Challenge in Sandboxes

[Talakeal]

Spun off from my other thread.

My last campaign was an attempt at running a sandbox campaign in my system, and in one way it was a total failure.

I have no idea how to maintain challenge or stakes in such a scenario. In most RPGs, challenges are based on attrition and slowly wearing away resources, but when you only have occasional encounters that is hard to do, and to keep them challenging they need to be so deadly that player death is a real concern.

Now, everyone who has played D&D is familiar with the 15 minute work day, but in a sandbox that really seems to be the default method of play, go nova every fight and then fall back and rest in a safe place.

In a linear adventure I can have time pressures to keep them going forward, usually limited opportunities or enemy action. But that really strains verisimilitude and tone in a sandbox.


I tried numerous rules tweaks; only resting in town, daily costs for supplies, reduced lethality, but all they did was slow down the game or open themselves up to player exploits and arguments about "gentleman's agreements".


Any advice on how to do this successfully?

TLDR: How do I maintain challenge, tension, or stakes in a game where proactive players can fall back or rest whenever they like?

Thanks!

[MoiMagnus]

Players need to have ambitions.

As part of the concept of the sandbox, player should be able to chose the easy road, to always be prudent, to take all their time by resting between each encounter, and to take weeks to travel through the wild rather than days.

But if they take their time, the world will advance without them. And if their goal is more than just "survive and get a stable job" (which most NPCs are likely happy with), they should need to push their luck at some point.

[Lacco]

In most RPGs, challenges are based on attrition and slowly wearing away resources, but when you only have occasional encounters that is hard to do, and to keep them challenging they need to be so deadly that player death is a real concern.

Just to be sure: An RPG should be more than just a series of combats. Yes/no?

How do you feel about player choice...? Non-combat related choice, preferably.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I run...semi-sandboxes[1]. For me, the key in all adventure types is to diversify what you mean by "challenge." If the only question is "will your character kill all the enemies before they kill you," you only have a single axis of challenge. And so having the ability to set your own pace is a problem. If there are other axes of challenge, you can still have a 5 minute working day and also challenge the players. Or you can provide incentives to move faster than glacially. Because resource attrition isn't the only way.

Things like
* you've made enemies who will now threaten those you care about unless handled promptly.
* there's a threat that can't be handled by casting sword, such as a hidden group in another nation stirring up trouble against your people via false accusations.
* there are other competitors for the same goals; if you dawdle, other groups may have already picked the site clean.
* challenges that require thinking through things and putting pieces together usually don't burn many explicit resources, but can provide sessions worth of challenges.

This being said, your players seem to mostly be in the mood of "I cast sword". They're only looking for combat challenges, and mostly mowing down mooks. They're not willing to make their own goals that drive them. Which rather makes sandboxes difficult to pull off.

[1] The structure tends to be
* Seed adventure for levels 1-3. This is branching-linear, designed as a tutorial and introduction to the world. Often has little or nothing to do with the rest of the campaign.
* At that point I've figured out a "major antagonist/major plot" that provides over-arching themes for the rest of the campaign. Individual arcs may not directly touch on it, but will get woven in as they go.
* 3-8 session "arcs" (1-2 levels) based on what the players decide to do and how they approach their goals. Some of these are character driven, others are "plot" driven, but all the themes get woven together into the primary theme.
* At some point, they've discovered the primary antagonist's plot and start focusing on that, leading to a capstone. Sometimes, the "primary antagonist" they choose isn't the one I originally planned for.

[Jorren]

Sandboxes are less structured than games where everything is an appropriate or equivalent challenge. You have to prioritize either freedom or challenging play. You can do both to some extent but invariably one has to take priority. Sandboxes work best with proactive players with goals; if your players are not that type you are better off with a more stuctured approach.

If you are trying to maintain challenge, tension, or stakes in a sandbox game you are taking the lead, which often works against sandbox play. You need players with goals who are interested in challenging themselves. I find that sandboxes work best when I focus on presenting the setting and then stepping back to be reactive. If the players then take the lead with ideas of their own then I know I am on the right track. If they don't it is probably a good sign that either the setup is not interesting to them or they are not interested in sandbox type games.

