The Sandbox And The Grind

[Remathilis]

Seriously? Either my players suck or I am just a great DM, but I seriously doubt they could even come close to winning the fight against a young red dragon at level 2. I would consider them lucky if they even got to bloody it.

Agreed here.

Either my players are extremely stupid or unlucky, but I've never seen them pull an encounter 8 levels over their power level without having a.) 7 or more characters on the team; and/or b.) having way more magical items than the suggested wealth of a PC 4 levels higher. (Thank you item creation feats).

I think "lucky or superior tactics" is a crutch argument that basically means "if my player's can't figure out how to escape/win this one, its their fault. I'm running it as neutral as possible, its THEIR fault they died!"

 

[C_M2008]

Am I the only one running a non-exploratory sandbox?

I guess I should explain, the way my game is run is not so much focus on exploration but focus on plots and decisions. Basically I throw out a vast web of plots, hooks and potential adventures and the players pick and choose among them and reap the rewards/consequences.

I don't know if that's terribly different from what many of you already do, but I do scale encounters a fair bit as well. Some will be beyond or beneath them of course but the majority are level +-4.

 

[LostSoul]

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 numbers may look weird, but they play differently. Granted, I've never seen high-level combat in 4E so I could be wrong.

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).

I think one of the points of sandbox play is to metagame. You're trying to challenge the players, after all.

 

[LostSoul]

Agreed here.

Either my players are extremely stupid or unlucky, but I've never seen them pull an encounter 8 levels over their power level

I've never seen a party win an encounter 8 levels over their party level either.

"A level 2 party vs. a young red dragon (lvl 7 solo)" is 5 levels above, though, and I have seen that.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Nice avatar

I bolded the part I would like to discuss in more detail.

I would say that the truth of that statement would depend on the rewards system being used in a given game. In an old OD&D/Basic/1E game the primary motivation was the acquisition of treasure. If a monster or group of monsters were spotted, thier capabilities unknown, the typical party would not be so quick to engage unless there was reason to believe the reward was worth the risk. Monsters without treasure were avoided like the plague. If such creatures could be communicated with, without them becoming too hostile then a parley might take place to see if the creature knows anything of value.

Newer editions load up XP gained for defeating monsters making the testing through combat method more rewarding for players. Why parley with a big inflated bag of walking XP? Encounters that a sensible party might seek to avoid in a sandbox environment are sought out because the reward IS the monster. A tougher critter just means more XP. This means that if the party thinks they have any chance in the fight they will stick it out for the long haul.

Add that factor to the generally longer time it takes to play out a combat in 4E and you can see why the players would look to engage in one hard slugfest that would take as much table time as 2 or 3 easy fights but provide more than twice the XP.

Once monsters stop looking like hot dogs and hamburgers to XP starved players you will see a decrease in thier willingness to enter dangerous/grindy long fights.

 

[rounser]

I think one of the points of sandbox play is to metagame. You're trying to challenge the players, after all.

You're conflating the problem with the only solution you see. Instead of falling back on "it is what it is" as if it were the only way things could be, maybe you might consider that there may be better solutions than the one you've chosen, which involve less intrusive metagaming.

 

[LostSoul]

You're conflating the problem with the only solution you see. Instead of falling back on "it is what it is" as if it were the only way things could be, maybe you might consider that there may be better solutions than the one you've chosen, which involve less intrusive metagaming.

I don't understand - what is the problem and what is the only solution I see?

 

[S'mon]

I think one of the points of sandbox play is to metagame. You're trying to challenge the players, after all.

Sandbox exploratory play can be highly simulationist, and little concerned with challenging the players. "Discover the world" does not necessarily equate to "play well or die!".

 

[LostSoul]

Sandbox exploratory play can be highly simulationist, and little concerned with challenging the players. "Discover the world" does not necessarily equate to "play well or die!".

You are right, of course. I was being myopic.

I was focused on "play well or die!" (I like that! ) because I have no idea what "grind" means in terms of... I hate to say it, "simulationist" goals.

 

[CapnZapp]

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."

Well, not quite. But you have a point insomuch as there's nobody forcing you to post.

However, as long as you aren't dogmatically opposed to even recognizing there is a problem you should feel free to post. If you would like to argue against upping the damage (hopefully for another reason than "WotC says so") feel free!