Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 4775834" data-attributes="member: 12731">Possible suggestions (I'm shooting from the hip here, so consider these half-baked at best):*** Redefining "a high-level encounter" as "an encounter with foes in dangerous numbers". The other way to increase the encounter level (besides having a higher-levelled foe) is having more foes. If your map tells you the area is controlled by Orcs, this might work well - the sheer number of foes makes a head-on assault fool-hardy (just what a good sandbox game should do). However, if the map indicates a Dragon, this is less satisfying - you can't very well add more Dragons, that'd be silly.*** Dynamically retooling monster damage output. (Yes, I know I'm sounding like a World of Warcraft engineer now). Have a Dragon on the sandbox map? Okay, so you always pitch a level-appropriate Dragon at the adventurers. BUT, you scale its damage output to match its real level. If the Dragon is supposed to be a few levels higher than the party, you perhaps increase its Damage by 50%. If the Dragon is eight levels higher, you perhaps increase its damage by 250%. I don't know what numbers work best (and probably this number needs to increase as the party level increases!); but enough that just a few rounds of combat gets the message across: time to flee or become shish kebab. Only if the adventurers meet it when they are of an appropriate level for the area will it retain its stats as given by Monstrous Manual. (I guess there's no reason to modify it further if the party is over-levelled for the area)This has the potential to be a real universal solution. Of course, it also has the potential to be a real PITA, adding a bucketload of math to an already math-intensive game. It might also break immersion, in that the Orcs deal less and less damage as you go up in level.--------------------------------------------------Okay so that was just two possible solutions that might not even work. Bringing them up mostly to exemplify what I believe is the problem. Your take on this would be highly appreciated! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Remember, our goal isn't to generate a hard but ultimately fair and winnable encounter. Sandboxing means shedding that DMG mindset! Our goal here is to generate grind-less encounters that are out of the adventurer's reach - without resorting to what many 4E defendants always propose here, namely not staging the fight at all. The purpose of a sandbox game, remember, is in some ways related to simulationism, and this is a core concept which is non-negotiable. The point is that by having to flee (or having to roll up new characters <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil    :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" />) you learn more about the sandbox environment and that not all warnings are to be ignored.The reason for my point also relates to this: can you stage a fight which the characters could have won - but didn't - without this being a massive grind (as it does have to burn through all the defenses, surges, and powers of the adventuring party)...? In other words, we're back to my original question - perhaps 4E isn't suitable for the sandbox game?</blockquote>

Verification