The Sandbox And The Grind

[LostSoul]

Good points, darjr.

 

[rounser]

Maybe. I think there are two types of sandbox games: simulationist, where the goal is to explore the world; and gamist, where the goal is to challenge the players.

Please don't bring GNS into this thread. It doesn't apply here, it makes people think towards unmoderated extremes, and it has no useful definition that anyone agrees on.

 

[Ariosto]

In old-style D&D, the trend is that as characters and monsters get more hit points, they also score hits more often. Monster armor class mostly stays in the same range (that of the literal classes of armor) until you get into major league demons and the like. PCs and NPCs of course tend to acquire magical kit, but offense is a bit more common than defense (magical swords alone appearing more often than armor and shields in the original set) -- and more significant with damage bonuses (which apply more often in AD&D). Saving throws are more often successful, but spells also generally become more powerful (although sleep -- no save! -- is a real whammy versus low-level foes) and, tellingly, more numerous.

Also, it's pretty common for a monster big enough to get seriously outnumbered in melee to have a good chance of killing at least one or two lower-level characters before it goes down. Blast-em spells can change that, but they're always a finite resource (how significantly, of course, depends on situation).

 

[Umbran]

How many fights did Lewis & Clark have on their lengthy expedition? One, I think. Most real-world explorers have none.

Yes, but most of their explorations were not terribly memorable, either.

"Day 245 - slogged through a swamp. Lost another boot in the muck. Clark now has intestinal distress from eating a bad frog. More tomorrow."

There is the inevitable dramatic necessity for focusing on the dramatic points of the exploration. And those are times of stress. And, in a sandbox, you're not supposed to structure the player's experience too much - they're supposed to find their own way through the challenges. They're often going to choose violence, seeing as much of the neat and cool tools stuff the game puts at their disposal (in any edition) are about how they do violence.

The frequency of violence in a sandbox game is not entirely in the GM's hands, so tools to deal with that are kind of called for.

 

[rounser]

They're often going to choose violence, seeing as much of the neat and cool tools stuff the game puts at their disposal (in any edition) are about how they do violence.

Clark and Lewis also didn't have to contend with a wilderness bristling with monsters ready and willing to eat travellers, for that matter.

The nature of the D&D milieu calls for semi-regular violence in the course of exploration in a way that the real world cannot really match, except perhaps in travel through enemy territory in a war zone.

 

[Harlekin]

Yes, but most of their explorations were not terribly memorable, either.

"Day 245 - slogged through a swamp. Lost another boot in the muck. Clark now has intestinal distress from eating a bad frog. More tomorrow."

There is the inevitable dramatic necessity for focusing on the dramatic points of the exploration. And those are times of stress. And, in a sandbox, you're not supposed to structure the player's experience too much - they're supposed to find their own way through the challenges. They're often going to choose violence, seeing as much of the neat and cool tools stuff the game puts at their disposal (in any edition) are about how they do violence.

The frequency of violence in a sandbox game is not entirely in the GM's hands, so tools to deal with that are kind of called for.

I'ld feel, the way to do an exploration-based game in 4th is to handle the exploration of each hex as a skill challenge where failure results in a combat encounter. This models the fact that when exploring you actually try to avoid meaningless fights and makes it less of a DM's call or random event if such fights occur.

 

[rounser]

the way to do an exploration-based game in 4th is to handle the exploration of each hex as a skill challenge where failure results in a combat encounter. This models the fact that when exploring you actually try to avoid meaningless fights and makes it less of a DM's call or random event if such fights occur.

I think there's a fundamental disconnect in your understanding of the nature of a wilderness exploration game, here. In a good exploration campaign, combats are not meaningless like a random encounter table, but more a meaningful part of the setting, like a lair of ankhegs or patrolling giant ants. Perhaps if you thought of the wilderness as a big dungeon, and the hexes as dungeon rooms to be populated it might help. The wilderness is only meaningless if you make it that way.

 

[Harlekin]

I think there's a fundamental disconnect in your understanding of the nature of a wilderness exploration game, here. In a good exploration campaign, combats are not meaningless like a random encounter table, but more a meaningful part of the setting, like a lair of ankhegs or patrolling giant ants. Perhaps if you thought of the wilderness as a big dungeon, and the hexes as dungeon rooms to be populated it might help. The wilderness is only meaningless if you make it that way.

I actually assumed that the critters have a reason to be in the hex they are in. However, that does not mean that the PCs have a reason to fight them. If all the PCs are trying to do is to explore an area, then they are better of if they manage to detect the ankheg nest before stumbling into it and just scout the location of the nest, mark it on their map and move on.

 

[Taralan]

Originally Posted by LostSoul
1. How do you reduce the grind for low-level encounter? The outcome is not in doubt (unless you use needlefang drake swarms), but it will take a while to play out.

This is a very good question. I think one solution would be to use the inherent "quantum uncertainty" of monsters of 4e in your favor here. If an encounter is say more than 3 or 4 levels below the party's level, why not do a quick conversion on the spot : Solo becomes Elite, Elites become regular monsters, Regulars become minions (or perhaps half HP if there was no elite or solo in the encounter). This can be done on the spot with no additional preparation and would be transparent for the players....

What do you think ?

 

[Ariosto]

Looking in the 4E Monster Manual, I see that a young green dragon has a 50% chance to hit a peer with a claw, and takes on average 30 or 31 such hits to fell it. An elder green dragon versus its peer has the same 50% chance, but takes on average 72 or 73 hits. An ancient one takes 80-81 hits, with that same 50% chance.

Breath weapon would be more effective, but the elder's still does only twice the young one's damage even though the elder has more than triple the hit points.

(Breath weapons do shockingly little damage relative to HP, versus the old days when they made VERY short work of the unlucky.)

If this trend is representative, it looks as if 4E is designed for long fights among closely matched opponents, only getting longer as levels increase.

I understand that a party massing superior numbers could wear down a higher-level foe, but that such a fight could be a notable "grind" because so many of the lower-level attacks would miss. Beyond a certain point, the higher-level foe would hit so much more frequently as to turn the tables, but it could still be a grind because of a low rate of damage relative to HP.

Is the difference in circumstances not clear early enough to induce the losing side to flee before the battle becomes terribly protracted?