The Sandbox And The Grind

[Gansk]

Sandbox games in 3e and 4e have one issue in common that isn't necessarily present in sandbox games using older editions of D&D - looking at a foe doesn't give the players a clue whether the encounter is easy or hard.

In AD&D, if you saw an encampment of 300 orcs or a huge dragon, a big red flag was waving in your face to run. Likewise if you saw one orc, you didn't presume that he might be 20th level with 200 hp. If 5 goblins saw a fighter in platemail, they would suspect he could plow through them in one round. In all these cases, the likelihood of parley increased and the likelihood of combat decreased.

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.

IMO, the key to these sandbox games is bring back the red flag, both for the PC's and the NPC's. If they know in round one that there are huge negative consequences to combat, the roleplaying begins and the flavor of the sandbox is preserved without wasting time with unfun activities. It won't work in every case - the PC's still have the right to attack and mindless NPC's won't know any better.

How to bring back the red flag? House rule Sense Motive/Insight checks that give an indication of the combat power of an opponent. The larger the discrepancy in CR/levels, the easier the check becomes. Liberal use of this check by NPC's will tell them when they need to run or not start a fight in the first place. Encouraging PC's to use it should achieve the same results.

If players know that a 'dire threat' will result in either TPK or boring combat, they will be thankful to have the opportunity to do something else more creative. It might be a little metagamey or too close to a MMORPG (I know Everquest has this mechanic, I have never played WoW), but it's the best approach I can think of to solve the problem.

Note I personally have not playtested any specific houserule that incorporates this idea, but I'm pretty sure others here have experimented with this and can comment on it. I do plan to use it in my next campaign, which will be a 3.75 sandbox.

 

[Shades of Green]

IMO, the key to these sandbox games is bring back the red flag, both for the PC's and the NPC's. If they know in round one that there are huge negative consequences to combat, the roleplaying begins and the flavor of the sandbox is preserved without wasting time with unfun activities. It won't work in every case - the PC's still have the right to attack and mindless NPC's won't know any better.

Keep in mind that, say, a higher-level Orc is rarely going to look like a common level-1 Orc: for once, he'll probably be able to get a hold on far better equipment, not to mention being likely to be king to the local lower-level Orcish population.

In other words, add cues to a monster's level, be that better equipment, a more sure (or dominating) stare, coat-of-arms of a reputable military/mercenary company and so on. Especially in 3E, where higher-level NPCs (sentient monsters included) are assumed to have a high starting wealth - simply invest it in arms, armor and other conspicuous magic items.

 

[vagabundo]

Yes, Terrain, I'm still getting to grips with this in my own 4e games. It is the missing link for grindiness.

I'm also in favour of the mid-encounter plot Twist(tm), have something devilish up your sleeve in case boredom sets in, in fact have several up your sleeve.

Extra monsters, changing of the terrain, something cool and interesting happens that changes the whole nature of the encounter. Players love this, seriously, even if it is an "oh " moment: they're fighting a youngster Red dragon and Mommy walks through the door, but make sure you have ways to avoid TPK even if they are tough. Nothing like getting called an unfair DM to ruin a game and players get whiny when they feel totally boxed in.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure it's a sand box problem so much as a problem with high level 4e monsters having too many hp and too little damage output. 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 maths in 4e just looks really weird to me; I think the designers were trying to avoid 3e's one-round combats, but overshot massively.

I think the best design principle is that fights should take about as long to play out at 30th level as at 1st; "They fought for three days" is fine in a story, tolerable in a CRPG, but not to dice out at the table. I guess then monsters should be tweaked so that the ratio of offense to defense at 30th is similar to that at 1st. That seems a lot of work, though.

 

[rounser]

IMO, the key to these sandbox games is bring back the red flag, both for the PC's and the NPC's.

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).

And even if you do signal STOP! THESE FIRE GIANTS WILL KILL YOU by some corny means, you run into the problem of then trying to communicate a way of greenlighting them a few levels down the line when they're an appropriate challenge. No NPC short of a diety or some omniscient sage or oracle knows what is level appropriate for the PCs at this time, so you're stuck.

