The Sandbox And The Grind

[Kwalish Kid]

Now, given what Stalker0 is saying so eloquently, it seems 4th Edition is not a game system suitable to sandboxing: the thrill of exploring "high-level territory" is replaced by boredom and a lot of misses.

4E is better at telling a heroic story. Sandboxing will work if what it does is give players the opportunity to find themselves in the kind of story that they want. E.g., if they want to go fight orcs, they go fight orcs. In every game, there is no real heroism in facing challenges that far outclass the heroes, except perhaps at an early point in the story.

 

[LostSoul]

Is it possible to have higher-than-appropriate encounters in 4E without being punished by grind, and if so, how?

Make them challenging.

If the outcome of the encounter is in question until the end, you will have an exciting combat.

edit: Here is a TPK with 5 8th-level PCs facing a human lich (level 14 elite) who summoned an angel of valor early on in the fight. It was a long combat, his defenses were high (even with Lead the Attack), but the outcome was in doubt throughout and it was very tense.

edit 2: I think a more pressing issue for sandbox games isn't high-level areas but low-level ones. There are two reasons for this:

1. The risk-reward ratio for going into high-challenge areas isn't good enough. Low-level combats still give you a lot of XP, so there's less systemic reward for facing the big baddies.

2. Easy fights in 4E can still take a long time to resolve, even if it's just a speedbump. The only way to make them interesting is, I think, when the PCs don't have access to an Extended Rest and get whittled down over time.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Is not grind an indication that the PCs are in over their head?

If anything for a sandbox game this is a feature not a bug. The PC are not supposed to beat the high level opponent. If anythiing I would be more inclined in this scenario to make to monster more resilient.

Let the player know before campaign start that long combats with lots of missed attack rolls indicates a situation where they should not be fighting.

The only real problem would be with small parties (i.e. under 5 characters) as disengaging from superior numbers can be impossible in a tactical sense.

Solos are a different matter.

 

[Cadfan]

Yeah, I thought that the whole point of a sandbox game was that going the wrong direction dumped you square in the suck. If its a fight a little over your head but that you can still beat, maybe you end up in a grind. If its a lot over your head, you all die.

I'm sure that whatever tools you were intending to use to help the party not accidentally walk into their inescapable doom will be sufficient to avoid this as well. And if you intending to let the party walk to their doom without taking action to pre-write ways to avoid it or to provide opportunities to bypass it at the table, then why should you even care if they get into a grind?

 

[Byronic]

A way to players from hitting low level encounters too much is to tie exp on getting treasure and fulfilling quests rather then killing monsters. That means that once the quest is fulfilled and the treasure stolen, they simply can't get any more exp there.

They CAN of course grind low levels encounters as much as they want, and they might be doing the local towns and favour. But they wouldn't become better fighters.

 

[Kask]

Yeah, I thought that the whole point of a sandbox game was that going the wrong direction dumped you square in the suck.

No, that's the point of a Railroad campaign. In a "sandbox" campaign you encounter what actually resides where you take your PC.

When the game "designers" at WotC decided to use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to model encounters they threw a wrench in the sandbox campaign.

 

[LostSoul]

My solution to the low-level XP farming is to present a world with threats that need to be dealt with, or else. There's a pressure to gain XP in the time allotted.

[I wonder if that ruins the sandbox. Hmm. Well, I don't care, as the point of my sandbox is to challenge the players, not to let them explore. My sandbox is full of mines and if you just want to dig around and admire the dirt you'll get your face blown off.]

 

[Cadfan]

No, that's the point of a Railroad campaign. In a "sandbox" campaign you encounter what actually resides where you take your PC.

Yeah, sure, that will be true as soon as dragons really exist and your campaign world becomes a real place.

What you encounter in a sandbox campaign is what the DM pre-determined you would encounter without reference to your ability to encounter it in a fun manner. Had the DM custom designed the encounters, there could be a complete absence of suck (or as much of an absence as the DM's skill allows). But he didn't because then it wouldn't be a sandbox.

So, encountering the suck is inevitable, and the whole point of a sandbox campaign is to ring the PCs with the suck so that they can have the fun of learning not to step in it.

At least that's how a lot of the major proponents of sandbox campaigning define it.

 

[Kask]

Yeah, sure, that will be true as soon as dragons really exist and your campaign world becomes a real place.

No, it always remains true in a sandbox campaign. Dragons or no dragons, what I described is true. And, what you described was railroading.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, sure, that will be true as soon as dragons really exist and your campaign world becomes a real place.

What you encounter in a sandbox campaign is what the DM pre-determined you would encounter without reference to your ability to encounter it in a fun manner. Had the DM custom designed the encounters, there could be a complete absence of suck (or as much of an absence as the DM's skill allows). But he didn't because then it wouldn't be a sandbox.

So, encountering the suck is inevitable, and the whole point of a sandbox campaign is to ring the PCs with the suck so that they can have the fun of learning not to step in it.

At least that's how a lot of the major proponents of sandbox campaigning define it.

What? Who are these "major proponents of sandbox campaigning" that define it in the way you have above, please a link ...a name ...something because otherwise it reads as Cadfan's "I don't likey sandbox games" or "My DM can't run a good sandbox"...baseless rant.