Sandbox style: How to handle challenge levels

[robertsconley]

I'm extremely interested to hear how DM's of sandbox-style games communicate threat levels to the PC's, to be honest. There's such a massive range of potential CR's, and then you add weight of numbers, class levels, templates, locations, and other scaling factors. How do the PC's know? Or is a sandbox campaign a constant game of 'dip their toe in the water and see what bites it off'..?

When I sell the game to a new group of players. I hit on the following points

1) You can forge your own history and become part of a 20 year game.
2) You can choose your own direction and wander the campaign freely
3) You will fun because I run encounter realistically and you will feel you have truly overcome a challenge.
4) There are tons of details for you to explore if that what you want.

Now the actual pitch is NOT just hammering on those points. It more a soft sell.

#3 is VERY important because when I talk about #3 I communicate some of things that make my campaign different. So even before their first game they know that it going to be different.

When actual play start, I feel it to them gently. I will start a new group in a straightforward situation. Maybe they are all retainers of a noble, members of a temple, mage's guild. Some type of situation where things are more clearcut and easier to understand.

If I am using GURPS or other non-d20 system I run a sample combat to let them get a feel for how the mechanics works.

Then I set up a single plot and have them go on that adventure. (Usually it is a mission of some sort) The mission will reward preparation and punish rushing in. Plus I try make the plot so the consequence of failure does not automatically result in the death of the character.

Along with this I feed them some background information. I do this in play as well as weekly hand out of common knowledge. Subsequent adventures get less and less structured while the player's use more of my campaign background and plots to set their own goals.

Note I never throw new players in at the gates of City-State expecting them to find their own way. My objective for my players to have fun. NOT to beat them with a two by four in the mistaken belief that my game is "superior"

To summarize

1) I communicate on a out of game basis they can't expect leveled challenges.
2) I teach them about my world's background so that they had enough information to make choices and pursue goals and have fun.

Plot note:
I have two encounters that I usually throw into a plot for new players to show how I run my world. First is a role-playing encounter meeting a powerful NPCs.

In my current game this involved a Paladin and a NPC Guild Mage going into Dearthwood to find a group of renegade mages that the Paladin needed to talk too. When the Paladin got close to the Mage's lair in the woods. One of their guardian treant's found them. The first thing the treant did was smash the Guild Mage into a pulp and then grappled the paladin. The encountered ended with the Treant questioning the Paladin and taking him to the renegade mages after the Treant was confident that the paladin was no threat.

This adventure began with the low level Paladin having a dream about needing to into Dearthwood to counter a great threat. That he was to seek the renegade mage Jeremy. He went to the Mage's Guild because they had some information on the location of the renegades.

The Mage's Guild saw this as a way of finding out more about the renegades so agreed to have one of their mages accompany the Paladin into the woods. They sent a low-level mages because they damn well knew that every previous attempt resulted in death or serious injury. They figure with a paladin, on a quest, there was a chance of getting in further they had before. But given the risk they sent somebody that was expendable with orders to come back and report after the paladin done.

This was all behind the scenes. What the paladin was told was yes they would help and would give him a companion to help protect him against the perils of the journey. The mage accompanying of the paladin was told to gather information and try to get back when anything on the renegades.

The adventure was a success and the player had fun. He role-played with Jeremy and other the renegades and got further clues to investigate on his dream as well as meeting the other players. He learned that the Mage's Guild were bastards and that what he thought he knew wasn't the complete truth.

Finally much of the background and NPCs for this adventure were from the actions of former PCs and the former PCs themselves. This makes things more interesting as when player generate their strongholds and recruit their allies. Players don't screw around. They make the best defense possible and try to get the best people. Of course I keep copies of their notes and sheets for the next round of PCs.

This occurred in a game set between 1992 to 1995. That game used stuff that was in a game run in 1987 to 1988. And that game used stuff from yet another game run in 1983. In many cases I am running background and plots that have 2 to 4 generations of players involved.

 

[robertsconley]

Before I write this post please understand that I'm not trying to slate the sand-box playstyle, I'm simply trying to uncover useful information on how to make it work, because I want to play in the sand one day myself.

I will endeavor to explain what I know in a clear manner then.

All well and good... but this isn't really a clear description of the *challenge*. Is this a 10th level encounter? 12th? 15th? There is easily enough leeway in 'the teens' to make the difference between a thrill-a-moment take-down, an appropriate challenge, and a TPK.

Two points

1) To be honest it never going to be that learn. As a DM you should fudge in favor of fun. The point of sandbox is to let the players freely explore, be challenged and choose their own goals. Not the beat them over the head with a world simulator. Anything be taken to an extreme that is not fun.

2) I think there is a confusion over encounter levels. Unlike MMORPG the world isn't divided into Zones. One Zone, the Happy Hunting Fields is EL 1. And another zone, the Death Mountains of Ziggurats, are EL 18. This is not realistic nor, IMO, really is sandbox play.

