D&D 4E Sandbox game: should I 4e?

[Derren]

It entirely depends on the players. If they are those kind of players who just want to sit together and tell jokes will rolling some dice to kill stuff and afterward tell each other how coolbadassawesome their characters are then go 4E.
If on the other hand they try to explore the game world and like to decide for themselves what to do instead of following a laid out plot railroad and generally have problems ignoring huge inconsistencies like a game world resembling a twisted cuthulu alternate dimension with strange geometry and constantly shifts between battle mode and social mode which operate under very different rules or creatures who are only build for combat and don't have any abilities for things which happens outside combat then play 3E.
You can of course remedy those problems, for example by extensive houseruling and creating (and remembering them to avoid inconsistencies) out of combat abilities for each and every monster you use but that requires so much work that it isn't feasible especially as the result will look a lot like 3E anyway.

 

[Rechan]

Removed provoking post.

We expect people to be polite and not to taunt each other on this board. Everyone, please take a few minutes and think before you post.

 

[Eridanis]

To the point of the argument: it's foolish to say one style of play is made for 4E and another style of play is for 3E or another edition. One of the best things of this game, whatever the system, is you can make what you like of it. The level of enjoyment, and the style of the game, are much more dependent on the GM's ability and preferences than on the rules themselves. Derren, you could replace "3e" with "AD&D", and "4e" with "3e" in your post, and it would be identical to many internet assertions circa 1999 or 2000. 3E didn't turn out so bad, it seems to me.

Heck, a GM as good as Piratecat could, I'm sure, make an interesting campaign out of a system like Synnibar. Creativity and fun are system-independent.

 

[keterys]

I'd find myself an order of magnitude more willing to run a sandbox game in 4e (or BECMI through 2e) than 3e.

I rather plan on doing so, even, whereas I did not feel at all comfortable doing so in 3rd.

 

[Derren]

To the point of the argument: it's foolish to say one style of play is made for 4E and another style of play is for 3E or another edition. One of the best things of this game, whatever the system, is you can make what you like of it. The level of enjoyment, and the style of the game, are much more dependent on the GM's ability and preferences than on the rules themselves. Derren, you could replace "3e" with "AD&D", and "4e" with "3e" in your post, and it would be identical to many internet assertions circa 1999 or 2000. 3E didn't turn out so bad, it seems to me.

Heck, a GM as good as Piratecat could, I'm sure, make an interesting campaign out of a system like Synnibar. Creativity and fun are system-independent.

Sure, but the question is how much work is needed to create the game you want.
4E is more concerned with style and quick play than with logic, The advantage of this setting is that you can come up with combat encounters very fast but you have problems with non combat encounters as the DM has to create all out of combat abilities of monsters on his own as the rules leave them out. That has the danger of making the game inconsistent when the same monsters have different abilities because the plot requires them to. The other danger of this is railroading as the DM has to create all out of combat abilities by himself its very easy to railroad the players because the DM already has a plan of what the PCs should do and builds the monsters accordingly.
3E doesn't have this problem as the out of combat abilities of monsters are already stated but it has problems in other areas.

So the decision of the system should depend on what the players want. Quick stylish play where they are the heroes and are not too concerned about inconsistencies or being send towards the next dungeon to kill things then its easier to base the campaign off the 4E rules.
If on the other hand the players want to come up with a plan by themselves and like to have a consistent, detailed world it is easier to use 3E rules.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I personally prefer having non-combat abilities be separate from the combat-box of monsters. Since while combat-situations are much more mathematically oriented, and have many more balanced issues. This is less of a issue with non-combat.

As such, I have more freedom as a DM to build-up various NPCs/Monsters with non-combat abilities, feats, rituals, etc. So every encounter with a different creature; even of the same race feels unique.

As for creating a rich and detailed world and having the PCs make up their own plans. That has nothing at-all to do with the rules. The rules are simply a manner inwhich both the DM can have a peep-hole into a world and a ability to have some control over the world. It doesn't make the world, nor does it railroad the PCs.

 

[keterys]

That's pretty funny, Derren.

