Stats scaling past 18/19

[Jacob Marley]

A typical campaign would be sandbox, which means that there will be dangerous areas that are outside of the recommended CR ratings because the world does not revolve around the party. These are created semi-randomly and often before play starts.

Adventures feature encounters that are a mix of tailored (and CR appropriate) encounters and random elements, but mostly these will be CR appropriate. For example, it's a pretty good idea to drop a few spell scrolls into an adventure for a party that features a couple of wizards in it whether or not the treasure table rolls generate these of their own accord. Areas that aren't CR appropriate are considered 'optional' and not necessary to complete the adventure - so for example some additional assistance can be granted to earn some more experience and very likely a special item if the party wish to do it. These optional areas tend to be more dangerous, providing a larger risk, but they can be left without scuppering the adventure.

Being sandboxy allows the party to choose what they would like to tackle next. Dangerous areas let them pick the quick route (through say a dangerous swamp) or the long route (via the winding road) and so on.

So to summarise: The campaign as a whole is not tailored to the party, nor is the lie of the land or its denizens. Adventures are, but subquests (which provide better rewards) are put in as optional challenges. Randomisation is also used throughout to mix things up and attack predictability. This an approach that I've found works well.

Thanks. I suspected that this is what you would say.

When it comes to exploration, social interaction, and strategic decision making - would you say that you rely more on player action as opposed to skill/ability checks? For example, if you have a social situation where the fighter was interacting with a noble lord would the situation be resolved through role-playing, through making a Diplomacy check, or a combination Diplomacy check with a circumstance modifier for good role-playing?

The reason I am asking all these questions is to verify a suspicion I have long-held. In discussions over the years -- on this site and others -- I have noticed that there is a correlation between those posters who view the fighters & wizards as being situationally balanced and those posters who play sandbox-style campaigns. What peaks my curiosity about this is a) is it true, b) what are the elements that are creating this perception, and c) can I replicate the experience?

 

[Sekhmet]

Thanks. I suspected that this is what you would say.

When it comes to exploration, social interaction, and strategic decision making - would you say that you rely more on player action as opposed to skill/ability checks? For example, if you have a social situation where the fighter was interacting with a noble lord would the situation be resolved through role-playing, through making a Diplomacy check, or a combination Diplomacy check with a circumstance modifier for good role-playing?

The reason I am asking all these questions is to verify a suspicion I have long-held. In discussions over the years -- on this site and others -- I have noticed that there is a correlation between those posters who view the fighters & wizards as being situationally balanced and those posters who play sandbox-style campaigns. What peaks my curiosity about this is a) is it true, b) what are the elements that are creating this perception, and c) can I replicate the experience?

I've noticed that with DMs who use roleplay instead of, or in addition to, skill checks create a world where fighters are less pigeonholed into combat only roles, and where skill monkies and casters lose some of their exceptional versatility.
Likewise, in personally tailored campaigns, DMs often consider the weakest members of the party when creating encounters, and try to play to their strengths to include them.

 

[kingius]

Thanks. I suspected that this is what you would say.

When it comes to exploration, social interaction, and strategic decision making - would you say that you rely more on player action as opposed to skill/ability checks? For example, if you have a social situation where the fighter was interacting with a noble lord would the situation be resolved through role-playing, through making a Diplomacy check, or a combination Diplomacy check with a circumstance modifier for good role-playing?

The reason I am asking all these questions is to verify a suspicion I have long-held. In discussions over the years -- on this site and others -- I have noticed that there is a correlation between those posters who view the fighters & wizards as being situationally balanced and those posters who play sandbox-style campaigns. What peaks my curiosity about this is a) is it true, b) what are the elements that are creating this perception, and c) can I replicate the experience?

Yes, I use a mix of both. A player should be rewarded for using common sense. For example, if a player says, I tap the floor in front of me as I walk, I will definitely have them hear the hollow nature of the pit trap before them. Will they recognise that the change in sound means a pit? Hopefully. Of course, the easy option is to roll for searching traps and get a success, but in my view, there should always be more than one way of doing anything within the game system because it's more fun that way for everyone at the table.

Note that my example is equally applicable to secret door finding. This means that adding skill points is a sort of shortcut to solving these kinds of problems. Even then, I tend to make the roll and describe the results, thereby letting the players interpret them and experiment. A search for secret doors might lead to one definitely being found ... or it might lead to a strange indentation in a wall that /might/ be a secret door and might not be. If it is, what opens it?

Note that this is applicable to old school D&D, with its thief class, as it is to 3.5, with its skill system.

I know you asked about diplomacy so here's the answer on that one: it's up front roleplaying with tricky bits resolved by skill checks. If an NPC doesn't agree, doesn't want to do what the player wants, then a skill check might be enough to swing them around. But that happens /after/ normal means have been tried (i.e. roleplaying). If the roll fails... the conversation doesn't just carry on in the same vain as before but actually goes against the player. That makes it a risk, which is also a bit more fun.

Hope that helps with your theory in some way.