Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5747404" data-attributes="member: 54877">First, I'm not sure that you are using the same definition of "sandbox" that pemerton and I are using (or even that pemerton and I are 100% in sync, either).  So maybe we'd better clear that up.  For me, a pure sandbox is one in which there are defined limits (scope of the world, character power levels, what magic and can't do, and any number of such things, though not all of them in any given world necessarily)--that is, the "box".  Then you have the elements that are in the box (mainly, characters, NPCs, monsters, locations, items)--that is, the "sand".  The characters go an interact with those other elements inside the box, and the DM referees.   For a pure sandbox, there is no preplotted action whatsoever.  (The DM may have notes about goals and motivations, and things NPCs will do if not interfered with, but as a purist referee, these are are tentative.)  More commonly, you'll get a less pure version where some of those major events are allowed to roll along (albeit somewhat modified if the players interfere) in order to keep the action moving.  (I have seldom run a pure version, but I've come fairly close a few times.) That says nothing about styles.  I've run almost pure hack and slash sandbox.  I've run a mostly purist simulation exploration sandbox.  I've run character-based exploration with the sandbox as background.  And right now, I'm running a strange cross between a narrative, character-focused sandbox and a straight gamist, dungeon crawl sandbox. If internet reports can be trusted, there are a few other possibly sandbox styles, too. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Your reservations about levels are one of the classic responses from someone who wants D&D as pretend simulation.  (For clarity, there is no judgment being made here about that style, though I don't favor it personally.  If the "pretend" adjective is too much, I'm open to another.)  It is in contrast to someone like me or pemerton, who when we play simulation, want to move to a game that overtly supports that style, like Runequest.  I like rules with a clear style in the mechanics, even though I often like games to be played in a muddle.  It is easier for me to drift from a known point.  Apparently, a lot of people like games with a muddled style in the mechanics, which they can then tweak this or that to get where they want. So yes, one of the ways to make the pretend simulation crowd happy is to remove some of the power from levels, but keep the heart of adventuring in levels.  If they wanted the adventuring removed from the levels, then they would be one of those first two groups I mentioned earlier that play D&D but don't like it being D&D. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  But you can take out a certain amount of the peripheral stuff and still make something that is recognizable as D&D.  There is, for example, no inherent reason why skills or ability scores need to scale with class level.  If they don't, many things that the pretend simulation crowd wants will be easy to achieve (e.g. wizards with no particular ability towards opening doors). However, let's not go to far and assume that you can stop there.  Pretend simulation may be a sizable portion of D&D, but it is not all of it, and I doubt even a majority.  So whatever means are chosen, there had better also be a way to support people who want their wizards broadly competent by the time they are 10th level wizards--and it had better work mechanically, too (unlock 3E skill ranks, in this respect).  A narrowing of the scaling of DCs is the most obvious way to satisfy both groups, and I doubt a better one (i.e. one with less nasty side effects) can be discovered.</blockquote>

Verification