Megadungeon Sandbox and 4E

[LostSoul]

Get rid of the notions that encounters are supposed to be "balanced". Get rid of perfectly balanced treasure parcels. Sometimes there are bad choices to be made and sometimes there are hard choices and sometimes there are easy choices. Let the PCs steer their own course.

This is pretty easy to do.

Figure out how tough you want the level to be, then add monsters to make it that tough. The best way to do that is to give it a level, then populate it with encounters ranging from -2 to +4.

When it comes to treasure, roll 1d10 to see what package you get; roll randomly, or pick, whatever magic items you want. (I roll for the magic item slot, open up the AV and PHB, then pick one that I think's cool for the level.)

 

[Badwe]

I take the same issue with the concept of fetishization of balance in this thread as I did in another: There's nothing wrong with balance.

Listen, everything in D&D is a guideline, you get to break it at your discretion. However, you are creating _more_ work for yourself. Sometimes guidelines are not "it is required that there be 10 treasure parcels and anything more or less is not D&D". Sometimes guidelines are "If you want your players to have relatively challenging encounters, they should have +X bonus at Level Y. If you dole out these items you'll get that effect. You could also dole out a different set of items or ignore the base premise."

The link posted with the text "Fetishization of Balance" mentions that you can't just take away most magic items in a low magic campaign and expect it to work out of the box. You can make it work, of course, but that requires effort on your part. To determine what needs to be done, you would need rough guidelines on the effect that removing items has.

Having a parcel system is like having a multiplication table instead of having to add a number to itself several times. If you decide you want to multiply 13 and 13, but it's not on your table, you do it by hand. However, giving someone a multiplication table that only goes up to twelve is not the same as saying you can ONLY multiply up to 12. Similarly, having a treasure parcel system or an XP system does not force you to use it, but is merely a time-saving device to achieve your original goal: an advancement system that shakes out to be not too challenging or too easy for the PCs.

 

[Badwe]

I take the same issue with the concept of fetishization of balance in this thread as I did in another: There's nothing wrong with balance.

Listen, everything in D&D is a guideline, you get to break it at your discretion. However, you are creating _more_ work for yourself. Sometimes guidelines are not "it is required that there be 10 treasure parcels and anything more or less is not D&D". Sometimes guidelines are "If you want your players to have relatively challenging encounters, they should have +X bonus at Level Y. If you dole out these items you'll get that effect. You could also dole out a different set of items or ignore the base premise."

The link posted with the text "Fetishization of Balance" mentions that you can't just take away most magic items in a low magic campaign and expect it to work out of the box. You can make it work, of course, but that requires effort on your part. To determine what needs to be done, you would need rough guidelines on the effect that removing items has.

Having a parcel system is like having a multiplication table instead of having to add a number to itself several times. If you decide you want to multiply 13 and 13, but it's not on your table, you do it by hand. However, giving someone a multiplication table that only goes up to twelve is not the same as saying you can ONLY multiply up to 12. Similarly, having a treasure parcel system or an XP system does not force you to use it, but is merely a time-saving device to achieve your original goal: an advancement system that shakes out to be not too challenging or too easy for the PCs.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I take the same issue with the concept of fetishization of balance in this thread as I did in another: There's nothing wrong with balance.

The fetishization of balance becomes wrong at precisely the moment when some standardized value of "balance" and "the way you're supposed to play" trumps the ability for individual players to do what they want to do.

And you can see this attitude manifesting itself in this very thread.

"Help! My players are having too much fun clearing out the goblin clans from the Underfen! How can I make my players stop having fun so that they'll go fight some 'level-appropriate' encounters? What should I do?"

What should you do?

Stop worrying about so-called "problems" like "my players having too much fun".

 

[LostSoul]

"Help! My players are having too much fun clearing out the goblin clans from the Underfen! How can I make my players stop having fun so that they'll go fight some 'level-appropriate' encounters? What should I do?"

If that's directed at my comments about grinding for XP:

What I worry is that grinding for XP is too attractive a choice for the players to make, so that they'll do it (or feel like they're screwing themselves if they don't), even though they don't really enjoy it.

I haven't seen grinding at the table, but I've done it in computer games and I don't like it. (Which is bad game design, in my opinion; if you can do something to gain an advantage in a game, it should be fun to do, and not require a choice between advantage + no fun vs. no advantage + fun.)

It might be fun at the table, so that might not even be an issue.

 

[crash_beedo]

If that's directed at my comments about grinding for XP:

What I worry is that grinding for XP is too attractive a choice for the players to make, so that they'll do it (or feel like they're screwing themselves if they don't), even though they don't really enjoy it.

I haven't seen grinding at the table, but I've done it in computer games and I don't like it. (Which is bad game design, in my opinion; if you can do something to gain an advantage in a game, it should be fun to do, and not require a choice between advantage + no fun vs. no advantage + fun.)

It might be fun at the table, so that might not even be an issue.

4E introduces this as more of a problem than other editions because it uses an incremental rather than an exponential experience curve... previous editions, it wasn't a judicious use of time to go after encounters that weren't at or above the current power curve. Although maybe it would still be fun kicking the snot out of kobolds... for a little while.

In 4E, the difference between level appropriate encounters and non isn't so great... it makes grinding profitable, if not challenging.

 

[Ydars]

Let's not turn this thread into the other one as we are not talking about the same thing.

Balance is a good thing when it makes it easier for the DM to challenge the players without killing them.

