Why the World Exists

[Imaro]

What I am assuming? I mean, other than 'DM's take various steps to make the game playable'.

Certainly, let's look at your actual post though, shall we...

Sure it does, in the form of relatively reliable information about the challenges around them. The information that makes informed choices/'smart play' possible. This is all but a requirement of the game part of the game.

The problem with this assumption is that it relies on there to always be
1. Information available before encountering the challenge.
2. Said information to be reliable once it is made available.

Yet neither of these is guaranteed. You see I play in mostly S&S themed games where there aren't hordes of monsters running about, monsters in this world are really monsters. A peasant could easily describe a kobold as a scaly imp with razor fangs and the heads of a dragon... especially if they were scared when they saw it. Now it is up to the PC's whether to believe said information, talk to others or do a little recon themselves and find out what's lurking in the caves.

Is this fair?? Not sure but it makes the game more interesting and enthralling for my players... I guess you could say more playable.

I've said this before, haven't I?

Yes, and yet you can't get past your own assumptions about how others play.

In a truly unfair world, one that merely 'was what it was', such reliable information wouldn't necessarily exist. PC's could stumble into certain death despite their best and most diligent efforts, occasionally random, inescapable dooms would sweep, tsunami-like, across these dangerous worlds --be they in the form of a horde of undead, rampaging giants, an elder wyrm having a bad day and an uncharacteristic fit of pique, or even an actually tsunamis, if the PC's are on the coast.

And all it takes is a bad roll or two for a totally random death to occur anyway, I fail to see your point here. Don't the dice create the randomness factor of the game when the PC's react to any of the situations listed above? Can't they still die a totally random death instead of being remembered a hero... or are you assuming that there is some protection against the roll of the dice or even death in all games.

The setting is neccessarily contrived, to a certain extent, in order to make playing the game possible. It's not fair in that it's skewed slightly towards the players.

Your idea of "playing the game" may not be other people's idea of "playing the game". So have we now reached the point where "skewed slightly towards the players" and "only encountering level-appropriate challenges" are one and the same... because that's what the discussion was originally about.

 

[LostSoul]

You don't stock the 1st level of the dungeon with a random assortment of every creature from the MM. You put the easiest monsters there, with some outliers. Those outliers (maybe a wraith or something; thinking 1E here) you'd probably take some time so that observant players, through smart play, could realize there's something dangerous there.

Then again, you'll probably want to put something dangerous in the wandering monster table, just so that players know that hanging around in the dungeon too long will get them killed.

This isn't so different from having the DM craft the difficulty of the encounter based on the PC's levels.


I think where the big difference lies is that, in one mode of play, the players are choosing the encounter difficulties ("There's a wraith in there; let's stock up on some holy water and see if we can't kill it"), and in the other the DM is ("I'll put a wraith in here now that the PCs are 4th level").

(The style of game where the players pick the difficulty - let's call it strategic - is what I'm trying to shoot for in my 4E game now that we've finished off a couple modules. We'll see how it works.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem with this assumption is that it relies on there to always be
1. Information available before encountering the challenge.
2. Said information to be reliable once it is made available.

Would you create a scenario where the PCs cannot find a clue that they are entering a certain death trap unless they enter it and die in it?

 

[Imaro]

Would you create a scenario where the PCs cannot find a clue that they are entering a certain death trap unless they enter it and die in it?

First... what is a "certain death trap?" The only way I can even fathom a situation where there is zero probability of anything but dying is I as DM fiat'ing it into that. Which is not a "here is how the world is" game either. So first please define this as there have been numerous examples of dealing with a higher CR/XP level encounter... or am I just saying auto-no to anything the PC's think up? I don't think that's how a sandbox works.

EDIT: Honestly with raise dead and resurrection magic... why not, That could be an interesting storyline, the PC's don't know what to expect until they face it, but have made precautions to have themselves brought back if it does kill them. I mean in D&D 4e after a certain level death is a minor irritant at best.

 

[Celebrim]

My argument is really that there isn't that big a difference between sandbox games and non-sandbox games.

I don't agree with that at all. I find non-sandbox games enjoyable. I don't disapprove of that style of play, and have even run sessions with a non-sandbox approach where I put the characters on a railroad for the purposes of achieving some high concept or story event.

But the two games are extremely different.