The world is more like a pyramid. There a great deal of mooks, a moderate level of medium challenges, and very few hard challenges. So you have Xatharot the Red Dragon terrorizing the South Pass and the Queans Waste. But around Xatharot are her less powerful brood. Followed by the humaniod tribe she hold in thrall. Then there are the villages that she terrorizes and that pay tribute.

So a player knowing nothing about the area and heading into the mountains will encounter in order

1) A series of village that are frightened by the power of this dragon
2) A series of villages that have been attacked and are playing tribute
3) A tribes and roving bands of humanoid with sub chiefs, mages, and chief of higher levels.
4) One of Xatharot's brood
5) Xaharot herself

A some point well before #5 a 2nd level party is going to get the idea that something REALLY BAD is there.

Again making certain area a fix EL is a mistake for Sandbox. Areas will be a mix some more deadlier than other but.

Also Sandbox play means that while there is high level stuff for the player to find. There is low level stuff for them to beat up.

That honestly strikes me as pure meta-gaming, kind of contrary to the image of the sand-box game which I've built up over the years.

What I suspect (and have seen at least once) is that the players and the DM develop a sort of unspoken, unwritten, nudge nudge wink wink meta-language that they might use almost subconsciously at the table. In such games the sand-box is an illusion, simply what other DM's may call undeveloped parts of their campaign world.

You have some points here. But the DM isn't just some human computer running a world simulator. Presenting plots and specific adventures is still part of your job as DM. One thing is that you can't just say oh this week I am runing ELX 12 The sinister tower. You have to learn to manipulate your players if you have a plot prepared. But sometimes they are just not interested.

Finally it isn't like they are going to one end of the world to the next. You will find that the player's telegraph was they are going to do next session. This gives you time and room to prepare.

 

[wedgeski]

I will endeavor to explain what I know in a clear manner then.

And a very useful post, thank-you. I don't quite know why I was equating challenge level with location. Odd that. Your 'pyramid' solves the problem of player feedback because as soon as they get in sync with the idea, they'll know exactly where their limits are. It has a few implications for encounter design, but then so does any campaign model.

 

[robertsconley]

And a very useful post, thank-you. I don't quite know why I was equating challenge level with location. Odd that. Your 'pyramid' solves the problem of player feedback because as soon as they get in sync with the idea, they'll know exactly where their limits are. It has a few implications for encounter design, but then so does any campaign model.

No problem.

You can also think of it a bullseye of concentric circles. The pyramid is useful when dealing with creatures and sentients.

With locations like Tombs and dungeons you may want to use a bullseye approach. The bullseye represent the detailed information about the location. The rings are the different levels of information and locations that lead to the bullseye. You could divide the rings into sectors, (pie-wedges) representing different paths to the bullseye.

Note that I am mixing locations and information. Sometimes finding about a location involves travel to another location. Sometime it involves finding the right clues.

I picked the bulleyes, rings, and sectors analogy because if you were to graph all your "locations" and their associated plots and clues in a manner of a bullseye you will find that they will intersect on specific places and NPCs. This can also lead more possibilities of adventure for PCs.

One of the points of Sandbox play, in my opinion, is to maximize the possibilities of adventure. To use an earlier example, so the party decides that taking on Xatharot is really bad idea. But the Vile Rune Orcs offer an easier target so the party decides to take them on. During that adventure they find out the Orcs been trading with a Morfor Cof a evil high priest who is a petty tyrant of several villages over the mountains. They bagged one of Cof's agents in the warrens of the Vile Rune and learned that it looks like their own wizards and clerics are of comparable power. (From the descriptions of the spells he can cast).

Looking for a home base to call their own they decide to liberate the villages and make their own kingdom....

Or

They really want to bag Xatharot and the wizard PC had some information, collected several sessions back, that the location of a dragon killer sword could be found in a library in Tarantis across the Sea.

Or

They fee that the Orcs were way too tough despite their victory and that they should go back to City-State and take up an offer, they got it just before going south to deal with Xatharot, to sign as mercenaries aboard that ship ran by Captain Enderil to go slave raiding along the Pagan Coast. Then the wizard pipes up "Hey we could that and have Enderil drop by Tarantis so we can check out that library."

 

[Melan]

And of course, sometimes you just randomly happen upon a group of spectral undead kings summoning the great god **CTHON**. They haven't noticed you. Yet. As some of my players found out to my detriment, the proper answer to that is "RUN!", not "I stick around to see what happens."

 

[JustinA]

That's all fine and dandy, but on the other side of the coin do you let the tribe of giants clean the clocks of the 2nd level PCs because they've wandered into the wrong area in the overworld? I don't agree with the "PCs should know about it" thing as sufficient warning, should they know the CR of everything too?

I don't know the CRs of everything in the real world, but I still know it would be a bad idea to:

(a) Try to assassinate the President;
(b) Punch Evander Holyfield in the face;
(c) Wrestle with a grizzly bear; or
(d) Wander into an al-Qaeda training camp.