Having said this, in true sandbox play, I do not want my megadungeon design to be completely constrained by treasure parcels and XP. Many of the solutions proposed on the other thread show how deep this problem goes.

I don't want a megadungeon where the encounters and treasure magically change depending upon PC level. I want a place where I can site interesting encounters, that make sense, with some treasure, ahead of time, and then see how they play out when the PCs try to confront them. I want to truly reward clever play, not by making the monsters harder, but by allowing the PCs to roll monsters over essily if they are capable of doing that. I will also site monsters that are very very difficult challenges for the PCs and see how they take those on.

In short, I want a game where player choice is King, not balance. All I am saying is, if in the course of designing my dungeon, there is a conflict between increasing player choice (and vermisilitude) and between game balance, then I will choose the former every time.

In a more linear and plot focussed game this problem doesn't really rear its head because player choice is not such a priority. I have DMed such games and they are great fun, I just want to try this style of sandbox and it has needs that are totally incompatible with 4E's style of balance.

 

[crash_beedo]

Hey Ydars, what is this "other thread" you are talking about?

Anyway, let's try to address a specific example within the context of 4E.

Let's assume I have a map that allows the PC's free choice of entrance to the dungeon, and multiple ways to get down to the second level from the first. Furthermore, I have developed the levels to provide a series independent "delves" or "lairs" with sufficient empty space and room to wander so as to support credulity. Furthermore, the players can gather various rumors in town and choose to follow leads, or just head to the dungeon and explore.

Level 1 is therefore broken down into Lair 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E; level 2 is broken down into 2-A, 2-B, 2-c, etc. You get the point. Let's say on level 1, the 5 lairs are The Bandit Hideout, the Kobold Dragon Worshippers, the Mutant Goblin Alchemists, Vermin, and The Hidden Tomb. Each one of these delves is designed to be 3-4 encounters; if you throw in quest XP and a skill challenge or two, the PC's should be in a position to level up after clearing 3 of the lairs. Likewise, the encounters would range from 'easy' to 'hard' in 4E terms, meaning they could be anywhere from the same level as the group up to 4 levels higher in XP/encounter design terms.

I would say, so far so good. The players can choose where to go, what to fight, when to go down to the second level, etc.

However, there are potential problems when you add the parcel system to the mix and when you consider the nature of 4E experience. With the parcel system, it's expected that you'd spread the level 1 parcels out amongst the first three lairs the players cleared, so they get the requisite wealth at the same time they leveled.

So far I've seen a few "solutions":

1. It's All Good
Ditch the parcel system and don't sweat the experience grinding; if the players attempt to be completists and clear the whole level (all 5 lairs), so what? Evenly spread out treasure (even if it's more than the 1st level parcels) and let them beat the snot out of whatever they want.

2. Scale Accordingly
Some have suggested, once the group levels up, the remaining lairs get adjusted slightly to be level 2 encounters (easy enough to do in 4E) and you start grabbing the level 2 parcels. Must... maintain... balance...

3. Remove XP Grinding Options
In this approach, the areas of the dungeon that the players ignored (and are now "easy") change due to other influences; rival NPC's clear them out; dangerous monsters from below come up and lay the smack; the PC's efforts on other parts of the lair have convinced them to leave; etc. The gentle XP curve in 4E makes it too fun and profitable to wail on weak monsters to keep this option around.

I'm sorely tempted to go with the # 1 option myself; I don't like the heavy-handed approach of # 3 (despite me championing it at times), and I certainly don't like option #2; I hate it when the the town guards are level 3 when the party is level 1, and suddenly they're level 6 when the party is level 3; the group should be able to make progress against other elements of the setting.

Oh, I did go back and read that 'fetishization of balance' article - it seems completely off the mark. The main point of the article seems to argue that you should balance the encounters against the current power level of the party, and not against an arbitray CR baseline. Yeah, that's option #2 above: if the party is suddenly more powerful, SURPRISE, everything starts scaling! Level 1 Kobold encounters become tougher all of a sudden! BLECH. That is the complete opposite of making an internally-consistent sandbox...

 

[Ydars]

The other thread I was talking about was "the problem with balance and how to get rid of it"

Basically, people were arguing about whether balance in a set of rules was desirable, and generally not agreeing (as usual). I think both sides of the argument have a point and the relative merits are determined by what type of game you are playing.

 

[howandwhy99]

There are still problems... what if the PC's find the different ways down to the second dungeon level (the actual "megadungeon" is below the sewers) - but they choose to clear out additional "delves" in the sewers without taking on greater risks? I plan on giving them compelling plot hooks; clearing out some of those delves naturally - for instance, rival adventurers got there first; making the monetary rewards dwindle.

A dynamic dungeon is going to fill up again (I use the word dungeon for any setting element). Just remember, nature abhors a vacuum. That means whatever's next door over might fill it in or have it out with any other nearby whatevers to fill it in. (Or whatever method(s) you choose for monster/NPC groups to return the total space/world back to equilibrium)

For the "too much XP from wandering monsters" problem, I would look at the AD&D XP tables. They are logarhythmic. So killing wandering monsters doesn't necessarily help you reach next level. Especially if you keep WM's to a finite number and include them on the total level monster list. (WM's might stop wandering too for different reasone). At some point in an excursion their may be no more WM's. And by the principle above about vacuums, if you don't go to them, they may come to you.

EDIT: More clearly, with the log-based XP chart they'll want to leave easier monsters behind if advancement is important to them. Not just sit grinding one level as it won't help.