Mercurius
Legend
I just had a thought (yes, really). One of the things I've always found a bit irking about D&D is the vast difference in power between low and high levels. It neither reflects anything resembling the Real World, nor does it reflect most literary worlds where David often beats Goliath; in D&D this just could not happen; in a gladiator arena, a 1st level character could never beat a 10th level character, especially in earlier editions.
Now 4E balanced this out a bit by making the starting power level much higher than in previous editions. A 1st level character in 4E seems closer to a 3rd-5th level character in earlier editions; the opposite holds for higher levels--epic characters in 4E just don't seem as powerful as they use to, especially spellcasters (remember how awesomely powerful a 25th level archmage used to be?). You could also say a "min-maxed" 1st level character could possibly beat a low-ability scored 5th level character, which is a bit more realistic to life and fantasy media. But the difference between low levels and high levels is still quite immense (not necessarily a bad thing, it just is what it is).
While reading Reynard's excellent article Seven Sandbox Essentials I came to his 4th point, which is "No Scaling." It basically boils down to this quote: "A scaling setting breaks verisimilitude and suggests to the players that whatever growth they have is irrelevant."
While I can see his point, it came to me that scaling actually increases plausibilityand decreases the kind of unbalanced power curve I mentioned above. Certainly even in a scaled setting there are low level characters and high level characters dining in the same tavern or adventuring in the same mega-dungeon. But they are separated, in a sense, by an optical illusion created by the DM, almost as if they are in slightly different dimensions (or "branes", if you will). In the mega-dungeon it is a bit more literal: the low-level characters adventure in the shallow (numerically low) levels of the dungeon, the high-level characters in the deep (numerically high) levels.
In past editions this was rather artificial in that (in the scaled setting) you'd never run into drow on level one or aboleth on level three; now, with the 4E scaling rules and the usefulness of Monster Builder, you can easily run into a group of low-level drow, perhaps a carousing group of cocky adolescents; a low(ish) level aboleth could be a very young one who left the aboleth civilization to become a crime boss underneath a city.
Now on one hand you might say, "OK, how does this decrease the power curve? All it does is make it so all monsters exist on the same curve as PCs, from low to high level, sort of like dragons." That is true. But it also creates an illusion. On one hand it says "No matter what level you are at you will be challenged." That's the obvious purpose. A secondary and subtle purpose, one that was perhaps not even intended, is that it lessens power growth a bit; by scaling encounters at least somewhat to the players, it makes it so that they never get too far ahead of (or behind) their environment. It is always a challenge and it is becoming more challenging, but they are also developing to meet those challenges.
To put it another way, if you don't scale then the characters are interacting with a static environment: they are dynamic in that they are leveling up, but the setting just is what it is. In one lair you might face goblins, in the other a conference of demon lords planning an invasion. But the environment is static in relation to the PCs--it does not change to suit them, they have to change to suit it. The downside of a non-scaling setting is that eventually the challenges start running out, or at least the setting becomes "clogged" with lower level scenarios and encounter sites. Been there, done that. Eventually the PCs become bored super-heroes and have to move on. So either the DM has to increase the setting's dynamism or move the PCs to a different setting; both are kinds of subtle scalings and thus invalidate the "No Scaling" rule of the sandbox.
In the scaling setting both the PCs and environment are dynamic. The PCs develop (level-up), but they also always face LACs ("level-appropriate challenges"), thus the level of dynamism is neutralized a bit (maybe too much in the rules-as-written). The sandboxing view as espoused by Reynard says that this destroys verisimilitude and weakens a sense of growth for the characters. Why? Because the environment is dynamic; there is little for the PCs to match themselves up against--it is like jogging on a sandy beach or, in extreme cases, a treadmill; there is too much give.
I would suggest that, especially for the 4E sandbox, scaling should be moderated, that a middle ground between no scaling and complete scaling is optimal (although of course it depends upon the DM, the players, and the specific context, but I'm speaking in generals terms). The quality of resistance and solid ground that a non-scaling setting provides is crucial for the kind of verisimilitude and sense of freedom that really makes a sandbox setting sing. However, some degree of scaling can really equalize the characters so that they never out-pace their setting, and the curve between low and high levels is at least perceptibly less if not actually.
