jumping out my window. I can't go to get my haircut at the grocery store because the grocery store is in that spot in reality. I can choose to go where I want in this world though.

Now I know you mean something different by player agency. I just think the very broad term is misused for what you are talking about. It will lead to arguments where people are talking past each other. Maybe add the caveat, player agency outside of their character. Or maybe player authoring agency. Not sure the right term but player agency is not clear as it could just mean acting as you would as your character.

The way I was using agency here was against improv, though, not against prep. You're correct I see agency with a broader lens, but I was speaking to the fact that if a GM has no constraints on their ability to introduce fiction and it doing so in reaction to player actions, then this can easily reduce agency on the improv side. My argument here is that the preference for prep is that it introduces a constrain on the GM that increases agency over no constraint. My broader consideration of player agency in games (ie, that I expand it past just being able to declare actions for your PC) doesn't really apply here.

I'm actually kind of anti-railroad though I've been a railroader in my younger days. Of course my players didn't care they were happy to jump on the train. lol.

I've been more concerned in my later years with what I call player agency. I want the PCs to be able to operate inside the sandbox and choose the paths they take. I want to have a lot of "plot" threads going with multiple villains and numerous things to be discovered. It's almost like what you throw away is essential to ensuring what you keep is of value. Also realize though that anything not used just gets rolled over to the next campaign so over time you waste very little.

This is, indeed, agency. You get more agency if you have control over action declarations AND other bits of fiction -- like outcome on a success. If I get to try a thing and say what happens if I succeed in a check to do that thing, then I have more agency than if I can just try the thing and someone else gets to say how it works on a success (assuming failures are dictated by someone else in both cases). This, however, says absolutely nothing about which system of play is better. Agency is not a fixed good. In fact, constraints on agency are one of the key things that differentiate games and can create different experiences, so differences in agency are absolutely to be expected and welcomed as they create different play spaces. I mean, even in D&D, the various ways to apportion agency, though similar, can create large differences in play. You're pointing that out right here!

 

[Ovinomancer]

As someone who sits in the middle path and preps some and improvs some, I can see where when something is created can matter significantly to a person. Even if the area was prepped a few hours before the game, going over that hill is discovering what is already there. In a fully improvised game, going over that hill creates what is there. It's a fine line, but the discovery is of a different flavor and not everyone has the same tastes.

I can see it as well. And, no, going over the hill is not discovering what was already there -- it doesn't actually exist until it's shared. Prior to that, it's just one player's (the GM's) notes, and open to change or addition. Also, even if I make it up as you go over the hill, in the fiction what was there was always there. No, the difference here isn't about what was there or not, but some other issue between the two that matters. This "fine line" doesn't actually exist at all. Or, rather, the line that exists is because of some other play priority that's masquerading as thinking there's a difference in the fiction based on when it's made up.

I don't believe that agency differs at all from an improv game to a prepped game. In a prepped game the DM can force PCs down paths to where he wants them to go and railroad them. The same can be done by a DM improvising in bad faith. ie every "choice" the players make leads to the Drow war party the DM has just come up with. Now, it's much easier to recognize a railroad in a prepped game, so I can see players being more worried about subtle railroading in an improv game, but assuming good faith on the part of the improvising DM, agency should be the same.

I doesn't have to differ, but it very much can. And, agency has a strong feel component -- you can have little agency but feel it's a lot and you'll be fine (this is largely what techniques like Illusionism do), and you can have a lot of agency but feel you don't and it's bad. I'll absolutely not gainsay someone that says that they feel like they have less agency in a game where the GM has few constraints vice a game where the GM is nominally constrained by prep. I say nominally, because the GM isn't actually constrained by prep at all.

 

[Maxperson]

I can see it as well. And, no, going over the hill is not discovering what was already there -- it doesn't actually exist until it's shared. Prior to that, it's just one player's (the GM's) notes, and open to change or addition. Also, even if I make it up as you go over the hill, in the fiction what was there was always there. No, the difference here isn't about what was there or not, but some other issue between the two that matters. This "fine line" doesn't actually exist at all. Or, rather, the line that exists is because of some other play priority that's masquerading as thinking there's a difference in the fiction based on when it's made up.

Assuming a good faith DM, it is discovering what is there. If the DM is operating the type of world that @Emerikol like to play in in good faith, then the players can trust that he's not changing or adding to what was pre-planned. The dragon over that hill is going to be there whether they go there or not, so if they go there, they will discover him.

I doesn't have to differ, but it very much can. And, agency has a strong feel component -- you can have little agency but feel it's a lot and you'll be fine (this is largely what techniques like Illusionism do), and you can have a lot of agency but feel you don't and it's bad. I'll absolutely not gainsay someone that says that they feel like they have less agency in a game where the GM has few constraints vice a game where the GM is nominally constrained by prep. I say nominally, because the GM isn't actually constrained by prep at all.

I can't help feelings, and like I said, it's easier to feel a lack of agency in an improv game, because railroading is much more subtle and hard to notice there. Actual agency, assuming good faith on the part of both DMs, is going to be the same.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Assuming a good faith DM, it is discovering what is there. If the DM is operating the type of world that @Emerikol like to play in in good faith, then the players can trust that he's not changing or adding to what was pre-planned. The dragon over that hill is going to be there whether they go there or not, so if they go there, they will discover him.

The players have zero awareness of what is over the hill. The only person who has this awareness is the GM. When the players go over the hill, they cannot tell if the dragon they discover there was imagined last year, last month, 10 minutes ago, right now, or by the random die roll the GM just made. This is not an actual distinction because, in all cases, in the fiction the dragon was over that hill prior to the players going over the hill.

This is a key issue -- fiction doesn't exist in an RPG if the GM writes it down in their notes. That's the GM's notes existing. The fiction only occurs when the players are informed and it becomes part of the story at the table. And, when that happens, it was always in the fiction. This is the nature of fiction, and has nothing to do with the timing of imagining it.

If this is a thing you care about, I strongly submit that it's not because of when it was written, but, as you caveated above, some appreciation of what "good faith" means and how that impacts play.

I can't help feelings, and like I said, it's easier to feel a lack of agency in an improv game, because railroading is much more subtle and hard to notice there. Actual agency, assuming good faith on the part of both DMs, is going to be the same.

Yeah, I said that. If the GM has few constraints, like is typical in the D&D game, then removing the constraint of being expected to plan against the player in advance instead of in the moment will absolutely feel like it impinges agency, even if it does not. I've been saying this for a few posts, now. The problem here doesn't lie with improv, though, but the (lack of) constraints. You can absolutely have an entirely improved game that retains agency (and feels like it), if constraints on the GM both exist and are visible.