4E is indeed less realistic than 3E. Your statement otherwise makes as much sense as

If the players want to be so mired down in rules minutia that progress is sluggish, defeat encounters through metagame knowledge and constant ability denial rather than actual fun, and be so constrained in what they can fight that a DM must railroad them only through a specific path, then it's easier to use 3e rules.
If the players want heroes who can adventure freely in a world making a coherent and interesting story, with the DM able to easily adapt on the fly, and the ability to take on challenges far above them with skill and live long enough to retreat if they stumble on something too difficult, then it's easier to use 4e rules.

Etc. Though, I suppose that statement also makes pretty good sense. Wonders of opinions and all that.

 

[Derren]

I personally prefer having non-combat abilities be separate from the combat-box of monsters. Since while combat-situations are much more mathematically oriented, and have many more balanced issues. This is less of a issue with non-combat.

The problem is that this information is not separated from the combat information in 4E but from what we have seen is nonexistent

As such, I have more freedom as a DM to build-up various NPCs/Monsters with non-combat abilities, feats, rituals, etc. So every encounter with a different creature; even of the same race feels unique.

You have the same freedom when the ooc information is written out. In that case you only have to change and remember the stuff you don't like while in 4E you have to make up and remember everything. And when the PCs do something unexpected this has to happen very quickly.

As for creating a rich and detailed world and having the PCs make up their own plans. That has nothing at-all to do with the rules. The rules are simply a manner inwhich both the DM can have a peep-hole into a world and a ability to have some control over the world. It doesn't make the world, nor does it railroad the PCs.

Here I disagree. The problem with 4E is that many rules are made for combat balance which makes world building harder as the rules don't make much sense and are hard to explain in a logical manner.

defeat encounters through metagame knowledge and constant ability denial rather than actual fun, and be so constrained in what they can fight that a DM must railroad them only through a specific path, then it's easier to use 3e rules.

That is flat out wrong. And I am really interested in your definition of "metagame knowledge". Apparently metagame knowledge = using any tactic other than direct combat. Is it metagame knowledge when the PCs instead of storming a dungeon trap the entrance and then smoke or flush the enemies out by diverting a river into it? With 3E the DM simply has to look at what monsters can do to decide how they would react. In 4E this information is lacking and the DM has to quickly decide if that plan works or not, which poses the danger of railroading, and has to remember his decision or it can lead to inconsistencies.
Also the danger of railroading is imo a lot smaller in 3E than in 4E as the DM simply has to look at the complete statblock of the monsters when teh PCs do something unexpected to determine how they react. In 4E only the combat abilities are spelled out and the DM has to quickly decide by himself what ould happen without any guide which poses the danger that he simply disallows the PCs plan to not deviate from the planed path.
And I have no idea what you mean with Ability Denial. That things like Raise Dead don't work on NPCs when the plot demands it? That is imo a sign of bad DMing and has nothing to do with the rules themselves and will certainly happen in 4E too.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well considering how they have talked about the DMG not the MM being the book for NPCs and for developing deeper NPCs/Monsters I do think there will be rules. It will also as such allow a DM's job to be easier by being able to slot in when he needs more depth for a NPC/Monster.

I don't see how combat-rules will all of a sudden make the rest of the rules and the world you built unworkable, combat-rules are for combat... Nothing else.

Simply because they haven't delved into DMG rules, doesn't mean combat-rules are the only rules. I wouldn't be surprised if with the Excerpts we are seeing there won't be one dealing with world-building and NPCs, etc.

You also don't have to remember, you simply slot in the non-combat related info as you see fit. It is much easier to put in then to pull out. I also wouldn't be surprised if in the DMG or MM, that they will have a basic-format for various types of Monsters and NPCs. So things like; medium-size creatures generally have so many skill-points, etc, etc.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Is it metagame knowledge when the PCs instead of storming a dungeon trap the entrance and then smoke or flush the enemies out by diverting a river into it? With 3E the DM simply has to look at what monsters can do to decide how they would react.

HOW is this different than 4E? I wouldn't have any problems running this example in 4E, even with the limited rules we have. Why would you? What in the 3E monster stats clearly shows you what the monsters can do in this case that you can't find on a 4E monster statblock?

I've got no problem explaining 4E rules in a consistent and logical manor, nor do I have trouble making a consistent logical world. The problem with 4E is in your head.

Fitz