I've already gone on too long. Comments? Queries? Gripes?
Now 4E balanced this out a bit by making the starting power level much higher than in previous editions. A 1st level character in 4E seems closer to a 3rd-5th level character in earlier editions; the opposite holds for higher levels--epic characters in 4E just don't seem as powerful as they use to, especially spellcasters (remember how awesomely powerful a 25th level archmage used to be?). You could also say a "min-maxed" 1st level character could possibly beat a low-ability scored 5th level character, which is a bit more realistic to life and fantasy media. But the difference between low levels and high levels is still quite immense (not necessarily a bad thing, it just is what it is).
While reading Reynard's excellent article Seven Sandbox Essentials I came to his 4th point, which is "No Scaling." It basically boils down to this quote: "A scaling setting breaks verisimilitude and suggests to the players that whatever growth they have is irrelevant."
While I can see his point, it came to me that scaling actually increases plausibilityand decreases the kind of unbalanced power curve I mentioned above. Certainly even in a scaled setting there are low level characters and high level characters dining in the same tavern or adventuring in the same mega-dungeon. But they are separated, in a sense, by an optical illusion created by the DM, almost as if they are in slightly different dimensions (or "branes", if you will). In the mega-dungeon it is a bit more literal: the low-level characters adventure in the shallow (numerically low) levels of the dungeon, the high-level characters in the deep (numerically high) levels.
In past editions this was rather artificial in that (in the scaled setting) you'd never run into drow on level one or aboleth on level three; now, with the 4E scaling rules and the usefulness of Monster Builder, you can easily run into a group of low-level drow, perhaps a carousing group of cocky adolescents; a low(ish) level aboleth could be a very young one who left the aboleth civilization to become a crime boss underneath a city.
Now on one hand you might say, "OK, how does this decrease the power curve? All it does is make it so all monsters exist on the same curve as PCs, from low to high level, sort of like dragons." That is true. But it also creates an illusion. On one hand it says "No matter what level you are at you will be challenged." That's the obvious purpose. A secondary and subtle purpose, one that was perhaps not even intended, is that it lessens power growth a bit; by scaling encounters at least somewhat to the players, it makes it so that they never get too far ahead of (or behind) their environment. It is always a challenge and it is becoming more challenging, but they are also developing to meet those challenges.
To put it another way, if you don't scale then the characters are interacting with a static environment: they are dynamic in that they are leveling up, but the setting just is what it is. In one lair you might face goblins, in the other a conference of demon lords planning an invasion. But the environment is static in relation to the PCs--it does not change to suit them, they have to change to suit it. The downside of a non-scaling setting is that eventually the challenges start running out, or at least the setting becomes "clogged" with lower level scenarios and encounter sites. Been there, done that. Eventually the PCs become bored super-heroes and have to move on. So either the DM has to increase the setting's dynamism or move the PCs to a different setting; both are kinds of subtle scalings and thus invalidate the "No Scaling" rule of the sandbox.
In the scaling setting both the PCs and environment are dynamic. The PCs develop (level-up), but they also always face LACs ("level-appropriate challenges"), thus the level of dynamism is neutralized a bit (maybe too much in the rules-as-written). The sandboxing view as espoused by Reynard says that this destroys verisimilitude and weakens a sense of growth for the characters. Why? Because the environment is dynamic; there is little for the PCs to match themselves up against--it is like jogging on a sandy beach or, in extreme cases, a treadmill; there is too much give.
I would suggest that, especially for the 4E sandbox, scaling should be moderated, that a middle ground between no scaling and complete scaling is optimal (although of course it depends upon the DM, the players, and the specific context, but I'm speaking in generals terms). The quality of resistance and solid ground that a non-scaling setting provides is crucial for the kind of verisimilitude and sense of freedom that really makes a sandbox setting sing. However, some degree of scaling can really equalize the characters so that they never out-pace their setting, and the curve between low and high levels is at least perceptibly less if not actually.
I've already gone on too long. Comments? Queries? Gripes?
