thecasualoblivion
First Post
I stick with monster xp only, but I only give it out for actually accomplishing things. Random encounters, picking fights in bars, and non-encounters just screwing around I don't give xp for.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Building a 4E sandbox: How would you do it?
- Thread starter Halivar
- Start date
Halivar
First Post
Since the PC's are more likely than before to fight something that completely outmatches them, I'm thinking I need to include a mechanic to allow players to quickly introduce new characters.
I'm thinking about pulling the 1E AD&D charisma table and henchmen/follower rules, but with henchmen being minions (of various combat and non-combat efficacy, randomly determined as per AD&D) until they are needed as replacement characters.
I'm thinking about pulling the 1E AD&D charisma table and henchmen/follower rules, but with henchmen being minions (of various combat and non-combat efficacy, randomly determined as per AD&D) until they are needed as replacement characters.
WampusCat43
Explorer
Halivar
First Post
Wampus, that site is awesome. It's got me stoking some more fires in my head. I have a largish group of people now, and some people come in and out for games. The core group is four people, though.
I'm actually thinking about ramping up the danger factor a bit more, and allowing players to keep more than one character on hand. Each session, they choose which character they are playing, and that is the character that gets the XP. The advantage to this is that it's much easier for other players to drop in and start playing. If nothing else, they can take over someone's backup for a session.
If I have 5 players, and each has two characters, and 3-8 henchmen each, you've got what amounts to a mercenary band, a la The Black Company, that goes off and pretty much does whatever the heck they want to (but with different characters in the spotlight for each session). This is the style of play I would love to encourage.
One other thing I need: a wandering monster table. Since I always homebrew my monsters, I'll need to sketch out the flora and fauna of the areas available to players and make up the monsters ahead of time so I can randomly roll if/when players step into the area.
I'm actually thinking about ramping up the danger factor a bit more, and allowing players to keep more than one character on hand. Each session, they choose which character they are playing, and that is the character that gets the XP. The advantage to this is that it's much easier for other players to drop in and start playing. If nothing else, they can take over someone's backup for a session.
If I have 5 players, and each has two characters, and 3-8 henchmen each, you've got what amounts to a mercenary band, a la The Black Company, that goes off and pretty much does whatever the heck they want to (but with different characters in the spotlight for each session). This is the style of play I would love to encourage.
One other thing I need: a wandering monster table. Since I always homebrew my monsters, I'll need to sketch out the flora and fauna of the areas available to players and make up the monsters ahead of time so I can randomly roll if/when players step into the area.
weem
First Post
That was a great series there, thanks for posting that!
Some really good ideas. I'll be running this idea by my players to see what they think.
CompleteKneeBiter
Explorer
I also found Wampus' link to be extremely interesting (even inspiring).
It does occur to me though, Halivar, that the true Sandbox campaign is usually quite different to play and not just to DM. Sandbox games fit well with kick-in-the-door, monster-mash, treasure-grab players and may not be as fun for players who like being part of a big story--an overarching narrative. But if you're afraid that you've been so linear that your railroading, I understand the need for a shake-up.
It sounds like you've been running more linear, story-based campaigns, and if they've been coming back to your table again and again, they may like it that way. If you've been hearing complaints, then I see the need to change styles, but just be careful that a sandbox game ("Go wherever you like! There are 101 equally important hooks and threads all over!") is what they are looking for.
I say this only because I tried switching to a sandbox style with one of my groups once (after ending a 2-year campaign that ran like an adventure novel). After a couple of sessions where I just laid out the map (not literally) and let them explore and discover freely, one of the players came to me and said, "So when do we get to the story?" I told them they needed to make their own story: Get famous! Get rich! Depose the evil king! Start a war! Forge peace! Collect enough dragon tears to make the Potion of Eternal Life!
To my suprise, they all hated this approach, and often sat at the table asking, "So what do we do now?"
I think this might have been a peculiar set of players, so there may be nothing to worry about in your case. Just make sure that a new type of game world is what will be most fun for the folks at your table.
It does occur to me though, Halivar, that the true Sandbox campaign is usually quite different to play and not just to DM. Sandbox games fit well with kick-in-the-door, monster-mash, treasure-grab players and may not be as fun for players who like being part of a big story--an overarching narrative. But if you're afraid that you've been so linear that your railroading, I understand the need for a shake-up.
It sounds like you've been running more linear, story-based campaigns, and if they've been coming back to your table again and again, they may like it that way. If you've been hearing complaints, then I see the need to change styles, but just be careful that a sandbox game ("Go wherever you like! There are 101 equally important hooks and threads all over!") is what they are looking for.
I say this only because I tried switching to a sandbox style with one of my groups once (after ending a 2-year campaign that ran like an adventure novel). After a couple of sessions where I just laid out the map (not literally) and let them explore and discover freely, one of the players came to me and said, "So when do we get to the story?" I told them they needed to make their own story: Get famous! Get rich! Depose the evil king! Start a war! Forge peace! Collect enough dragon tears to make the Potion of Eternal Life!
To my suprise, they all hated this approach, and often sat at the table asking, "So what do we do now?"
I think this might have been a peculiar set of players, so there may be nothing to worry about in your case. Just make sure that a new type of game world is what will be most fun for the folks at your table.
Halivar
First Post
I usually run narrative focused games, and still get this question. It may be that player proactivity is a factor. Either there are no perceived options, or there is indecision. The challenge for a DM is cultivating a plot-rich environment. To this degree, I disagree with the article Wampus posted with regard to not planning plots (even though I liked everything else): I think there is a middle ground between complete player freedom and narrative dynamism.
EDIT: Note that my prospectus is for a "pseudo-sandbox" game, as I definitely don't think my group can effectively run "organic" narratives that emerge purely from the existence of the game world that are the main attraction of a pure sandbox game. I'm going to have an overarching story, and I'm littering that sandbox with those story elements. Even if players choose not to bite, the story is still there, if and when they catch on to it.
Last edited:
arscott
First Post
I think a good rule of thumb when it comes to monster roles and party levels is this:
*PCs should generally face opponents within three levels of themselves.
*If a monster is four or more levels above the Party, then increase the group role (minions become normal, normals become elite, elites become solos) but reduce the level by four.
*If a monster is for or more levels below the party, then decrease the group role (normals become minions, elites become normals, and solos become elites), but increase the level by four.
If I were you, I'd come up with some quick-and-dirty templates to facilitate such conversions--and pay particular attention to HPs and defense scores, because mistakes there are most likely to cause grind.
*PCs should generally face opponents within three levels of themselves.
*If a monster is four or more levels above the Party, then increase the group role (minions become normal, normals become elite, elites become solos) but reduce the level by four.
*If a monster is for or more levels below the party, then decrease the group role (normals become minions, elites become normals, and solos become elites), but increase the level by four.
If I were you, I'd come up with some quick-and-dirty templates to facilitate such conversions--and pay particular attention to HPs and defense scores, because mistakes there are most likely to cause grind.
Similar Threads
