The Sandbox And The Grind

[AllisterH]

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...

Er, what in the world are you talking about?

re: The Grind

I think the OP is not understanding Stalker's post or the "complaint" about the grind. Just like 3e, it's possible for a party to overcome an encounter that is higher than their level.

In the DMG this overlimit is level +4 (although a seriously well-oiled team can make it level +5.). Certain types of encounters and monsters tend to drag if the DM isn't careful (A solo at level +4 will take longer than 5 individual level +4 monsters)

After which, you're looking at TPK. This is exactly like 3e in that respect. The difference between 3e and 4e is that in 4e, unless you're talking an entire tier (10 levels), the monster is unlikely to kill the entire party in the 1st 2 rounds. You probably have to use a level difference of 15 to get that effect.

As others have stated, I would think the 4E version would be better for sandbox play since there's a window of opportunity for the PCs to realize "oh crap we're in trouble" and then book it out of Dodge Cty...

 

[Mark]

Are some people claiming that creating a sandbox world is meant to have the DM regularly level-adjusting the entire world? My understanding has always been that you either create adventures for PCs based on their level or you create a world with fairly clear signs that certain areas are more dangerous than others, allowing the players to decide for themselves the level of risk they feel they can handle. If you regularly level-adjust the world, you are actually doing the former but just more of it.

 

[Cadfan]

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...

4e makes no particular claim as to how sandbox games should or should not work. I am not clear on where you got this idea.

4e does provide an actually functional system for estimating the threat level of an encounter, which is nice. This is not the same as somehow stopping you from feeding your level 2 PCs to Smaug.

 

[Mark]

(snip)

You seem to be misunderstanding the point. I believe that the assertion is that 4E does not seem to mesh well with games that do not level-adjust, regardless of what people use as vocabulary. Further up thread, some are contending that if one experiences elongated combats (that many find boring), then the level-adjusting has not been done well and the combat might be leading to character death(s).

 

[Kask]

4e makes no particular claim as to how sandbox games should or should not work.

No version does. 4.0 does have auto encounter adjustments based on the power level of PCs that don't mesh with the concept though.

 

[Cadfan]

No version does. 4.0 does have auto encounter adjustments based on the power level of PCs that don't mesh with the concept though.

No, it doesn't.

How could it?

 

[nightwyrm]

No version does. 4.0 does have auto encounter adjustments based on the power level of PCs that don't mesh with the concept though.

There is no auto adjustment system. There is a scale that allows the DM to predict how well his PCs are going to do against particular groups of monsters. It's completely up to the DM what he puts in front of his PCs and how he modifies what he puts in, just like every single previous edition. You can have nothing but lv 30 encounters outside of town, even if your PCs are still lv 1s. Just like you can put only CR 20s in front of your lv 1 party in 3.5.

 

[CapnZapp]

Remember folks; this isn't the "what is a sandbox?" thread.

This is the "when my players stumble into high-level territory, how do I 'punish' them with a hard exciting fight and not 'reward' them with a frustrating grindy fight?" thread.

And the "Given the prodigious amounts of hp, surges and other stuff 4E PCs and NPCs possess, is the above even possible?" thread.

And the "If it isn't, what corrective action - like the two suggestions floated in post #2 - do I as the DM need to take?" thread!

 

[Cadfan]

Remember folks; this isn't the "what is a sandbox?" thread.

This is the "when my players stumble into high-level territory, how do I 'punish' them with a hard exciting fight and not 'reward' them with a frustrating grindy fight?" thread.

And the "Given the prodigious amounts of hp, surges and other stuff 4E PCs and NPCs possess, is the above even possible?" thread.

And the "If it isn't, what corrective action - like the two suggestions floated in post #2 - do I as the DM need to take?" thread!

Right, the issue is just that some people believe very strongly that you don't "punish" the PCs in a sandbox game with an "exciting" fight because they wandered into dangerous territory.

You do one of two things:

1. If you are a nice DM, you give them the opportunity to run the heck away. If you do this, you will not need to worry about frustrating grinds.

2. If you are not a nice DM, you kill the characters with an overpowered fight they cannot win, thereby teaching them a lesson in planning ahead and anticipating dangers, so that their next characters won't blunder into these situations.

In short, either version of sandbox theory tells you that you don't actually have a problem. One theory involves running away from unpleasant fights, the other involves embracing them as a stick in a carrot/stick combination.

Your issue seems to be that you want to make sure that there are areas that are more or less powerful, but you don't actually want to pick either of those two options. In that case, you should go with Umbran's idea and just adjust the difficulty of the regions on the fly. Some people do not view that as a true sandbox, but it does provide open ended gaming and a satisfying experience.

 

[Mark]

Remember folks; this isn't the "what is a sandbox?" thread.

This is the "when my players stumble into high-level territory, how do I 'punish' them with a hard exciting fight and not 'reward' them with a frustrating grindy fight?" thread.

And the "Given the prodigious amounts of hp, surges and other stuff 4E PCs and NPCs possess, is the above even possible?" thread.

And the "If it isn't, what corrective action - like the two suggestions floated in post #2 - do I as the DM need to take?" thread!

Couldn't just fit that all in the title, eh?


I have to ask, are you forced to give them some kind of fight at all? It is the nature of campaigns in worlds that do not level-adjust that running away is not only an option but fairly, regularly the preferred option. Do your players know to or ever run away?


*edit* Also, be careful not to get stuck in mischaracterized binary view of how to DM a non-level-adjusting game. It misrepresents the non-linear nature that such an approach to DMing truly embraces.