Why the World Exists

[Imaro]

What interests me is that actions it cannot take, such as raining unavoidable fiery destruction upon a helpless band of low-level PC's.

And why can't it? Simple, it would be bad for the campaign. The needs of the game outweigh the needs of the simulation.

No one said the dragon couldn't (though looking at the dragons in the 4e MM, even a 1st level character has a chance to survive most if not all of their breath weapons so it wouldn't necessarily be instant death. I mean you are taking into consideration the rules of the actual game...right?).

However if you're going to argue against simulationism or sandbox play (especially without consideration that for some people gameplay in an rpg sucks without simulationism), then it's important that the constraints of simulationism be addressed as well. In this context it is definitely important to establish the dragons, how, when, why and where and make sure it is consistent as it pertains to the gameworld, otherwise you are not ascribing to sandbox play or simulationism and are not being a fair referee or arbitrater (and this would be true no matter if your concerns were simulationism/narrativism or gamism).

If it makes no sense for the PC's to be attacked by the dragon it's not really simulationist or close to realistic...is it? It is DM Fiat which is not what we are discussing. In a simulationist game the PC's often have the chance, because their is consistency and logic, to make choices that rely on... in-gameworld logic, trickery, cunning, etc. to get out of situations that approaching with direct combat would probably result in their death. Is this good gameplay? Certainly for those who enjoy matching their wits and cunning against the gameworld as opposed to the mechanics. But it is not achieved in the same manner you seem to insinuate good gameplay takes place in (level-appropriate challenges)

And again I want to point out that your example avoids any application of the actual game rules. If the dragon rolls a series of ones on it's breath attack... the PC survives because the Dragon didn't kill him, so no the DM doesn't have the right to still make him die. If the PC's are in a cave to small and too far underground for the dragon to attack them, then no the DM cannot (if he is doing sandbox play) auto-rule the PC's still died.

 

[The Shaman]

Before you can begin to talk about the internal logic of a setting, you need to recognize that internal logic must ultimately be in service of an interesting story, which is to say a good, playable gaming experience.

I'm leery of equating a "good, playable gaming experience" with "in the service of an interesting story."

For me, there is no "story" until the "good, playable gaming experience" takes place. I don't have a story in mind when I create encounters. The only story is the recounting of those encounters after the game is played.

 

[Thasmodious]

Emphasis mine: Not exactly... if nothing else in the world changes or affects the goblins until the PC's arrive... then yes the Emo Caves will be full of lvl 2 goblin cutters when the PC's arrive (it will not be level-dependant though)... of course the longer it takes for them to visit the less likely this is as the campaign setting changes and evolves.

Ah, but that's my central question. First, I should have included "unless campaign events change this", but then it should also be obvious that I mean "unless campaign events change this".

The question is, why does "lvl 2" have to be written in stone?

I want the PCs to have the option of visiting the fabled Emo Caves. In my design notes, its obviously a low level challenge and hooks will get seeded into NPC interaction from the game start, maybe a PC even starts with a map to or of an area of the Emo Caves (especially, in a sandbox game, I like to start the game with the PCs knowing certain things about the setting).

Lvl 2 is just an arbitrary meta-game number. In my sandbox settings, its not part of the information for the locale. This is because, if it is part of the information, the Emo Caves become a very limited option for the PCs. Caves full of lvl 2 creatures will only be fun and challenging for a narrow range of PC levels (say 1-3), then it becomes a cakewalk and not worth their time for the entire life of the game (unless those completely random and in no way influenced by the PCs (or their levels) campaign situations arise, of course). This seems limiting, not freeing like the playstyle is meant to be. When I design the setting, the Emo Caves will be written about - story, hooks, history, and it will say "goblins live in these caves." But that can mean a lot of things. It could be nothing stronger than lvl 2 cutters and a hexer chieftan. It could include bugbears and hobgoblins and ogres or leveled goblins, with templates. There are a lot of game tools in several editions of the game to give a lot of range and variety to your monsters. I like to use those to keep the game interesting and the sandbox open. Unless the PCs have risen well beyond the challenges of the Emo Caves (epic levels, say), I have a lot of room to make the Caves exciting and challenging for as large a range of the game as possible.

In a sandbox game, the DM has a lot of freedom, too. He's the one designing the playground, after all. I think it is limiting and restrictive to divide the whole setting up into predetermined zones where the PCs have to figure out where they can go and where they can't. This would be like playing through the world of an MMO. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but that is exactly what games like WoW do. The PC can go anywhere, but the mechanics of everything in a certain zone is set in stone. If the PC goes there at lvl 4 or lvl 80, the monsters in it are still all lvl 55 and for most of the gameplay that locale is either near instant death or a cakewalk. This divides up the world too much for my taste, and its limiting, not freeing, which is the idea of a sandbox setting.