The red flag is therefore IMO a poor solution to the problems posed by sandbox play. Superior is the mechanism employed by CRPGs, that of scaling up the walkovers and scaling down the certain TPKs so that they're just within the range of playability (i.e. an easy fight but not a complete cakewalk, and a dangerous fight but not a certain TPK). A computer program is probably needed to semi-automate this restatting required by scaling.

If you have verisimilitude problems with this (e.g. kobolds being tougher just because the PCs are high level), then consider that they will be dwarfed by those of a stop light campaign which is continually and unsubtlely flashing red and green lights at PCs whenever they encounter anything new.

 

[vagabundo]

@rounser,

I don't think it would strain credulity much to allow characters to know they're own capabilities and to possibly gauge how tough a monster is in relation to themselves.

Mechanically I'd allowing a monster knowledge check (DC10 maybe) to gauge the relative strength (easy,tough,possibly killer or impossible) or to even give a level range so the players can make an informed choice for their character (mid, heroic, early paragon, ...).

Considering most characters do this for a living and they will probably be interested in their own survival, being able to gauge threats is part of the adventuring job.

And having run into a few killer fights the players would eventually get the message and be cautious if they are in a dangerous area - nobody ever returns from the Mountains of Dorn so let be prepared to run if things look bad.

Scaling threats in a sandbox game makes me slightly ill; it is the reason I never completed Oblivion (PC), once I found that happening it destroyed all my suspension of disbelief for the game.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not sure it's a sand box problem so much as a problem with high level 4e monsters having too many hp and too little damage output. 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 maths in 4e just looks really weird to me; I think the designers were trying to avoid 3e's one-round combats, but overshot massively.

Yeah, I think so too.

Funny how some people try to bend backwards to offer possible solutions without even first considering this one, the obvious one: upping damage.

Just saying I would much rather trust a poster who first discussed this - very central - idea, before coming up with a load of other ways... Discussing those other solutions are fine, but not if that discussion is really only about not having to admit the new emperor is naked.

I would hope we - the community - can discuss these things without WotC first having to admit mistakes...

 

[rounser]

nobody ever returns from the Mountains of Dorn so let be prepared to run if things look bad.

But the PCs are level 14 now, and they heard that rumour when they were 3rd level. The Mountains of Dorn suit 8th level characters, which would kill 3rd levellers but are a romp for 14th levellers. The PCs skip the Mountains of Dorn completely or forget about them having written them off for levels on end, because unless you intervene with some metagaming they have no way of knowing when the Mountains of Dorn are about right for them. Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[vagabundo]

But the PCs are level 14 now, and they heard that rumour when they were 3rd level. The Mountains of Dorn suit 8th level characters, which would kill 3rd levellers but are a romp for 14th levellers. The PCs skip the Mountains of Dorn completely or forget about them having written them off for levels on end, because unless you intervene with some metagaming they have no way of knowing when the Mountains of Dorn are about right for them. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I do and that kind of intervention would ruin the whole "sandbox" feel of the game where it is about characters in a simulated world making realistic choices rather than players making decisions based on metagame mechanics. Obviously this problem is not a 4e issue but more a sandbox design issue.

If I had the time, energy and the will to create a sandbox simulation of a fantasy world, I would hope that the PCs would go to places and get involved in plots that seem interesting to them. I would endeavour to create a sandbox that had many levels of challenge realistically intertwined with some special cases: Mountains of Dorn house a ancient red dragon living in a dwarvan stronghold with her minions and that is why no one has ever returned.

I would also accept that there is a chance that the PCs will stumble into situations beyond their station and may get TPK'd - and also the reverse. Such is the sandbox feel I'd want and it is also how I believe sandboxes should be. I'd certainly have them create some alt's and, I believe, the players of the game would have to be of a certain mentality to buy into such a game. It's all very old world 1e ADND to me, from what I have read.

Unfortunately the type of players in my group would not be suited to such a game, but I has always been the type of game I have wished to be able to run. My DND DMing utopia.

 

[La Bete]

Funny how some people try to bend backwards to offer possible solutions without even first considering this one, the obvious one: upping damage.

Just saying I would much rather trust a poster who first discussed this - very central - idea, before coming up with a load of other ways... Discussing those other solutions are fine, but not if that discussion is really only about not having to admit the new emperor is naked.

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."