General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Seriously? Either my players suck or I am just a great DM, but I seriously doubt they could even come close to winning the fight against a young red dragon at level 2. I would consider them lucky if they even got to bloody it.
Agreed here.
Either my players are extremely stupid or unlucky, but I've never seen them pull an encounter 8 levels over their power level without having a.) 7 or more characters on the team; and/or b.) having way more magical items than the suggested wealth of a PC 4 levels higher. (Thank you item creation feats).
I think "lucky or superior tactics" is a crutch argument that basically means "if my player's can't figure out how to escape/win this one, its their fault. I'm running it as neutral as possible, its THEIR fault they died!"
Am I the only one running a non-exploratory sandbox?
I guess I should explain, the way my game is run is not so much focus on exploration but focus on plots and decisions. Basically I throw out a vast web of plots, hooks and potential adventures and the players pick and choose among them and reap the rewards/consequences.
I don't know if that's terribly different from what many of you already do, but I do scale encounters a fair bit as well. Some will be beyond or beneath them of course but the majority are level +-4.
I had a look through my 4e MM and the numbers often look really weird; the "orc chief" has far more hit points than the "fire giant"; the latter has a pathetic damage output, too.
The numbers may look weird, but they play differently. Granted, I've never seen high-level combat in 4E so I could be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rounser
I disagree, there's no way to "warn" the PCs in time, every time, and for them to always get the hint without extensive metagaming from both the DM and players. There's also no way to make sure they escape every time without plot protection (even a faster movement rate can equal TPK every time).
I think one of the points of sandbox play is to metagame. You're trying to challenge the players, after all.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Either my players are extremely stupid or unlucky, but I've never seen them pull an encounter 8 levels over their power level
I've never seen a party win an encounter 8 levels over their party level either.
"A level 2 party vs. a young red dragon (lvl 7 solo)" is 5 levels above, though, and I have seen that.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
In later editions, the appearance of a creature can be very deceiving - it can be very easy or very hard. Character levels, HD advancement, reskinning, etc. gives the DM too many tools to make the encounter unpredictable. In a sandbox game, unpredictability is fine when the encounter is level-appropriate. Not so much when the DM wants to simulate a world where encounters can either be too low or too high relative to the level of the PC's. If players have no idea how hard or easy an encounter might be, their first instinct is to test it through combat.
Nice avatar
I bolded the part I would like to discuss in more detail.
I would say that the truth of that statement would depend on the rewards system being used in a given game. In an old OD&D/Basic/1E game the primary motivation was the acquisition of treasure. If a monster or group of monsters were spotted, thier capabilities unknown, the typical party would not be so quick to engage unless there was reason to believe the reward was worth the risk. Monsters without treasure were avoided like the plague. If such creatures could be communicated with, without them becoming too hostile then a parley might take place to see if the creature knows anything of value.
Newer editions load up XP gained for defeating monsters making the testing through combat method more rewarding for players. Why parley with a big inflated bag of walking XP? Encounters that a sensible party might seek to avoid in a sandbox environment are sought out because the reward IS the monster. A tougher critter just means more XP. This means that if the party thinks they have any chance in the fight they will stick it out for the long haul.
Add that factor to the generally longer time it takes to play out a combat in 4E and you can see why the players would look to engage in one hard slugfest that would take as much table time as 2 or 3 easy fights but provide more than twice the XP.
Once monsters stop looking like hot dogs and hamburgers to XP starved players you will see a decrease in thier willingness to enter dangerous/grindy long fights.
I think one of the points of sandbox play is to metagame. You're trying to challenge the players, after all.
You're conflating the problem with the only solution you see. Instead of falling back on "it is what it is" as if it were the only way things could be, maybe you might consider that there may be better solutions than the one you've chosen, which involve less intrusive metagaming.
__________________ "They've taken all the fun out of slaying things and stealing treasure!" - Bolt
Copy, paste and redesign your way to your own ideal custom game with the Swords & Wizardry.doc file. Renovate the elf, build a rogue or thief, and make all your favourite rules and splat core.
You're conflating the problem with the only solution you see. Instead of falling back on "it is what it is" as if it were the only way things could be, maybe you might consider that there may be better solutions than the one you've chosen, which involve less intrusive metagaming.
I don't understand - what is the problem and what is the only solution I see?
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
I think one of the points of sandbox play is to metagame. You're trying to challenge the players, after all.
Sandbox exploratory play can be highly simulationist, and little concerned with challenging the players. "Discover the world" does not necessarily equate to "play well or die!".
Sandbox exploratory play can be highly simulationist, and little concerned with challenging the players. "Discover the world" does not necessarily equate to "play well or die!".
You are right, of course. I was being myopic.
I was focused on "play well or die!" (I like that! ) because I have no idea what "grind" means in terms of... I hate to say it, "simulationist" goals.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Last edited by LostSoul; 6th May 2009 at 01:27 AM..
Reason: edit: holy spelling erros.
This seems to translate as "the solution to my 'problem' is to up the damage. If you don't agree with me, you're wrong. Only those who agree with me should post."
Well, not quite. But you have a point insomuch as there's nobody forcing you to post.
However, as long as you aren't dogmatically opposed to even recognizing there is a problem you should feel free to post. If you would like to argue against upping the damage (hopefully for another reason than "WotC says so") feel free!
Once monsters stop looking like hot dogs and hamburgers to XP starved players you will see a decrease in thier willingness to enter dangerous/grindy long fights.