In my games I don't run sandboxes for players who are not proactive; end of story. I don't run D&D either specifically because it is a level-scaled resource management game focused around combat set-pieces, making it unattractive to me for sandbox play.

From your previous threads your players come across as a contentious lot who don't want to work with you. If that's the case then the form of play (sandbox vs structured) may end up being irrelevant if they see you as an obstacle rather than someone to work with in creating an enjoyable game.

[SimonMoon6]

D&D is a system that is particularly bad for sandbox games. In fact, it's a system that's pretty bad for almost all narrative structures other than "here's a dungeon, go kill stuff". So, my advice would be "don't use D&D" if you want to run a sandbox game. One of the main problems is that if you have five different possible adventures available that would challenge a 5th level party, well, once they finish one of these adventures, the party is no longer 5th level, so the other adventures (that they might then go on, if they are still relevant) can no longer challenge them.

As far as "going nova" and the "fifteen minute day", well, to me that has nothing to do with sandbox adventures. If one plot thread leads the party to investigate a dungeon, then it's just the same (for the most part) as if they had been railroaded into finding the dungeon. If they can beat it by using up all their daily resources and then taking a nap, then they can do that regardless of whether they chose to be here or were forced to be here. The problem here is simply adventure design. Dungeons are bad for precisely this reason (which is another reason to avoid using D&D since the presumption here is that adventures lead to dungeons since "Dungeons" is in the name of the game). But the issue can be managed by putting time pressures on the party. They need to have a reason to do things in a timely fashion. This can be difficult to get right in a D&D setting since the PCs will probably expect to take a nap after fighting every single orc and so they may fail the adventure rather spectacularly if (a) they are not given evidence that makes them realize that they need to hurry or (b) they are put in a situation where they have to use up their resources early on and therefore can't be expected to continue. Resource management is the problem. Games with a lot of resource management (like D&D) are just hard to work with as a DM/GM.

[Satinavian]

Now, everyone who has played D&D is familiar with the 15 minute work day, but in a sandbox that really seems to be the default method of play, go nova every fight and then fall back and rest in a safe place.

Plan your challanges for them going nova.
If attrition is not a thing, assume, they are at full power for each important encounter. Design for this.

They still can act tactically or not, they still might have to retreat of things go wrong. They still have to recognize the moment they need to do so.


Also, failure must be an option, but an encounter running bad means actually losing instead of just using more ressources, you really want to have other failure states than TPK. Make the fights about objectives. And make sure, they can't retry as often as they need.

[False God]

You have to have players who seek it out.

So you have to provide hooks that lead them towards those challenges. But it's up to the players to engage in those stakes, and follow through to push forward into the more and more difficult elements of those quests.

It's sort of the perpetual problem of "sandbox" settings. If they players aren't doing anything that challenges them, or attracts enemies to challenge them, "challenge" and "stakes" don't exist.

But, maybe the party doesn't want "challenge" and "stakes". Maybe they want a more low-tier game, dealing with smaller issues. Maybe they have no desire to become level 20 god-tier characters. Sure, they'll miss out on some of the big epic things, but maybe they're okay with that.

Not everything needs to be challenging and have stakes, maybe your party just wants to be the "local heroes" helping out the little guy with the little problems. Maybe they're interested in enjoyable stories and memorable moments that don't revolve around straining their resources.

[Telok]

About a decade ago I ran a bounded sandbox based off one of the Spiderweb Software's Exile series from the 2000s (rebranded with more graphics & resold as "Avernum"). It was nice because as a crpg based off old ad&d with online resources for maps and walk-throughs a lot of stuff was just picking out the closest monster match and copying the 3.5e stats into a small beastiary.

Challenge was pretty good over the campaign. There was basically a low level area with low level quests and wandering wildlife. A set of medium level areas with mid level quests and wandering monsters. And scattered around were the high level dungeons. While the pcs could have gone exploring they mostly bopped from one obvious quest to another, confident that each town had several and I'd guide them towards appropriate level ones while warning them of really dangerous stuff.

