There are basically two parts to Decker's stance on sandboxing:
To maintain fidelity between the capabilities of web-decker and native-decker, the constraints of web browsers need to be treated as a common denominator. Some of the ways that conventional webapps circumvent these constraints are not an option for web-decker, because it's designed to function without a server-side component; this avoids dependencies on centralized infrastructure. (There are also some features intentionally left out because they would be inaccessible on e.g. touch-based devices which lack a physical keyboard or the ability to register "hover" events from a pointing device.)
To center user-empowerment, Decker should be "safe by default" and require affirmative consent for things like sending information to remote servers or accessing the local filesystem. If a user understands the risks, they can deliberately shift Decker into a more permissive mode of operation which lets it interoperate directly with local resources, raw browser APIs, etc. By default, Decker can safely run applications written by untrusted third parties, and in "dangerous" mode it is more comparable to a conventional automation tool or scripting environment. This approach may not please everyone, but it is a carefully-considered compromise.
Decker does have paletted color support; many decks produced by users apply this to great artistic effect: https://itch.io/games/tag-decker