D&D 5E Is 5e the ultimate D&D system for a true sandbox campaign?

[Thank Dog]

I've never quite been able to run a true sandbox because of the power scaling of monsters and PC's in various D&D editions. Ultimately it just ends in pain for both me and the players. But the more I think about it, the more I think I might be able to finally do it with 5e. I still think I'd have to wait until about 5th-level before truly opening up the world, but by then I feel that the system is deadly enough that players will respect the danger of it and 5th-level will give them enough resources to get out of a bad situation if they find themselves out-classed and overpowered.

I also like the idea that even when stripped of items, they can essentially re-equip themselves in short order without a huge impact on their power. This, to me, opens up a lot of opportunities for more unique adventures that couldn't be done otherwise because the PC's require magical items to balance them against encounters.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Runny]

Concur. I am running a sandbox adventure in 5e that I could never have pulled off in either 4e or 3e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure, bounded accuracy is comparable to, say, running 3e 'E6' - you just don't have as wide a gap between a 1st level and top-level character in terms of basic math, so you can populate the 'world' with encounters in the same range, and even if the party wanders into a 'lower level' place, at top level, there's still a little pain for them to deal with.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

So far, I'd say 5E is very good for a sandbox campaign.

One of the main reasons I decided to convert to 5E from 3X/PF is because the 5E math is so similar to E6. Having an ever-expanding pool of adversaries is better than an ever-shrinking pool.

 

[Li Shenron]

I thought the same, that bounded accuracy should make it easier.

But what do you think is the point of a sandbox? It is to make it possible to wander around and potentially defeat every encounter? To be challenged by even the easiest encounters? Both? Something else?

Because I used to think that one important feature of a sandbox campaign, is the feeling that the world doesn't revolve around your party: it doesn't matter if you're 1st or 20th level, the world around stays the same (or changes, but with its own dynamics), it doesn't "conform" to make you "magically" encounter only challenges tailored to your level.

That means, for me still having some encounters you can't win (or maybe you can, but only with truly sheer luck), is necessary for the overall credibility of a sandbox campaign.

The key point to give sense to an impossible fight, is that the players should recognize that they shouldn't fight! Killing the monster is not the point of such encounter: the point is something else, perhaps getting past the monster, retrieving something from it, make the monster move from its location, getting some information from it, or simply surviving. The means for those purposes are interaction and exploration.

But then... the challenge to the DM, is to make such encounters give the players a change to recognize they shouldn't fight. So at least with regard to this 5e is promising because if they make a mistake and choose combat, bounded accuracy + different approach to save-or-die should (hopefully) increase the number of rounds the PC stay alive, and have some extra time to figure out they should now pull back.

 

[Thank Dog]

That means, for me still having some encounters you can't win (or maybe you can, but only with truly sheer luck), is necessary for the overall credibility of a sandbox campaign.

Yeah, my problem was mainly that by the time it got to a point where the players realised something was too hard or they got in too deep, it was too late. I could give all the hints I wanted but players were too indoctrinated by the system and the expectation that they'll encounter something easy to beat that it didn't matter what I said or did. And I'd always make it clear what type of game I was running beforehand but ingrained expectations are hard to overcome, it seems.

What I'm finding with 5e is that people are now starting to "get" that they can't rush into every encounter and have to consider what they're doing. That is a change in the dynamic of the collective player unconscious. I'm not a believer in metaphysical things like that, but it's hard to deny when group after group charges ahead and then says, "Why'd we die?" whenever I ran 3.x or Pathfinder games, or for that matter played in them.

At least with 5e you can go a round and go, "Oops, we should probably get out of here," or experience the Lair effects of a dragon and go, "Huh, yeah, not today thanks."

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm going to say no. At least not yet. I need to see what's in the DMG first. AD&D had a TON of resources that helped foster a sandbox campaign. Things like worldbuilding, castle building, realm management rules in the DMG, and of course the two survival guides.

So as it stands right now, my vote is AD&D as the best system to support a true sandbox world. It's also the default mode of play when I started AD&D in 1981, and continue today. I've always treated the campaign world like a fantasy world you'd see in a book or movie, and the PCs just take a part in it. The world never changes to accomodate any metagame PC factor (like their level), and they are allowed to explore however they want.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The acid test will be seeing how the system handles adventurers of varying level playing together. If everyone has to level up in lockstep as a group or game falls apart then it will get the big FAIL rubberstamp as a sandbox system.

The testing is underway! In my campaign, XP is earned by participating players. Some players don't make it to every session so there is already some XP difference. Three players just gained level 2 last night, three others are a bit more than halfway to level 2, and one player just joined the campaign and earned the first 50 XP.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The acid test will be seeing how the system handles adventurers of varying level playing together. If everyone has to level up in lockstep as a group or game falls apart then it will get the big FAIL rubberstamp as a sandbox system.

.

This is very true, and I actually think it has more promise than AD&D in this regard. At least from what I've seen so far.

Bounded accuracy works both ways. Just like a group of orcs are still a threat at higher levels, so is the lower level PC. I.e., in previous editions when AC scaled, a lower level PC pretty much needed a 20 to hit the opponent. Now, even a 1st level PC still has a decent chance of hitting a higher level opponent. Same with some of the various saving throws and spells.

If the DMG includes a lot of info to support worldbuilding and the living world, I suspect 5e very well could be the best edition for a true sandbox.

 

[Thank Dog]

The acid test will be seeing how the system handles adventurers of varying level playing together. If everyone has to level up in lockstep as a group or game falls apart then it will get the big FAIL rubberstamp as a sandbox system.

If that's the acid test then I can say with some small amount of experience that it's already working. Adventurer's League play has level disparity (albeit only a difference between 1 to 3 levels that I've seen so far) in it and doesn't seem to suffer from it in the slightest.

Of course, it must also be considered that the first three levels are lightening fast. It starts to slow down from 3rd to 4th and it's really noticeable from 4th to 5th. By the time a few PCs are at 5th, the others will easily have caught up to at least 3rd. I don't see huge level disparities occurring until at least the 10th level where the jump to 11th is quite massive.