There was a book I had a long time ago (lent out, never returned) that focused on the nation/state level economics and strategy of castles. It's where I learned the concept of "defense in depth", which I apply when building/converting/running dungeons. It basically comes down to each dungeon being a web of points of interest connected by paths, some points have encounters, there are more encounters than the pcs can nova, the dungeon reacts between the times the pcs leave & re-enter. If the dungeon belongs to an organized society it may be able to call on reinforcements from other dungeons. If a dungeon is purely static (only undead, golems, summoning traps) then each encounter is designed as more than just a simple combat encounter.

The thing about sandboxes is you need to run the inhabitants reactions to the intrusions in a way that's a belivable response to what the pcs did. Did they wipe out half the lizardman town before retreating to rest up? The lizardmen either leave or put up defenses based on what they have and what the pcs did. Did they clear half the undead spawning cursed necromancy node? Go ahead and re-reanimate the corpses they left behind, maybe pull in some local wildlife to die & animate if the pcs didn't close the door behind them. Have they taken out a gnoll fort a day's travel from the gnoll castle? It's reinforced with more troops than before & the local random encounters are double encounter rate and the table is all gnoll partols, plus two gnolls of the patrol always go runner as soon as the pcs appear in order to start a hunt & kill mission from the nearest fort.

One trick I used was other adventuring groups. The pcs would hear about them clearing a dungeon or doing a quest the pcs had passed up earlier. Then, when the pcs were leveled up and ready for the next area I just had all the leftover quests & dungeons cleared off screen by the npc parties. Also trim the ransom encounter rate to half (depopulation of threats) and make it mostly super easy wildlife (intelligent encounters left the area because too many adventurers).

[OldTrees1]

How to maintain challenge and stakes in a Sandbox:
Step 1: Create a PC with a proactive ambitious long term motivation with short term opportunities, or a PC that will naturally acquire one as they learn about the world around them.
Step 2: Pursue that motivation. Know that you are in a living world and your motivation is likely to face passive obstacles to overcome and active opposition to endure.
Step 3: Manage how far / little you overextend. Your opposition will take advantage of either mistake.

How to maintain challenge and stages as a DM in a Sandbox:
Step 1: Create the Sandbox with plenty of room for PC ambition and for opposition to that ambition. I suggest having several NPCs with meaty ambitions that create timers for conflict and the opportunity for the PCs to have foes.
Step 2: Require the PCs be created with meaty motivations and learn about those motivations.
Step 3: Continue creating the Sandbox.
Step 4: Run the Sandbox. The PC motivations will create enemies and those enemies will challenge the PCs resource management on a grand scale (not always a daily scale). Some days a 15 min workday is the right tactic, but others it will be a fatal mistake.

The PCs live in a dangerous world that grows more dangerous by the day. If they don't defend their goals, they will lose them. If the PCs want a safehouse:

• They will need to put in the work to protect the nearby town they use for supplies. Not just from the bandits, but also from the army that will likely invade in a few weeks, and the elder evil that is likely going to awaken in a couple months.
• They will need to put in the work to defend the security of their safe house. They got involved in disputes between local factions and one of those factions is interested in removing the PCs.
• They need to put in the work to become stronger. Their safe house is in the middle of a dangerous land. If they get too lazy, eventually it will be too dangerous to do a grocery run.
• They also need to be ready for when they are attacked. So they can't always overextend themselves.

Oh, and if they go to deal with a location / threat, then you have all the linear adventure skills of the enemy regrouping and preparing if given time.

In a Sandbox the PCs choose the stakes and the degree of challenge. Then they have to live with their choice (which could be dying from overextending, or dying from underextending).


Will this work for your group? I have no idea. I suspect nothing will work well enough in that specific circumstance.

[Talakeal]

Important clarification btw; I was specifically referring to a hex crawl style sandbox where exploration and treasure seeking are the prime motivators.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Important clarification btw; I was specifically referring to a hex crawl style sandbox where exploration and treasure seeking are the prime motivators.

To be honest? I'd find that kind of game quite a bit of a drag myself. Same with "old-school" plot-free dungeon crawls.

That doesn't excuse whining and moaning as your players apparently do, but it's certainly a niche style.

