D&D 4E Hints on Sandboxing with 4e?

[Rel]

I ended up reducing monster hit points to 60% normal and having them deal 3+1/2 Level extra damage on each hit. That amped up the danger factor of the combats, reduced the time it took to resolve them and let us squeeze more into a session.

But I don't know if any of that relates directly to your sandbox issue.

 

[darjr]

I think the problem is that there is this area where the monsters are more than powerful enough for the PC's but the PC's seem to have some chance. So the PC's go into combat spending way to long to figure out that they won't win or that they barely win.

Out side of that area the combat can be just right, to easy, or obviously out of their league.

I think fewer monster hit points and higher monster damage could go a long way to reduce that problem. I think that either the stronger monsters will be just barely defeatable and the lower monster hit points will lessen the combat time, or the higher damage to the PC's will make it clear, quickly, that they won't win.

The other thing I'd think about doing is adding in some way for the PC's to discover what they are getting into. In my old sandbox games I played in, the PC's spent a lot of time in 'recon' mode.

 

[S'mon]

I've recently come to the conclusion that, compared to most other rpgs, D&D isn't very well suited to sandbox play, due to Vancian magic and the very wide gulf in power between low and high level. It might seem heretical, but I'd consider a another system altogether.

Other suggestions:
1) Replace 'per day' with 'per session'.
2) Restrict the level track to, say, 3-7.
3) Consider modifying encounters based on PC strength. After all who is to say there are always 10 ogres in the cave? Some days there might be 5, others 18. In fact you could even change your notes to a range, rather than a fixed number.

The level range would be restricted anyway; for one thing I'd probably only get to run this game a limited number of sessions, somewhere in the 18-30 range most likely. For 4e that's around 6-10 levels, IME.

I think AD&D works ok with sandbox play in that high level PCs are expected to be doing different things from low level, and at 9th they're traditionally building fortresses. I can see this might be an issue with 3e, & perhaps to a lesser extent 4e, though.

 

[S'mon]

My question is why is this a sandbox issue?

I don't want to reskin all the monsters because in a sandbox I won't know which monsters the PCs will be encountering. In a more linear campaign I can predict what monsters they'll be fighting.

 

[S'mon]

I find that AD&D tolerates a great deal of "fiddling with" and this, among other reasons, I list elsewhere is why I recommend it.

I may well go with AD&D/OSRIC, if people are willing to play it. I'm a bit nervous of offering to run 'old school' games at the club. Eg my first campaign at the club was originally intended for BX/Labyrinth Lord, but I ended up running it in a weirdly effective BX/3.5e mash-up.

 

[Umbran]

If this is to be 4e specific, it should not be in General. Shuffling it over...

 

[JoeGKushner]

I don't want to reskin all the monsters because in a sandbox I won't know which monsters the PCs will be encountering. In a more linear campaign I can predict what monsters they'll be fighting.

Eh? this is not a sandbox issue.

Of course you know what monsters the players will be encountering. You're the GM.

What do I mean?

Look at the first series of adventurers by WoTC. It's set in a sandbox setting but level appropriate encounters are not an issue.

If you're saying that the players are going to be running into a lot of random encounters, have some charts ready.

If you're saying that you're worried the players are going to seek out deliberate encounters that are past their level, I see no difference between fourth edition and every other edition before that.

3.5 "There are fire giants over there? Well, even though we're only 3rd level, that's where we're going!"

2nd edition "Tanari? Hell, we're 5th level. bring 'em on!"

1st edition "Hey, break out that old Deities and Demigods. I want to kill Elric and steal Stormbringer. Yeah, I'm 10th level. So what's your point?"

Like I said, it's not a sandbox issue. You're the GM. You set up the encounters. You can provide 'tough' encounters and easy encounters. The second adventure has a pretty good wandering encounter list with some unique events happening on it that could be used as a model.

Worrying about the PCs attacking something way outside their leauge? At some point they all gotta learn.

 

[Verdande]

I'd have to recommend OSRIC. Like somebody else noted, the reliance of 4e's "multiple balanced encounters per day" and the general slowing down of combat means that if you're going to let players get in problems that are way over their head, then you're left with three options, really.

1) They slowly and frustratingly get killed in a three hour combat
2) They fight one thing a day, then rest, leading to the "lovely" 15 minute adventuring day
3) Your games consist of endless easy combats

Really, I'd go for Labyrinth Lord / OSRIC / Swords and Wizardry. Leaning towards OSRIC, of course, if your players are used to 4th edition, as it can be hard to get used to -not- leaning on the rulebooks for everything. The advantage of the lighter frameworks, as you know, is that you can tinker much more and still have a game that works more or less like it should.

For what it's worth, I'm working on a *FREE* Labyrinth Lord player companion based on my own personal notes of what I'd like to play in a game, and there's no Vancian magic or anything else per-day. You could always take a look at that and steal from it, if you like. The example I'll point to is the Sorcerer class I posted today. If that has the sort of feel you like, the player companion should be out soon.

 

[JoeGKushner]

but how is OSRIC different in terms of fighting an overhwelming foe? They get killed sooner?

 

[thedungeondelver]

but how is OSRIC different in terms of fighting an overhwelming foe? They get killed sooner?

AD&D does not rely on "multiple balanced encounters per day".

In AD&D, a low-level group that walks up to a cavern entrance with suspiciously reptilian footprints leading to it that are bigger than the halfling in the group, with heaps of charred bones and bits of melted armor may realize this is the game world's way of saying "Here you shall go, and no further." It is not generally presumed that the DM has set a dragon with minimal HD/HP in said cave.

The expectation of play as outlined in the other game is that yes, it is a balanced encounter, and the dragon in the cave is precisely at the level that can be overcome. I'm not suggesting it'd be easy - indeed, it might be very difficult and cost the players many characters to do so.

A DM in AD&D might tantalize the players with the hint of the dragon's lair - perhaps even having a few loose gems and gold carelessly lying outside the cave (or not so carelessly, if we remember how Smaug tried to entreat Bilbo to take an item - "There's plenty - and to spare.") Might the players, their appetites whetted, rush madly into the lair and be stopped dead in their tracks (if they're low enough level, from fear alone)? They may!

Per the rules of the other game, the expectation is that the players will meet an encounter that they can overcome - or at least win their way back to the cave entrance to wait for daily buffs to re-ding or what have you, and try again after the fifteen minute day has gone by.

I am not suggesting, of course, that a DM in that game could not put a high-HD/HP dragon in that cave! Quite the contrary, the DM has the freedom to ignore or modify any rule they wish at any time. But the rules of this latter day version are more cut and dried about what the expectation of "encounter level" should be.

Thus, a player in that game on the whole may be more inclined to think "That monster is tough - but by the book shouldn't be too tough for us."

Someone coming from or at least familiar with an AD&D perspective might take things differently.

That, I feel, is the chief difference.