If I did any of those things, I would expect to be subdued, imprisoned, hurt, and/or killed. Similarly, IME, it's not that difficult to communicate to your players (and, by extension, their characters) when they're getting in over their heads. If they choose to try tackling it anyway, then they'll have to face the consequences.

Of course, those consequences may not always be what you expected.

One of the biggest conceits of D&D is that PCs meet challenges commensurate with their level.

That's only a conceit because you've made it a conceit. In fact, it's not even a conceit with solid support from the rulebooks (which suggests that a meaningful percentage of encounters should NOT be perfectly tailored to the PCs' level).

There's nothing wrong with constantly adjusting the challenge levels of everything the PCs face. (Although, personally, I agree with Monte Cook that a certain monotony sets in with this style of play: If the PCs are never allowed to face weaker opponents, they have less of a meaningful sense of having become more powerful themselves.) But claiming that it's the only way to play is just plain false.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[RFisher]

There are disadvantage to the MMORPG approach of zones. I found it better to mix it up like in real-life. The reason it is better because I found that player intuitively understand that type of arrangement when presented to them. They understand that somewhere in that Orc Warren there is a high level group that rules them. But this little outpost is likely just going to have a sergeant type and couple regular soldiers. The robed guys down by the riverside are going to be the apprentices or adept gathering herbs to use back at the coven.

It should be a multi-level thing. The world itself has areas of rough threat ratings. Within a zone there are divisions as well. & even when you get to the "atomic" level, there should still be a range of ELs possible in that area.

Just like you can have a low-level module, a mid-level module, & a high-level module. Within each module there are a range of site-based challenges from mooks to a "boss" or other climax, plus a (¡custom!) wandering monster table to mix things up a bit.

Or is a sandbox campaign a constant game of 'dip their toe in the water and see what bites it off'..?

It can be.

But I tend to not enjoy it always being like that. I don't mind a little "metagaming" to try to keep the balance right.

Besides, I think a whole lot of this sort of "metagaming" can be considered an abstract simulation of myriad ways in which the characters would judge their own skill & the danger posed by enemies without the game descending into too much detail.

It's a balance: Some toe dipping, some figuring it out based on news/rumors/signs, & a bit of "metagaming" to round it out.

I also think a vital element of a sandbox game is a certain amount of uncertainty about these things. The DM has to be careful, because--since he serves as the senses of the PCs--it is trivial for him to mislead them. He has to figure out how to fairly leave uncertainty. But, it can be quite a bit of fun when a first level NPC (whom the players don't know is first level) intimidates a party of 10th level PCs. Or when an encounter with a seemingly innocuous monster becomes retreat and regroup. As long as the DM has been fair about it.

 

[robertsconley]

Of course, those consequences may not always be what you expected.

That is a great story. You did an excellent job presenting it. Thanks for sharing that.

Rob Conley

 

[robertsconley]

It should be a multi-level thing. The world itself has areas of rough threat ratings. Within a zone there are divisions as well. & even when you get to the "atomic" level, there should still be a range of ELs possible in that area.

Certainly you could do it that way. But it is not realistic and because it not realistic it is harder to play in sandbox mode. By harder I mean you have to do more as a GM to convey how things work in your world.

I am not saying anything wrong with it. There are advantages to that approach.

Just like you can have a low-level module, a mid-level module, & a high-level module. Within each module there are a range of site-based challenges from mooks to a "boss" or other climax, plus a (¡custom!) wandering monster table to mix things up a bit.

For sentient beings I use the natural social to organize my levels. A dungeon is low level because it is a guard outpost in a cavern with only regular warriors, sergeants and maybe a captain. A high level dungeon is high level because it is the primary seat of the Great Evil Lord Divolic.

For animals/monster I use a basic ecology layout where the top predators are fewer in number and more scattered than their prey. And each regions has a unique mix of creatures from low to high CR.

Doing this more realistically means that when a region is infested with a really high CR set of creatures it is not instant death. Sure if you pitch a tent and stay a week or two you will get hit and likely die. But if you happen to flee into the region and then leave it within a day or so. The chances are not likely that you are not going to encounter there really bad stuff. (Still a chance, there is always a chance) This is dependent on the size of the region.

For example I had players wander into Dearthwood the forest supposedly infested with the dreaded Orcs. For newcomers, they first go "Gee I wonder what the big deal this is a piece of cake." Then within two days or so they will encounter a hunting pary and usually vanquish it. "Oh this is still a piece of cake." Then a couple of days later they will invariably run into a scouting party. Then more scouts, and then raiding bands out looking for them. And it gets worse as the Orcs zero in on the PC's location. Finally, stumbling out of the woods the PCs go "I understand now."

 

[green slime]

Of course, those consequences may not always be what you expected.

Great story! It also illuminates just how much foreshadowing and preparation of story threads makes for a really great game.