[Thrudd]

They need motives beyond just surviving. You need a ticking clock, as you know, and also actual consequences for failing. If characters are after treasure, then waiting too long means there's less treasure, and they need to know that. If they want to stop an evil ritual, that means the evil ritual might happen before they get there, and you need to prepare for how that affects the world. There can and should always be more treasure to go after, some means of continuing and undoing the results of the ritual, etc. The game goes on, regardless, but the results of waiting too long need to be seen and felt.

As the GM, you must resist the urge to insist that something in particular happen. If the players want to dawdle, only fight easy enemies and remain satisfied with making only minor gains or not gaining at all, then that's what happens. However, knowing what motivates your players (or what the system says should be motivating your players), you should be able to tempt them into taking risks. For instance, rumors of that magic sword or a book of spells hidden in the tower- but they are never the only adventurers with those rumors. Get there first or you will miss out. Maybe the game has mechanics for attaining reputation or glory as a resource, and being the second or third group of people to return from the dungeon gets you much less reputation.

Experience, progressing character power, needs to be directly connected to the activities you (or the system) want them to perform. IE, getting treasure, magic items, and/or reputation is what leads to the characters gaining power. If you don't want them grinding goblins to level up before going on a real quest, don't give much or anything for killing goblins, unless they are a serious threat to somebody. Having a reputation as the best rat killer in town shouldn't be equivalent to the reputation of someone that slew even a single dragon. Fighting a lot of rats won't result in becoming the strongest people in the world. The rewards for that probably ought to cap out at level 2.

So, both the system and the setting need to be tailored to specifically reward completing only the types of challenges you want the PCs to engage in. The 5MWD is avoided in part by smart system design, in part by narrative consequences applied for failure to act within a certain timeframe. Making the players care about those consequences requires some buy in, an understanding of how the system works and what sort of characters they are supposed to be playing. You can't trick people into playing a game they don't want to play.

[Telok]

Important clarification btw; I was specifically referring to a hex crawl style sandbox where exploration and treasure seeking are the prime motivators.

For dungeons, have them be interconnected and not linear. The inhabitants are either a single extremely deadly encounter that they have to nova, or the inhabitants react to the pcs with reinforcements or leaving with the treasure and inhabiting a different dungeon the pcs have cleaned for them.

Something I used once was an underground crypt with a blocked entrance on a river bank. Opening the crypt started it flooding and the bank the entrance was at began to collapse. Called for a bunch of rolls (nature, engineering, dungeonology, history) and people could only make one each, extra info for each success. That gave hints of the layout; that it was built out of a cave system, approximate size, in a few days the whole area would sinkhole with unknown depth & sediment, it would be about 6 hours before the collapse really started, etc. So the dungeon had a timer, but not the overall adventure.

Sure, it's not something you can use with every dungeon. But collapsing the building when you lose is enough of a villan trope that it works every sixth or seventh dungeon. Plus the players get used to it and sometimes get excited about having to speed run a dungeon.

[Alcore]

see... a sandbox is a completely different beast than a normal adventure. Ironically it is kinda the same.


Normally the PCs are "chosen ones" by the players and DM to solve some thing. No PCs, no adventure. Unless there is a deadline and the DM wishes to continue without the players the world stops. Narratively this is because the adventure is the one and only and the backdrop in the scenery. In many ways the characters are scenery too. The game cannot, and needs not, progress without the PCs.


Sandbox throws this on its head as the backdrop is the focus and something should be in motion to provide adventures. A kingdom X big should have Y factions (preferably split between all alignments) and if the 'heroes' spend a week in town both heroes and villains will triumph across the land. As any stable world it should be locked (for the most part) in a status quo. All sides are trying to end it but none can keep momentum for long. Combat is just a tiny piece of the world.



Most Important;

You need real PCs. Each one needs to have a goal that they must strive for. A sandbox is more like a novel; if all the characters have an arc it is more satisfying.

[OldTrees1]

Important clarification btw; I was specifically referring to a hex crawl style sandbox where exploration and treasure seeking are the prime motivators.

Why are they exploring? Why do they want treasure? Or by "prime motivators" do you mean these PCs don't have any significant plans?

If all the PCs are doing is "exploring" and only for "treasure" then they will set their own pace and can defuse significant opposition by just going elsewhere. I don't expect you to be able to enforce your desired pacing under these conditions.

