The Sandbox And The Grind

[Remathilis]

There is also this rule we like to call "level-adjusting"

The 4e DMG makes it pretty easy to add or remove levels from a monster. If the DM is concerned with grindy monsters, lower the level of the foe but don't change the appearance.

For example, the PCs stumble into a Shadar-kai camp. The first few combats might be against de-leveled shadar-kai warriors, but as the PCs enter deeper into the camp, the levels raise to the MM defaults (and perhaps higher) making each fight a little harder, more taxing, and dangerous. To the PCs, it just feels like the shadar-kai are wearing them down and improving their tactics. Eventually, the PCs reach the turning point; slog on through longer (and perhaps grindier) fights or back off? The DM has accomplished a sandbox feel while keeping combat un-grindy.

The trick is to divorce the "monster X is ALWAYS Y powerful" notion ground into us. Trolls don't all have 7 HD. Goblins aren't always 7 hp monsters, and today's boss battle (ogre) is tomorrow's minion. While this can be taken too far (I don't there is a level 1 Orcus running around, and dragon do grow in size as they tier up) it can create a feeling of "in those mountains there are giants" without forcing your PCs to face level 9 monsters the minute they step into the giant "zone".

 

[underthumb]

No, that's the point of a Railroad campaign. In a "sandbox" campaign you encounter what actually resides where you take your PC.

I think you're misunderstanding part of Cadfan's point. I think his use of the term "wrong direction" does not mean "wrong relative to what the GM wanted" but "wrong" in terms of the PC's likely ability to survive the encounter.

In other words, he's saying what you're saying: that if the PCs go walking into a dangerous situation, that's exactly what they get, with no allowances for going easy. Or at least that's the general goal.

Anyhow, you might want to check out some past threads on sandboxing for different philosophical takes. I think Cadfan's perspective on sandboxing is well thought out--you can read a summary here.

 

[pawsplay]

Anyway, shouldn't players in a sandbox game run away from much more powerful beings?

Yes, or die with their boots of elvenkind on.

 

[Kask]

Yes, or die with their boots of elvenkind on.

 

[Imaro]

Anyway, shouldn't players in a sandbox game run away from much more powerful beings? Nothing says that every encounter must be winnable. Encounters probably shouldn't be auto-TPKs but after a round or two the players might realize that retreat is the soundest tactical option. I've always hated worlds that scale perfectly along with the players as they level (this is different from the players traveling to new, more dangerous locations. I am thinking about what occurs in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for example).

Or... the PC's could think outside the box to win the encounter. Here's an example using the 4e rules. Now in 4e at 0 hit points you get to decide whether an enemy is dead or not...right? So the next time you fight a Dire Bear or a Griffon or even a couple Drakes, why not capture it/them... starve it/them and then let it/them loose on that next enemy whose to strong for you so that it whittles away it's hit points enough for you to kill it, and/or distract it long enough for you to steal the treasure or whatever..

Now some DM's may claim that's "Not Fair" but then I would argue they aren't good sandbox DM's. It's clever is what it is and should reap the PC's rewards they may not have been able to achieve by running in and pounding on their enemies. This (clever play), not "hur, hur I'm gonna screw my players..." is what IMO epitomizes sandboox play.

 

[Umbran]

The concept of a sandbox game is having a living dynamic world in which the heroes enter. What they do and where they go is very much up to them.

Correct.

If they choose to ignore the warnings and venture out in Dangerous Terrain™, they will encounter high level opponents. Not because I the GM is out to spite them, but because this is the very definition of a sandbox game: that there are other things than level-appropriate fights out there, so be careful...

Incorrect. At least, as I understand the term.

"Sandbox" games are characterized by the lack of linear plot. The game objectives can be achieved through many paths, or simply ignored. The PCs can go where they please, and the GM does not try to force the issue.

However, the presence of things other than level-appropriate fights is not characteristic of sandbox games. They are characteristic of "status quo" games - where the world exists despite what the PCs may choose to do, and does not change simply for their benefit.

Sandbox can be run in status quo mode, or in level-appropriate mode. You can allow the PCs to go where they want, and they can find level-appropriate stuff there, or they can find level-inappropriate stuff there.

 

[Kask]

However, the presence of things other than level-appropriate fights is not characteristic of sandbox games.

Actually, it is. From the very 1st descriptions of a campaign world, Greyhawk.
Sandbox RPGs are kin to world simulations, and attempt to present a seamless world in which to play.

So, yes. You create a world, Smaug lives in mountain X. If a 1st level party chooses to go there they will meet him. That's pretty much it, sandboxing.

 

[Remathilis]

Actually, it is. From the very 1st descriptions of a campaign world, Greyhawk.
Sandbox RPGs are kin to world simulations, and attempt to present a seamless world in which to play.

So, yes. You create a world, Smaug lives in mountain X. If a 1st level party chooses to go there they will meet him. That's pretty much it, sandboxing.

Isn't the inherent question: what level/power is Smaug when the PCs meet him and when is that determined?

One way to do it is to state "a powerful dragon lives in mountain X." and leave it at that. How powerful? In relation to a commoner, a wyrmling is powerful. A great wyrm is powerful to epic demigod PCs. You leave it vague so that whenever the PCs decide to investigate Smaug, he will be suitable powerful for them to face. That doesn't change the fact that "a powerful dragon" is in them there hills. Only how powerful.

The other is to decide at the time of world-building Smaug is a ancient red dragon (with stats appropriate) and remains so no matter at what point the PCs meet him. A first level PC might sneak in, see the dragon, and then run (or more likely be noticed by the dragon's blindsense and barbecued by his breath weapon before he could run).

Tailored vs. Status Quo. Both can handle sandboxes (here is a map. X is here, Y is there, and Z hides over there) but one is balanced so that the PCs can explore it and face level appropriate challenges and treasure, the other is a game of DM-may-I. ("DM, may I explore the lost city of Wyrmgate?" "You may, but its full of EL +9 monsters." "Thank you. I'll go hunt orcs in the lowlands instead.")

 

[Imaro]

Tailored vs. Status Quo. Both can handle sandboxes (here is a map. X is here, Y is there, and Z hides over there) but one is balanced so that the PCs can explore it and face level appropriate challenges and treasure, the other is a game of DM-may-I. ("DM, may I explore the lost city of Wyrmgate?" "You may, but its full of EL +9 monsters." "Thank you. I'll go hunt orcs in the lowlands instead.")

DM-may-I... what? Or are you now trying to imply that one of the characteristics of sandbox play is an inability to explore whatever you want in the gameworld (or that you only can if it's level appropriate)... Perhaps this is hyperbole against a style you don't appreciate or like, but it doesn't even make sense. See my suggestion above about thinking out of the box, and maybe you'll realize why your comment here makes no sense.

 

[Kask]

Isn't the inherent question: what level/power is Smaug when the PCs meet him and when is that determined?

Well, when the DM creates the campaign world, he has created & placed the dragon. Dragons get more powerful as they age, so depending on when the PCs go there, he'll be what level is logical and consistent with the time that has passed.

In a sand box campaign, that's how it is determined... Now from what I understand, 4.0 uses something akin to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
That isn't how sandboxing works...