To begin with, let's just look at the evidence of this thread. On the one side, one group is saying that dragons should be placed far far away (or not at all) until such time that the characters are ready to face them. On the other side, you have people like me saying, "You know I think it would be cool if an angry Elder Wyrm was the starting point of a low level campaign." One the one hand you have people saying, "I think a stedding of hill giants should be located in a far away remote place." And on the other hand, you have people like me who have started play with a stedding of hill giants located basically an overnight journey away. In short, there is a very different style of game world being created by the two different groups based on how they tend to approach design.

Based on my own experience both as a DM and a player, sandbox play is more conducive to having RP be the focus of the game, because right from the start you immediately throw out the assumption that every single encounter can probably be overcome by combat. In non-sandbox play, like say an adventure path, the purpose of monsters in the game is to be combat obstacles for the PC's. Players raised in non-sandbox play are going to see everything ugly as something to fight, and will probably lay ambushes and roll initiative versus everything despite the DM's intentions - forcing the DM to go to cut scenes to try to keep PC's on the railroad. Players raised in the sandbox are going to be much much more likely to parley with anything ugly to see if they can get it to agree to leave them alone, because they are never really sure whether they can handle anything that they meet.

Based on my own experience as a DM and a player, non-sandbox high level plays often sucks. It's one thing to be dragged down the railroad through tricks and traps and combat encounters when your player doesn't yet really have a stake in the game world, and combat is simple, and when you aren't yet emotionally invested in the character, and when you can always roll up a new one. It's quite another thing to be dragged through a whole series of 'level appropriate encounters' when combat becomes a bloody complicated series of spell explosions and itterative attacks, with characters that you are emotionally invested in, who already have things that they care about and ideas of their own, and when creating a new character can take hours. Equally, its annoying as you level up to notice that you are making no progress because every freaking thing you meet has leveled up at the same time. The more that happens, the more you wonder, "Why in Hades do we keep using bigger numbers and making the math more complicated, just so we can keep playing in the same damn we played when we were 1st or 3rd level?" I mean, if the world is filled with level appropriate encounters, for crying out loud, forget about the damn leveling up process, use the same stats for everything, and use flavor to tell it apart.

 

[monboesen]

Yes, and yet you can't get past your own assumptions about how others play.

I have to say that to me the tone of your posts suggests that he is not the only one who falls into this trap.




In my games characters rarely die and generally face encounters they will be able to defeat. For some time I have felt that they got through fights pretty easily and without taking much damage. That was my perception as the DM.

I made a comment about this after a game night and was met by blank disbelieving stares. Turns out that the players perceptions was just the opposite. They feel that every fight is damn hard and that they often think its a lost cause at some point during the fight.

Point being. Maybe there doesn't really have to be actual level inappropiate encounters and lots of character death: It is possible to instill the perception of danger and consequence in players without it. That being said few of my players are rules savy and that definately contributes to the perception of danger.


Anyhow. I would be interested in knowing how often characters die in your sandbox games. So Imaro, Raven Crowking, Reynard and others. How many characters die in your games? And how many die due to level inappropiate encounters?

 

[The Shaman]

I don't knopw any GMs that actively seek to inundate the player characters with insurmountable challenges and unsurvivable encounters that have players.

In my experience the internal logic of the game-world itself acts as a limiting factor on the number of monstrous-things-that-can-kill-you-before-breakfast.

To use an example from another game, pirates exist in my corner of Traveller's Third Imperium, but they are not evenly distributed among star systems The frequency of pirate encounters increases with distance from trade routes, naval bases, and main worlds. The plausibility and verisimilitude of the setting quickly breaks down if this isn't the case.

 

[Imaro]

I have to say that to me the tone of your posts suggests that he is not the only one who falls into this trap.

Yeah, because I'm the one who keeps claiming there's no difference between sandbox and tailored campaigns?? And telling the sandbox DM's really what you think you're doing... you aren't really doing.

 

[Mallus]

Yeah, because I'm the one who keeps claiming there's no difference between sandbox and tailored campaigns??

Find me where I said there was no difference.

I seem to recall saying the difference isn't as great as some people made it out to be, particularly when you look at outcomes --ie, most PC's tend to get into/seek out level-appropriate encounters if they have the choice-- and I conceded that the sandbox approach does afford players greater choice.

 

[Mallus]

In my experience the internal logic of the game-world itself acts as a limiting factor on the number of monstrous-things-that-can-kill-you-before-breakfast.

What internal logic prevents a great big dragon from flying a hundred miles and burning the PC's starting hamlet to the ground --and them along with it-- in a fit of pique,oOther than the fact the internal logic of the setting is ultimately in the service of creating a playable game?