[RandomPeasant]

It seems like the easy solution would be to start balancing around the assumption that players will use all their resources in one fight. There's nothing inherently wrong with that balance point, it's simply not the one that the game primes you to expect. Design bigger encounters, with enemies coming in over multiple waves, and just let the players blow their wad on that and rest up for the next one. If that's the play pattern they want, give it to them.

And this seems like a pretty natural way for a hex crawl to work to me. If you go to the hex where the gnoll tribe is living, that doesn't also need to be a gnoll-themed dungeon. Maybe there's one starter fight where you run into a gnoll hunting party, but once you've found the gnolls you can just fight the gnolls. The content is already divided into chunks by the nature of a hex crawl, it doesn't need to be further chunked within the hexes. And unlike a dungeon, once you've explored a hex, there isn't an obvious next encounter, and it feels quite natural that you would rest and poke around to see what the stuff you could claim from the hex was, leaving you rested for further exploration tomorrow.

[icefractal]

The approach I've taken is to ditch the assumption of attrition through a long course of fights. Instead, there are a small number of closely-connected fights, so the majority of resource management is within a fight. This also works well with not having either the play time or the desire for large numbers of fights.

Now does this mean each individual fight requires a non-trivial chance of losing, and therefore that eventually a loss is all but guaranteed, especially in a sandbox where difficulty isn't tailored to the party? Pretty much, yes.

But that's only a problem if death is an unrecoverable state. My solution was to make resurrection much easier, to the point where even in a TPK it still happens. So even if PCs die on a regular basis, that doesn't mean constant churn.

But then, what's the cost to loss? A few things:
1) Whatever immediate goal you were pursuing in the fight isn't happening.
2) Part of the PCs power is inherent, including things that would usually be gear, but then you can accumulate as much additional gear as you can find. That gear is at risk in the usual way if it can't be recovered or there's a TPK.
3) Resurrection takes time - not enormous amounts of time, but enough to likely be out of action a scene and in the case of a TPK, often enough to interfere with their current plans.

But isn't time-pressure the same thing I haven't found to work? It depends on the amount. IMO, time pressure should be based on the world, not purely gamist. Meaning that "you have two weeks before this opportunity is gone, including travel time, delay for the PCs hearing about it, etc" is legit, but "you have three days from the point you reach the adventure site" isn't. And in that basis, timelines that tight enough to make 2-3 more days a dealbreaker could easily cause the PCs to miss the chance just through bad luck in travel. But a few weeks' delay? That's more significant.

[Satinavian]

Important clarification btw; I was specifically referring to a hex crawl style sandbox where exploration and treasure seeking are the prime motivators.

Ok, specifically for hexcrawl that is more difficult. Without timepreasure, you would probably want each hex completely selfcontained, with no resting until the hex is done one way or the other nut assume that each hex is entered at full health/ressources. And again, the hexes need a failed-state beyond TPK.

[Lord Torath]

Does each hex stay 'clear'? For a hex crawl, wandering monsters are imperative. I know you tried to get rid of them at one point, but I think they are pretty much required. If the PCs blow all their daily resources on the first encounter, then retreat to 'base', they will never make progress. I would have most of the encounters be hostile animals - things without much loot. If they want to find the rich, treasure-filled ruins, they're going to have to push on past the first encounter.

Also, check for random encounters at night, as well. Have encounters that are way too powerful for the group (let them know that such encounters will exist, and that they need to be willing to run away or hide instead of engaging) as well an encounters that are too easy, or animals that sensibly retreat (they want a meal, not to fight to the death - but don't be afraid to through in the occasional rabid 'bear' encounter, either).

Edit: Also, see Yora's post below about awarding XP. Give little xp for random encounters, and most of the xp for accomplishing exploration goals - bringing treasure back to the town, discovering magic springs, etc.

[Quertus]

So, first off, *you* don't maintain challenge in a sandbox - that's on the players. *They* choose what they want to do, and it's as challenging - from "trivial" to "impossible" - as it is.

Quertus, my deep epic level Wizard, comes to your world? He attempts to open up a spell component shop. That is probably either trivial, or, if your world's Wizards don't use spell components, nearly impossible to make work. He attempts to study the unique magic system used by local Wizards. That is either easy for a being of his skill and resources, or, if denied those resources by local laws of magic, he didn't come in person.