This is true of even bigger things like major NPC villains and monsters. The evil baron, why do I need to stat him before the PCs are set directly onto his path? He influences the setting, but what "level" does he really need to be to do this? I may know the level of some of his servants before then, the agents of his oppression, but there is no level that says "must be this high to be an evil baron". So a range of challenges is useful there as well. That marauding dragon? Well, clearly he can't be a baby wyrmling, but is there a reason I have to settle on his numbers long before the PCs believe they have risen in power enough to go after him? They can go visit him at 1st level if they want, aware that he is "big and burns whole villages and all who have come after him have died". It's their short-lived characters. But, if the PCs at 15th decide to go after him, maybe they have a chance, if they're very smart. They wouldn't if I had simply set in stone that he was a lvl 30 dragon. But, using an elder instead of an ancient, and shaving a couple levels, they'd have a shot, an incredibly difficult shot, but a shot nonetheless. Otoh, if he's been a terror for the whole campaign, but I set his stats in the beginning as a lvl 22 elder instead of the lvl 30 ancient, and the PCs go after him at 24th level, he will be very easy. The scourge of the campaign, a breeze, just because the PCs leveled enough.

In summary, I don't like to let the arbitrary numbers of the meta-game system limit and restrict my sandbox. I like to use the tools on hand to leave the setting as open as I possibly can, so the players really do have freedom of choice and fun.

 

[Imaro]

Ah, but that's my central question. First, I should have included "unless campaign events change this", but then it should also be obvious that I mean "unless campaign events change this".

The question is, why does "lvl 2" have to be written in stone?

I want the PCs to have the option of visiting the fabled Emo Caves. In my design notes, its obviously a low level challenge and hooks will get seeded into NPC interaction from the game start, maybe a PC even starts with a map to or of an area of the Emo Caves (especially, in a sandbox game, I like to start the game with the PCs knowing certain things about the setting).

Lvl 2 is just an arbitrary meta-game number. In my sandbox settings, its not part of the information for the locale. This is because, if it is part of the information, the Emo Caves become a very limited option for the PCs. Caves full of lvl 2 creatures will only be fun and challenging for a narrow range of PC levels, then, unless those completely random and in way influenced by the PCs (or their levels) campaign situations arise, it seems limiting, not freeing, as the playstyle is meant to be. When I design the setting, the Emo Caves will be written about, story, hooks, history, and it will say "goblins live in these caves." But that can mean a lot of things. It could be nothing stronger than lvl 2 cutters and a hexer chieftan. It could include bugbears and hobgoblins and ogres or leveled goblins, with templates. There are a lot of game tools in several editions of the game to give a lot of range and variety to your monsters. I like to use those to keep the game interesting and the sandbox open. Unless the PCs have risen well beyond the challenges of the Emo Caves (upper mid through high levels), I have a lot of room to make the Caves exciting and challenging for as large a range of the game as possible.

In a sandbox game, the DM has a lot of freedom, too. He's the one designing the playground, after all. I think it is limiting and restrictive to divide the whole setting up into predetermined zones where the PCs have to figure out where they can go and where they can't. This would be like playing through the world of an MMO. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but that is exactly what games like WoW do. The PC can go anywhere, but the mechanics of everything in a certain zone is set in stone. If the PC goes there at lvl 4 or lvl 80, the monsters in it are still all lvl 55 and for most of the gameplay that locale is either near instand death or a cakewalk. This divides up the world too much for my taste, and its limiting, not freeing, which is the idea of a sandbox setting.

This is true of even bigger things like major NPC villians and monsters. The evil baron, why do I need to stat him before the PCs are set directly onto his path? He influences the setting, but what "level" does he really need to be to do this? I may know the level of some of his servants before then, the agents of his oppression, but there is no level that says "must be this high to be an evil baron". So a range of challenges is useful there as well. That marauding dragon? Well, clearly he can't be a baby wyrmling, but is there a reason I have to settle on his numbers long before the PCs believe they have risen in power enough to go after him? They can go visit him at 1st level if they want, aware that he is "big and burns whole villages and all who have come after him have died". It's their short-lived characters. But, if the PCs at 15th decide to go after him, maybe they have a chance, if they're very smart. They wouldn't if I had simply set in stone that he was a lvl 30 dragon. But, using an elder instead of an ancient, and shaving a couple levels, they'd have a shot, an incredibly difficult shot, but a shot nonetheless. Otoh, if he's been a terror for the whole campaign, but I set his stats in the beginning as a lvl 22 elder instead of the lvl 30 ancient, and the PCs go after him at 24th level, he will be very easy. The scourge of the campaign, a breeze, just because the PCs leveled enough.

In summary, I don't like to let the arbitrary numbers of the meta-game system limit and restrict my sandbox. I like to use the tools on hand to leave the setting as open as I possibly can, so the players really do have freedom of choice and fun.

If everything I run into is suddenly "adapted" to my level how does this in anyway give me freedom of choice, it becomes an illusion at this point. Fun again is dependent upon what the PC's want out of a game so I won't argue with you on that point. And I'm sorry but life is full of arbitrary "numbers" when it comes to the challenges one can face... but it's also this uncertainty and challenge that makes life and the game fun for certain players. YMMV of course.

 

[Ourph]

However, the metagaming requirements of a sandbox include the chance for the PCs to die a gruesome random death, whereas the metagaming requirements for an adventure path require that the PCs are protected from said gruesome random death.

