Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6385130" data-attributes="member: 1465">I thought the same, that bounded accuracy should make it easier.But what do you think is the point of a sandbox? It is to make it possible to wander around and potentially defeat every encounter? To be challenged by even the easiest encounters? Both? Something else?Because I used to think that one important feature of a sandbox campaign, is the feeling that the world doesn't revolve around your party: it doesn't matter if you're 1st or 20th level, the world around stays the same (or changes, but with its own dynamics), it doesn't &quot;conform&quot; to make you &quot;magically&quot; encounter only challenges tailored to your level.That means, for me still having some encounters you can't win (or maybe you can, but only with truly sheer luck), is necessary for the overall credibility of a sandbox campaign.The key point to give sense to an impossible fight, is that the players should recognize that they shouldn't fight! Killing the monster is not the point of such encounter: the point is something else, perhaps getting past the monster, retrieving something from it, make the monster move from its location, getting some information from it, or simply surviving. The means for those purposes are interaction and exploration.But then... the challenge to the DM, is to make such encounters give the players a change to recognize they shouldn't fight. So at least with regard to this 5e is promising because if they make a mistake and choose combat, bounded accuracy + different approach to save-or-die should (hopefully) increase the number of rounds the PC stay alive, and have some extra time to figure out they should now pull back.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6385130, member: 1465"] I thought the same, that bounded accuracy should make it easier. But what do you think is the point of a sandbox? It is to make it possible to wander around and potentially [I]defeat[/I] every encounter? To be [I]challenged[/I] by even the easiest encounters? Both? Something else? Because I used to think that one important feature of a sandbox campaign, is the feeling that the world doesn't revolve around your party: it doesn't matter if you're 1st or 20th level, the world around stays the same (or changes, but with its own dynamics), it doesn't "conform" to make you "magically" encounter only challenges tailored to your level. That means, for me still having some encounters you [I]can't[/I] win (or maybe you can, but only with truly sheer luck), is necessary for the overall credibility of a sandbox campaign. The key point to give sense to an impossible fight, is that the players should recognize that they [I]shouldn't[/I] fight! Killing the monster is not the point of such encounter: the point is something else, perhaps getting past the monster, retrieving something from it, make the monster move from its location, getting some information from it, or simply surviving. The means for those purposes are [B]interaction[/B] and [B]exploration[/B]. But then... the challenge to the DM, is to make such encounters give the players [I]a change to recognize[/I] they shouldn't fight. So at least with regard to this 5e is promising because if they make a mistake and choose combat, bounded accuracy + different approach to save-or-die should (hopefully) increase the number of rounds the PC stay alive, and have some extra time to figure out they should now pull back. [/QUOTE]

Verification