As you may have noticed, the level of challenge here has nothing to do with whether or not Quertus decides to nova in a 15-minute workday, because it's not based on resource attrition.

But you aren't asking about a sandbox, you're asking about a hex crawl. Here, the implementation details matter, as there are several ways to run a hex crawl.

Challenge

Many things are always going to be equally challenging, regardless of when the party encounters them, puzzles being the most system-agnostic. In some systems / with some parties, a chasm, Nurgle rot, diplomacy, rations, ammo, time constraints, water, or mirror opposites will remain equally challenging.

Tension

Maybe we're using this word differently, but I think that a hex crawl should *not* have tension. That… kinda defeats the point.

Stakes

In a hex crawl, the stakes are "your life". The stakes strongly discourage your desired gameplay. I'm with your players on this one: death comes for the unprepared.

Failure? No, Obi-Wan, not failure.

At least, not the way you see it. Your Players have either attempted to test you system for you (quite successfully), or attempted to communicate with you (unsuccessfully).

What you wanted to hear

Now, I'm pretty sure that this would be the wrong answer for your group, but here's what I think that you wanted to hear: run a game like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or Risk of Rain 2, where the opposition levels.

Or…

Spoiler: spoiled in case I ever run this in person - people who know me IRL, plz don't read

Show

One idea I had was to implement milestone leveling fairly literally: certain hexes had obelisks, which, when activated, leveled the party. And only party, not NPCs, can level. There's even some legend about the obelisks making heroes or something. But, when activated, their power didn't just flow into the PCs, it also actively levels up the world threats, because they are "cursed" artifacts, designed to literally make the party heroes by forcing escalating conflict.

Eh, I didn't word that well, but hopefully you get the idea: what's a hero without a challenge? And these artifacts provide both heroic power, and threats for which that power is needed - which, eventually, the players might catch on to.

What I think you actually should do

Post some rules to the Playground. Let us evaluate them. Then use those "fixed" rules to run your hex crawl.

I will suggest making random encounters and travel two real considerations, encouraging the party to travel from hex to hex, rather than constantly back to town. Design sites around a nova party, one that wants to get back to their mounts and hirelings quickly, before random encounters eat them.

Ideally, you would be running a second group, whose PCs operate out of the same town, and each session *must* represent a preset amount of time (say, "a week", or "3 hexes" or something) in order to keep the groups in sync. So, if they *really* want to, they *can* spend several sessions doing nothing but fighting 1 encounter, backtracking to town, loading up on supplies, and hiking through random encounters.

Rules? That was… rest anywhere, eat daily (via supplies, foraging/hunting, butchering monsters, trading… however you can / think to), increased lethality - basically, the opposite of what you tried

Alternatives

A stranger in a strange land: per an anime (about a Lich?) I haven't watched and whose name I cannot remember, make them the most powerful beings in the world… and the only beings from their world in that world - a world completely unfamiliar to the players & PCs. There is no friendly town to fall back to. They advance carefully, learn about their opposition, or they die. Actually, this would be *really good* for your players, in several ways.

Or: the church of Fharlanghn teleported you here… wherever "here" is. Or the classic shipwreck scenario.

Your patron demands results: the BBEG wants his 12 stones of power, lieutenant, and he's not going to accept excuses. Here's going to keep executing random redshirts unless you bring him those stones in time for the once in a millennia planetary convergence.

A physical time limit: look, the world is going to blow up in a year. Your mission is to help fill this "Noah's arc" with as many species as possible. For added fun, make the "threat" be infection of the nonliving with animating spirits - that's right, you're fighting treasure, and collecting monsters!

Or:Elminster has hired you to sneak treasure into dungeon locations, to provide incentives for the next generation of adventurers, and he wants it done before the next edition change, dagnabbit!

[Yora]

In Dungeon- and Hexcrawls, the challenges are not the individual encounters. The challenge is going in and out of the dungeon before the party is worn down, and getting into the wild and back to a town before resources run out.
A critical component in this style of play is that the players have no way to know what and how many encounters they will have to deal with on the return trip. Random encounters are an essential part of crawl campaigns, and I would argue for all sandboxes in general.

