Why the World Exists

[Imaro]

I think another important, but often not discussed, aspect of a good sandbox is understanding and fleshing out your major NPC's, major organizations and major monsters. They should have motivations, plans, goals, etc. that shape and inform their actions within the setting in a logical and consistent way. I think this is something that has always drawn me to WoD games, and I think it has in turn informed my D&D games.

 

[Ariosto]

Indeed, Imaro!

I find few things so helpful in creating interesting situations.

 

[Raven Crowking]

May I add, too, that the same rules apply to wolves as dragons: Encounters might be with indications that wolves are in the area, hearing wolves howl in the distance, seeing a wolf observing the PCs, etc., in addition to wolf attacks. And, in general, the wolves are keen to observe the PCs prior to attacking, as any act of predation carries with it a real risk -- injured predators tend to end their contributions to the gene pool.

Thinking predators want to succeed, and success requires observation. Watch footage of real-world predation, and you'll see what I mean.

Also (say) orcs may mark their territories with cairns of enemy skulls, etc. Whenever the DM adds an element to the world, he ought to consider the "footprint" it leaves around it.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

Thanks for the answers.

I might not have the dragon attack on sight now, I'll probably have him try to spy on the PCs and send some of his "tendon cutters" to take prisoners. Yeah, that could be very cool...

 

[Ariosto]

As I am reading through this thread, it seems to me that a common underlying difficulty is this:

There are long-established conventions by which we can meaningfully distinguish games from other things; role-playing games from other games; and Dungeons & Dragons from other role-playing games.

Probably THE fundamental cause of "edition wars" is a definition of "edition" to suit the purposes of a marketing department. Rhetorically, it begs the question of whether "nth edition" of X is in fact X by any more objective criteria. Practically, the latest thing is offered as a replacement for something previously known as X.

That was not exactly the case 30 years ago, when the "Original Collectors Edition" of D&D remained in print alongside Advanced D&D -- and designer Gary Gygax made a point of asserting that they were different games.

Had 3E remained WotC's "D&D" and 4E been given some other name (and you can push that "what if" back to any previous step), some issues would be truly moot. I think that many others would be easier to handle as well.

As matters stand, there are interests commercial and emotional in defining some terms -- especially "prestigious" ones -- in certain ways. Those run the gamut from the particular "D&D" right up to the generic "game."

That warping of language can make it very difficult to discuss things in a more objective context. Terms have been made effectively synonymous with "right" and "wrong," in artfully convoluted ways.

 

[Stoat]

In addition to the wonderful answer Imaro gave, you keep imagining that it is the DM, not the players, who are choosing the encounters out of the available options.

This, and similar posts in this thread, give me the impression of a very static campaign world. A world where dragons sleep always, until the players choose to disturb them.

And I don't think that's how you guys run your games. I think the focus on "level appropriate challenges" just makes it sound that way.

Surely the dragon gets hungry and goes hunting. Surely vile cultists kidnap the mayor's daughter for unspeakable purposes. Surely rich nobles seek to fund expeditions into the hostile wilderness. And in every case, the DM decides (through whatever process) when these creatures act and the manner in which they act.

By what means does the sandbox DM make those decisions?

 

[Thasmodious]

When I do sandbox, I craft the setting with a lot of level-appropriateness built in. Imaro seems to be saying that in his sandbox, if its written that the Emo Caves are full of lvl 2 goblin cutters, then that's set in stone. If the PCs visit the caves at 1st level or 10th level, that's what they find.

I don't generally set up my sandbox like that. Sure, the home of the lich sending forth legions of undead to harry the common folk is going to be a very powerful locale, one that doesn't change much. If the PCs go there at 2nd level, they would likely die. Same for trying to challenge the great dragon that lives at the other end of the valley. Maybe they get ambitious and try to steal from its hoard, though.

