D&D 5E Status Quo Campaigns

[Snoring Rock]

I have always run a status quo campaign. What I mean is that I place adventures in locations that make sense right from the beginning and then flow the campaign, clues, story line around those areas but allow the players to just jump in and do what they may with their NPC's. I do not move adventures to new locations for them so they are there. No railroading ever. I warn them ahead of time that balance is not my way of doing things. My world will take advantage of you and/or chew you up. You have to choose your fights. Now behind the scenes I do soften or harden things as needed to a degree, but if a 3rd level party stumbles into the underdark where the demons have set up a camp, after being given one warning sign after another, well...

So how do you run yours? Interested in some new ideas.

 

[Valus]

This type of campaign is usually called a "sandbox" campaign. The games I play in run the gamut from almost straight railroading to nearly complete sandbox. I prefer something in the middle, usually.

 

[Celtavian]

I tailor campaigns to the players and the PCs they've chosen to play. My goal is to provide them an experience that allows them to have fun and develop memorable characters. I focus as much as possible on verisimilitude. I try to provide each character with opportunities to role-play. I generally like to provide them with a unique item as well.

I focus heavily on the player experience. If the players have fun, the campaign is usually fun.

 

[AriochQ]

Funny you bring this up. At Sunday's pre-game session I was discussing this very thing with my group.

I am a firm believer in the "co-construction of reality" DMing style. I provide a campaign setting filled with interesting and dangerous, people, places and things. I have several storylines in my mind, some group centered, some individual character centered. The characters then interact with the world in whatever manner in which they see fit and their actions have an effect on the world.

That being said, as a DM you can be very persuasive in steering them toward certain goals. Actions (or inaction) have consequences. I think GM's get into trouble when adventures are run in isolation, having no effects outside of that individual session. You want your characters to save the princess (or any other goal)? You either need to make the payoff, or the consequences, big enough that they feel obligated to follow that path.

 

[Snoring Rock]

Funny you bring this up. At Sunday's pre-game session I was discussing this very thing with my group.

I am a firm believer in the "co-construction of reality" DMing style. I provide a campaign setting filled with interesting and dangerous, people, places and things. I have several storylines in my mind, some group centered, some individual character centered. The characters then interact with the world in whatever manner in which they see fit and their actions have an effect on the world.

That being said, as a DM you can be very persuasive in steering them toward certain goals. Actions (or inaction) have consequences. I think GM's get into trouble when adventures are run in isolation, having no effects outside of that individual session. You want your characters to save the princess (or any other goal)? You either need to make the payoff, or the consequences, big enough that they feel obligated to follow that path.

This. This is how I roll. The sandbox changes and is affected even at low level by every thing the PC's do. The locations remain but the circumstances do change.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I run a sandbox style overall, but there are NPCs and organizations with agendas and they don't pause their plans if the players decide not to handle a particular adventure. As the players get into trouble interfering for good or ill in these plans, things change drastically.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I run a sandbox style overall, but there are NPCs and organizations with agendas and they don't pause their plans if the players decide not to handle a particular adventure. As the players get into trouble interfering for good or ill in these plans, things change drastically.

This is me. Once player characters get involved, a plot may become visible, but it was going to be taking place no matter what.

 

[Minigiant]

I do a tiered sandbox game. Each area has monsters and challenges geared to a particular area and I put in the work to make sense of it all. PCs can go wherever they want but they are well informed about the risks. Every battlefield has a level, its up to the players to figure out it they are getting over their heads and to know who to get involved with. There are always warnings.

Fiends cannot leave the Hells in large numbers until Armageddon. So a demon cult won't have too many demons but if you walk though their hellgate, don't be surprised by the balor smoking souls on the otherside. A fairy realm can have literally any sort of fey or feyrelated thing on the otherwise.

The Hobgoblin warbands contains too many hobgobins for a midlevel party to take on as "hobgoblins don't believe in encounters". You fight them all or run or use diplomacy. Engage them if you dare.

This goes for noncombat encounters as well. The nobles and merchants can get downright heartless. Audiences and favors cost as much as they are worth.

 

[S'mon]

Surely 'status quo' is orthogonal to 'sandbox' - if I run a pre-written linear Adventure Path and don't adjust for player/PC capability then it is status quo, but clearly not sandbox. Or I can run a go-anywhere do-anything sandbox that scales tightly to PC level. Or I can have a status quo sandbox, or do 'Bangs'/scene-framing where I create in response to player input (no pre-made sandbox, no pre-made railroad).

 

[Hand of Evil]

I am mostly a sandbox DM, my adventures are word of mouth or guild.

I do two things in my game:

1. Create a campaign level graph for my players, this shows them the most common level of CR they will be facing, this goes by adventures and for locations. This chart impacts their XP and growth. It means they may quickly get to the campaign level but then their progression is showed down.
2. Provide color code for adventures based on that chart. Green, low risk below current level. Yellow, dangerous and they should be able to manage it this is normally level to level +3. Red, dangerous and risky to the players CR level +4 or above. The players can check the background of the adventures and based on their roles and research, get an idea of the color code (not level). So, if they check the background for an adventure, finding out it is in Lich forest, they know it is going to be RED.