It is then up to the players to judge for themselves how far to press on and when to turn back to a safe position to recover and resupply. If players want to take things slow and carefully, that's on them. If they want to face great risks, that's also on them. By making random encounter rolls, the responsibility is handed to the player. It's no longer the GM who decides that it would now be a fun moment to annoy the player with very dangerous monsters while they are very vulnerable. The encounter happened at random, that the PCs are in the state they are in is the result of the players taking risks and gambling.
If the game allows the entire party to fully recover after resting once, then the random encounters have to be set up in a way that makes the chance to have the rest interrupted relatively high.

Also, running into hostile creatures should not be a reward in that easy XP come right to the party's doorstep. The amount of XP gained from wandering monsters should be rather low, with the bulk of XP coming from things that are not fights. Which is the reason why old edition of D&D award XP for treasure, and dungeons have big hoards of gold. The goal is to retrieve the treasure from the dungeon while getting around the guardians with minimal risk of injury and death.

OD&D, AD&D, and BECMI were literally designed for Dungeon- and Hexcrawls.

[Satinavian]

Yes, but that is not something that meshes well with Talakeals table (as several threads show). That is why he is looking for ways to make a sandbox without ressource management. Pointing hm to the traditional way won't help much.

[Talakeal]

Ok, so I guess I am looking more for technical advice than narrative advice; like house rules and stuff to make it so that the optimal decision is not to always play super slowly and methodically and rest after every encounter.

I tried numerous fixes; adjusting where the players could rest and how long rests took, upkeep costs, frequency and difficulty of random encounters, adjusting the penalty for defeat, but nothing changed that underlying fact; the optimal move is always to rest after every single encounter, and anything else is just playing dumb for the sake of a less tedious game.

In my opinion, games need some form of uncertainty as well as some form of meaningful tactical and / or strategic decision to qualify as games. RPGs with a 15MWD model don't really have that, every encounter (including non combat encounters) basically boil down to melee characters rolling a few dice for fun, results don't really matter, while the wizard blows their most powerful spells and resolves the situation.

Just to be sure: An RPG should be more than just a series of combats. Yes/no?

How do you feel about player choice...? Non-combat related choice, preferably.

I don't think I am the person who needs whatever advice you are trying to give.

My ideal game is one where the players only get into a fight once every few sessions, and much prefers to spend hours on end talking in character. Heck, my last group would literally spend entire sessions coordinating our outfits for a party and I had a great time doing it.

I have received advice on this forum that I "Need to get over myself and run a dungeon crawl," and that "You honestly think that drawing the floorplan for a 1st level character's house, or making an inventory of what's in the cupboard, is relevant to a game of D&D? If so, we're obviously playing very different games."

But my current group really only enjoys action / adventure games, so that's what we are playing.

Do also note that encounters don't necessarily have to be combats; traps, locked doors, environmental obstacles, even NPC negotiations can all be solved just as easilly by a wizard who can rest and get new spells on a whim.

But, maybe the party doesn't want "challenge" and "stakes". Maybe they want a more low-tier game, dealing with smaller issues. Maybe they have no desire to become level 20 god-tier characters. Sure, they'll miss out on some of the big epic things, but maybe they're okay with that.

The players absolutely want to be level 20 god-tier characters, they just want to get there by the safest and most optimal route.

In Dungeon- and Hexcrawls, the challenges are not the individual encounters. The challenge is going in and out of the dungeon before the party is worn down, and getting into the wild and back to a town before resources run out.
A critical component in this style of play is that the players have no way to know what and how many encounters they will have to deal with on the return trip. Random encounters are an essential part of crawl campaigns, and I would argue for all sandboxes in general.

It is then up to the players to judge for themselves how far to press on and when to turn back to a safe position to recover and resupply. If players want to take things slow and carefully, that's on them. If they want to face great risks, that's also on them. By making random encounter rolls, the responsibility is handed to the player. It's no longer the GM who decides that it would now be a fun moment to annoy the player with very dangerous monsters while they are very vulnerable. The encounter happened at random, that the PCs are in the state they are in is the result of the players taking risks and gambling.
If the game allows the entire party to fully recover after resting once, then the random encounters have to be set up in a way that makes the chance to have the rest interrupted relatively high.