But many of the locations aren't built with set in stone mechanical numbers in mind, and those numbers are certainly not required. Why do the Emo Caves have to have lvl 2 goblins? Why not lvl 4 or 6 goblins, depending on when the PCs go there. Or some tough bugbears and hobgoblins? This is where level appropriate design fits. Many of the locales I design, I write notes about the story of the place, hooks as to why the PCs would seek it out (treasures, rumors, whatever), and notes on what monsterous challenges are faced there depending on what level the PCs visit that locale, within a reasonable range that makes sense, of course. If the PCs seek out a tribe of Forest Giants at 1st level, they aren't going to find weak, lvl 2 giant kids everywhere. (Although, a lord of the flies variation done with giant kids could be crazy...idea file) But I will have notes on that giant tribe on how to modify the challenges based on when the PCs visit. The numbers of the system are meant to gel in a game that works.

The Tower of the Mad Wizard? Well Archie is mad, and a major league NPC regardless, but I don't have to have stats set in stone. If the PCs become involved in his shenanigans, its needs to be a challenge when they go after him once and for all. The Caves of Despair? Well there are things that can cause despair to 1st level nubblets and 18th level badasses. Where the monstrous humanoids live? There are enough types of monstrous humanoids, that I can fit about any level of play in such a locale.

Now, I've done sandbox this way for years, but I love the ease of which 4e adjusts to this style of sandbox game. Memorize two short formulas (+/-1 AC, defenses, attacks / lvl; +1 damage / 2lvls) and the location of the hp by role table and you can easily adjust monsters in a location on the fly by +/- 5 levels. So if the PCs tackle the troll warrens at 6th level, drop the basic troll by a couple levels and take out the wartroll chieftan. If they go there "late" at mid paragon, level up the basic trolls, use more wartrolls and make the chieftan a felltroll. Those are all just numbers to provide the challenge to the game, they are really irrelevant in the scheme of things. The locale didn't change, the PCs make their choices, a good challenge was had by all.

 

[The Ghost]

How often do those big wins or crushing defeats happen? Every session? Every other? Once a month, year, decade of play? How often DO PCs face something non-level appropriate? Once a session? Once a year?

We just finished a three-and-a-half year campaign that took the party from level one to level sixteen. From level one to about level six, the party avoided, evaded, or negotiated with about eighty percent of all encounters. From level seven to the end of the campaign the percentage of avoid, evade, or negotiate fell to about half of all encounters. Throughout the course of the game, the majority of all encounters would be considered level-inappropriate. Typically, those were the times when our strategy was run and hide. There were seven times over the course of the campaign where we chose to fight the level-inappropriate encounter.

Now, some may say "Ah ha! The vast majority of the time your encounters resulted in level-appropriate challenges." To that, I agree. However, all those times we spent running and hiding from those level-inappropriate encounters enhanced the overall feel of the game. It helped us feel like we were actually in a gritty, dangerous world. More so than just telling us about how dangerous the world is could do. And those seven times that we did choose to fight the level-inappropriate challenges are the biggest memories we have from the game. Those were the choices we, the players, made. And it was AWESOME!

 

[Ariosto]

Actually, my interest is in avoiding the contrived situation in which Darkon the Dark Lord simply sits in Room #33 of his Dark Tower until "level-appropriate" PCs come along and kill him!

If one imagines the game-world (as one might a world of fiction) vividly enough that its internal consistency is clear, then the process is in place to yield all sorts of data. It really does not make too much difference whether one is dealing with Los Angeles or Lankhmar.

 

[Ariosto]

The equipment of the Happy Valley P.D. SWAT team does not include an AFV. However, the nearby National Guard Engineer Battalion has several -- and an armory of fairly heavy firepower.

That's the facts, ma'am, regardless of how bad-ass some PC may be.

What forces get turned out to deal with said PC depends on such factors as what he's up to and how much the proper authorities have their stuff in one sock.

(And on what's not available because it's been deployed overseas, natch.)

It's NOT a milieu in which revolvers get traded in for assault rifles just because PCs get tougher -- much less go back automatically when PCs get less deadly.