Can I get you to send an email to the guy who ran our Rise of the Runelords game. I don't think he got the memo that protecting my (numerous, very, very dead) PCs from a gruesome, random death is a requirement for running adventure paths.

 

[Ourph]

I'm leery of equating a "good, playable gaming experience" with "in the service of an interesting story."

For me, there is no "story" until the "good, playable gaming experience" takes place. I don't have a story in mind when I create encounters. The only story is the recounting of those encounters after the game is played.

You do realize, do you not, that you say you are leery of equating a "good, playable gaming experience" with "an interesting story" and then you proceed to do exactly that in your next sentence (underlined in the above quote).

 

[Mallus]

And, frankly, for those who like this style of game, this is what is desired.

I've honestly never met a D&D player whose preferred style of play included having their PC's eradicated by an unbeatable foe (for example, a CR18 red dragon vs. a party of 2nd level characters) which attacked them without warning while they were out shopping.

"[T]he needs of the game" may "outweigh the needs of the simulation", but the needs of the two paradigms are different.

Agreed!

I cannot answer what the dragon is likely to do without first knowing why it is in a fit of pique.

Here's the scenario more fully described: the ancient red dragon was in a fit of pique because its lair was just raided by a party of talented adventurers while it was out hunting near the Forest of Perishables. The adventures beat the dragon's security measures, looted the joint, then teleported away. Unthinkingly angry, the dragon flew off, far outside it's normal hunting range, burning villages as it went. Unfortunately, this included the village the party of 2nd level PC's were currently resupplying in. The attack was brutal, without warning, and fatal to PC's of that level.

Events like this simply don't occur in any of the campaigns I've seen run, sandbox or not. My point --lest we forget what I was trying to illustrate-- was that the reason this does not occur isn't matter of in-game logic. It's metagaming (the desirable kind). That no matter how sandbox-y your sandbox is, there are simply events that the DM takes off the table. Because they would be detrimental to the play experience, not because they are impossible under the internal logic of the setting.

 

[Mallus]

For me, there is no "story" until the "good, playable gaming experience" takes place.

I use the terms interchangeably.

Tangent: I think D&D play resembles a story that is in the act of being told collaboratively, without a predetermined outcome. I don't think 'recounting after the fact' is the key defining trait of a 'story'. The presence of fictional characters acting in a fictional setting is.

 

[Mallus]

NI mean you are taking into consideration the rules of the actual game...right?

The game rules aren't relevant to the point I was making. But, since you asked, the dragon I was referring to was a 3e CR18 red dragon. And yes, I know the rules, 1e-4e, though, admittedly, my 1e & 2e is a little rusty. Been a decade since I ran either.

If it makes no sense for the PC's to be attacked by the dragon it's not really simulationist or close to realistic...is it?

Demonstrate how it's illogical for an angry dragon to torch a village. For extra credit, demonstrate how it's illogical for tornado to obliterate a town in the Midwest when the proper atmospheric conditions are present.

It is DM Fiat which is not what we are discussing.

In-game logic is DM Fiat. Or, rather, in-game logic is a system created by DM Fiat. Which amounts to the same thing.

In a simulationist game the PC's often have the chance, because their is consistency and logic, to make choices that rely on... in-gameworld logic, trickery, cunning, etc. to get out of situations that approaching with direct combat would probably result in their death.

Sure. But rarely, if ever, are PC's visited with the equivalent of a pop-up tornado and killed at random. Which shows that simulationist games are rigged too, just not to the extent of tailored games.

And again I want to point out that your example avoids any application of the actual game rules.

Because they're irrelevant.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If everything I run into is suddenly "adapted" to my level how does this in anyway give me freedom of choice, it becomes an illusion at this point. Fun again is dependent upon what the PC's want out of a game so I won't argue with you on that point. And I'm sorry but life is full of arbitrary "numbers" when it comes to the challenges one can face... but it's also this uncertainty and challenge that makes life and the game fun for certain players. YMMV of course.

MMDV indeed. The choices of the PCs can still have meaning even if I "tailor" everything.

For me, the "essence" of the sandbox seems to be the presence of multiple plot hooks that are all equally valid for the PC to follow - and that these plot hooks are "living".

The evil necromancer is doing his evil thing and planning world domination via undead armies. The dungeon is sitting there and whatever might happen there happens (maybe the Goblins organize themselves). The evil baron is continuing assembling an army and attacking independent villages and cities.

The PCs might decide to enter the goblin caves, and afterwards are off to chase some pirates. In the mean-time, the evil necromancer has started to invade some cities with his undeads. The Baron is encountering resistance by the undead army and an alliance of independent states.

The PCs come back, and the plot hooks that were there changed or have gone. But if they now decide to investigate the necromancer, they will still find just as level-appropriate enemies as they would have done before. If they had decided to tacke the necromancer and ignored the goblins, they might have launched their own attacks and if the PCs investigate it, they might find high level Goblins with Hobgoblin, Bugbear or Ogre allies as appropriate for their level.

The sandbox "lives", and it just happens that the plots that the PCs investigate will always fit their level - but that doesn't mean their choices are irrelevant. It makes a big difference whether your home-town is destroyed by undead or whether another city has been taken over by the evil baron.