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?

 

[daviddanitan]

I couldn't agree more!


BR
David Danitan
Lånepenger.no

I like sandbox but with story opportunities. For characters at any level.

The Troll Bogs are full of trolls, way too dangerous for 1st - 3rd Level Characters. But there are other exploration or social encounters they can have there, such as hiding from trolls, gathering strange plants that grow there, etc.

I actually do kinda both.

If I have setpieces, they'll be whatever level made sense when I created it. The Vampire is still CR 13 even if the party wants to challenge them at level 4.

But for stuff like random encounters or something I'm preparing a week or two in advance, I'll have things appropriately leveled so that the party doesn't randomly encounter the Elder Brain at level 1.

 

[Krachek]

I know right? It's easy to get swept up in an argument and forget what we're actually trying to accomplish. Last week, @Morrus asked us to pick our favorite of two different (and equally-valid) approaches. It looks like most of us prefer Sandbox, and that's cool.

But now we're insulting each other for not picking the correct answer, and making each other angry over "shared fiction experiences" or what-have-you, and that's not cool.

Personally I prefer to don’t know how my DM runs its game.
When I heard a DM talk about CR, random encounter, sandbox, I wish that he hide them a little bit more.
DM choose whatever they feel best to run their games, but if it don’t work I just hope they don’t stick on a style for ethic or philosophical reasons.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I'm not sure if this topic has been brought up, but I feel like there are different "modes" of Sandbox Games.

I feel like the West Marches style is on one end of the spectrum. If I understand it correctly, the West Marches style relies almost entirely on the players choosing areas to explore and organizing other players or characters.

But I also feel that more story-driven games can also have sandbox "areas." In my current game the valley the characters are in is divided into areas, each meant for a different level. There are towns and such that the characters can go into, but if they wander the wilderness or try to attack local enemies they will be facing threats out of their reach. It means a lot of fleeing or stealth instead of straight-up fighting. It also means when they return to a low-level area they feel very powerful!

 

[Maxperson]

Hey @Ovinomancer and @Maxperson could you either cool it or take it to PMs? I actually find conversation about Sandbox gaming interesting, and I'm getting tired of scrolling past your back and forth bickering.

I haven't been bickering since Umbran's post. I've been asking questions and giving input into the styles.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure if this topic has been brought up, but I feel like there are different "modes" of Sandbox Games.

For sure. In some Sandbox games the DM needs to still dangle hooks with whatever items of interest are local to where the PCs are at. In other Sandbox games the DM does not have to do that. Usually when he has one or more very proactive players that set their own goals and go at the world. There the DM is very reactive to player desire. And I'm sure there are other Sandbox varieties.

But I also feel that more story-driven games can also have sandbox "areas." In my current game the valley the characters are in is divided into areas, each meant for a different level. There are towns and such that the characters can go into, but if they wander the wilderness or try to attack local enemies they will be facing threats out of their reach. It means a lot of fleeing or stealth instead of straight-up fighting. It also means when they return to a low-level area they feel very powerful!

Areas meant for different levels go against what I know Sandboxes to be. In a Sandbox, the world is set up with stuff from low level to high level mixed where appropriate and the PC can go wherever. Take the Forgotten Realms for instance. That world is very in depth and has low mid and high level stuff set out already. A 1st level group can decide to wander into Hellgate Keep or Myth Drannor if they want to. The group will be rolling new PCs if they do, but they can decide to do that. In Waterdeep there will be common thugs on the streets, and vampires. There really isn't a low level safe area to go back to.

 

[Ogre Mage]

It depends on how clearly marked and defined the boundaries are.

If the high, mid and low level areas have very clearly defined boundaries -- i.e. the players know exactly what sort of area they will be entering into -- then sandbox.

If the boundaries are not clear then I prefer party level.

 

[Lanefan]

Well that's not because one is more real than the other, so what's the reason?

Except that it is, or at least I can't think of a better term for it. Solid, maybe? Or, solid-feeling? The sense, anyway, that the setting isn't shaping itself around what I do or what my dice roll (1); instead the setting is what it is and I have to shape my actions to suit it (2).

Thus, if I'm looking for Prof. Higley no amount of fancy dice-rolling on my-as-player part is going to put him in Singapore with me-as-PC (1) if he's in fact in Manila. Instead, I-as-PC have to go to Manila and start looking there (2) if I'm to have any hope of finding the guy.

The (1) and (2) designators are just to link the example to the corresponding statement above.

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan it feels like your turning a blind eye to things in order to split hairs needlessly fine in defense of unintroduced gm notes=just as real as introduced shared fiction. Earlier you talked about the setting specifically so I'll stick to that path with an example. In the eberron setting there are a bunch of reasons behind what caused the day of mourning & many of them have been very strongly implied as the possible cause in various printed eberron books. This makes for a good example of something that can exist within a GM's notes & never be "real" until the shared fiction somehow proves one or starts disproving others

I'll have to take your word for this as I've never really looked at anything Eberron.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'll have to take your word for this as I've never really looked at anything Eberron.

Fine....

Except that it is, or at least I can't think of a better term for it. Solid, maybe? Or, solid-feeling? The sense, anyway, that the setting isn't shaping itself around what I do or what my dice roll (1); instead the setting is what it is and I have to shape my actions to suit it (2).

Thus, if I'm looking for Prof. Higley no amount of fancy dice-rolling on my-as-player part is going to put him in Singapore with me-as-PC (1) if he's in fact in Manila. Instead, I-as-PC have to go to Manila and start looking there (2) if I'm to have any hope of finding the guy.

The (1) and (2) designators are just to link the example to the corresponding statement above.

So what happens when the notes about the guy say

Spoiler: this?

Are you still not seeing the difference between in notes & introduced into the shared fiction? Under that situation the npc is schrodinger's cat both in & not in every town but the one the players are in until he's found.

 

[cbwjm]

Except that it is, or at least I can't think of a better term for it. Solid, maybe? Or, solid-feeling? The sense, anyway, that the setting isn't shaping itself around what I do or what my dice roll (1); instead the setting is what it is and I have to shape my actions to suit it (2).

Thus, if I'm looking for Prof. Higley no amount of fancy dice-rolling on my-as-player part is going to put him in Singapore with me-as-PC (1) if he's in fact in Manila. Instead, I-as-PC have to go to Manila and start looking there (2) if I'm to have any hope of finding the guy.

The (1) and (2) designators are just to link the example to the corresponding statement above.

I do like to have things progress in my world, in much the same way the Prof. Higley is moving about, people in the world are also progressing their plans. If the players spend a bit of time doing X, Bad Guy McVillain is off doing Y so if the players aren't stopping him then I can keep track on how well they are doing. I might only do it on a fairly local scale depending on the game, but it's something I like to do. It also means the players can impact the villain's plans if I've foreshadowed it correctly so they know about them and work to stop them.