I would say that this is one element that brought about a de-emphasis of the use of wandering monsters in 3e and 4e. Of course wandering monsters are a staple of the sandbox campaign, but they were supposed to represent a negative consequence of making too much noise, getting lost, etc. They represented a moderate risk of injury/death (or at the very least resource usage) for little to no reward (meager treasure).
You can introduce house rules that give XP for treasure or story awards to help alleviate this problem, but it will not fully go away. The older editions still allowed XP to be awarded for killing monsters, it just wasn't the only source of XP.
Ultimately the players are faced with a decision every time they are introduced to an encounter - is combat worth it? The DM can encourage them with treasure or discourage them with the lack of treasure. The DM can encourage them by hinting that the encounter is a fair fight or discourage them by hinting that the encounter will be a grind/TPK. The bottom line is that the players need information to make the decision.
If there is no information, the default assumption is to fight, especially in the later editions. Why? Maybe because 90% of the rules revolve around fighting, but also maybe because the players expect a level appropriate encounter. The DMG encourages it, and the players know that. Even if the DM states up front that he or she is running a sandbox campaign and the players could meet anything under the sun, IMO the players will instinctively still choose combat over parley/RP. So apparently the players need to learn the hard way.
What some DM's seem to be saying here is that they want to reproduce the moment where players take a lot of damage on the first round and actually experience fear - fear of a TPK. The players are always going to remember that moment, whether it is a TPK, they manage to escape, or especially if they manage to win!
That's why upping the damage is being touted as the solution in 4e - if the players don't see dramatic damage, they won't experience fear, they'll end up in grindspace and will be bored stiff. Of course that doesn't address the issue when an encounter is too easy. If the DM is a simulationist sandboxer, then theoretically the NPC's also need to feel the pain to experience the fear. Then they run or surrender or whatever. But was the combat setup time worth it?
Without a grid, minis, opportunity attacks, etc. the old school games could tolerate a boring/mundane combat here and there. But now is the time investment too great? Is conveying information in a metagamey/cheesy way to help avoid boring combats really so intolerable in a simulationist sandbox?
Or is it better just to admit that the simulation is artificial anyway and make every encounter an appropriate challenge?
Nothing brings a fact home like experiencing it. I had some experienced 4E players giving a go at playing 1st-level characters under OD&D rules. Their vulnerability was theoretically and mathematically clear, and they got to see that other adventurers had met bad ends, but these fellows got away with a string of good luck saving them from their own bad tactics.
Then there was an occasion when they got involved in checking every part of a dungeon room except the one big, obvious place where a monster could hide. The sounds of its invisible stirring had an appropriately creepy effect, and the players had plenty of opportunity either to bail out or to take prudent measures to meet an assault.
In the event, it was SNAFU. They had their first PC casualty when the ghoulish thing slew a magic-user with one hit. The immediate effect of the shock was to galvanize them into concerted action, and they felled the monster. More frighteningly, it recovered from its seeming demise. In the end, they reduced it to scattered ashes. As it happened, they also took away a rich treasure ... but they were reeling a bit from the death.
I was focused on "play well or die!" (I like that! ) because I have no idea what "grind" means in terms of... I hate to say it, "simulationist" goals.
I agree. I don't see how 'grind' and 'sand box' relate, as I've said above. The grind problem in 4e seems to be due to high-hp, low-damage monsters & PCs. It would seem to be as much or more a problem in tightly plotted adventure paths as in sandbox play.
I do think there's a simulation issue ancillary to grind; which is that high level monsters have such weak damage output, even very low-level PCs and non-minion NPCs have little to fear from a few rounds of combat with them.
I am interested in running a 4e sandbox; my likely solution to the plausibility issue is to stat most of the world as minions, with non-minon status reserved for elites, bosses, heroes, big scary monsters and such. Thus most 'random' battles will be with all minions and not much of a challenge; but if they're fast enough I'm thinking that's not a problem. Often the point of the battle is more to see if the enemy escape/warn their friends/kill the prisoner, rather than to challenge the PCs to the edge of survival.
I agree. I don't see how 'grind' and 'sand box' relate, as I've said above. The grind problem in 4e seems to be due to high-hp, low-damage monsters & PCs. It would seem to be as much or more a problem in tightly plotted adventure paths as in sandbox play.
In "tightly plotted adventure paths" the heroes encounter level-appropriate fights. The risk of happening upon an unexpectedly high-level adversary is very much reduced in official adventures at least.
And the grind is more acutely felt against high-level foes (especially a single high-level solo).
So you're right in there not being a defining difference between different styles of play. It's just that (what I call) sandbox play runs a higher risk of encountering grind: the players might have the resources to fight an unwinnable fight for hours of game time before realizing they need to flee if put up against a sufficiently lop-sided foe (with extreme hp and underwhelming damage).
This doesn't mean all sandboxes have this issue, or that no pre-defined adventures can't.
This doesn't mean all sandboxes have this issue, or that no pre-defined adventures can't.
I'm not clear on how high-level 4e adventures manage to both challenge the PCs and avoid grind, if that is indeed the case. I understand that high level 4e PCs played well can deal a lot of damage, perhaps enough to avoid grind vs high level foes (high hp, high AC). How then do those foes challenge the PCs, when they seem to have low damage outputs?
Is it that monsters escalate defensively, while PCs escalate offensively, remaining balanced against each other?
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