Also, running into hostile creatures should not be a reward in that easy XP come right to the party's doorstep. The amount of XP gained from wandering monsters should be rather low, with the bulk of XP coming from things that are not fights. Which is the reason why old edition of D&D award XP for treasure, and dungeons have big hoards of gold. The goal is to retrieve the treasure from the dungeon while getting around the guardians with minimal risk of injury and death.

OD&D, AD&D, and BECMI were literally designed for Dungeon- and Hexcrawls.

Hey Yora! Your blog was one of the many things that inspired me to try running an exploration focused game, so I really appreciate your input!

The thing about random encounters is that they really only slowed down the game.

Basically, random encounters on the way back to town were both the motivation for and, ironically, the only thing stopping the players from resting after every fight.

Adjusting the frequency of random encounters never actually changed the optimum strategy, merely the rationale for it. It went from:

Explore one room of the dungeon, then go back to town and rest with the rationale of "Well, we can't risk spending any more resources here because we might get ambushed on the way back to town and killed!"
to:
Explore one room of the dungeon, then go back to town and rest with the rationale of "Well, there's nothing stopping us from going back to town and resting up, so we might as well do that before exploring the next room so we are at full strength for whatever might be ahead!".

So yeah, random encounters just make the game slower and more tedious, they don't actually change playstyle or introduce added uncertainty / challenge.

[MoiMagnus]

Ideas of time pressure you can put:

(1) The night is coming, and is dangerous, as monsters come back to live and terrible creature roam around. Only a few places are safe during the night, and that does not include the dungeons/wilderness/etc. So if the PCs come back to the town after defeating the monster at the entrance of the dungeon, the monsters respawn during the night. If they want to every go further than the first room, they will need to do more than one encounter per day.

(2) You are tracked and on the run. Enemies stronger than you are tracking you (and you know you have no chance of winning). The best you can do is have few days (maybe a week) in advance, but they will eventually come. If you ever want to go deeper into a ruin to get some powerful magic items, and don't want to be catch and lose the campaign, you will need to do more than one room per day.
=> While it's not really realistic, you probably want to communicate explicitly how many days behind the bounty hunters are.

You might also have more ideas if you switch to longer time periods (long rest every week instead of every day, for example).

[Telok]

Ok, so I guess I am looking more for technical advice than narrative advice; like house rules and stuff to make it so that the optimal decision is not to always play super slowly and methodically and rest after every encounter.

I tried numerous fixes; adjusting where the players could rest and how long rests took, upkeep costs, frequency and difficulty of random encounters, adjusting the penalty for defeat, but nothing changed that underlying fact; the optimal move is always to rest after every single encounter, and anything else is just playing dumb for the sake of a less tedious game.

In a sandbox with absolutely zero time limitations of any sort that is correct. The optimal thing to do is restore all your power & options between each challenge. The only way to "rule" that out is to make not resting a requirement to get any xp or loot.

Take a fantasy fighting video game with some form of recharging mana bar and a healing spell. If the fights have any space between them or you can hide somewhere, the optimal and common tactic will be to heal & mana up between them. It doesn't matter if it takes 15 minutes of sitting there spamming the "heal 1/10th of 1 HP of my 200 HP", they'll do it. That's basically what you're facing here, a video game design issue in your pnp game.

There is really only one way that I know of (you might check video game design resources for more info) to "fix" that via a hard rule. Make a linear dungeon, lock the door, run a timer that blows up the dungeon, put all the loot & xp at the exit of the dungeon.

[Alcore]

Ok, so I guess I am looking more for technical advice than narrative advice; like house rules and stuff to make it so that the optimal decision is not to always play super slowly and methodically and rest after every encounter.

I tried numerous fixes; adjusting where the players could rest and how long rests took, upkeep costs, frequency and difficulty of random encounters, adjusting the penalty for defeat, but nothing changed that underlying fact; the optimal move is always to rest after every single encounter, and anything else is just playing dumb for the sake of a less tedious game.

In my opinion, games need some form of uncertainty as well as some form of meaningful tactical and / or strategic decision to qualify as games. RPGs with a 15MWD model don't really have that, every encounter (including non combat encounters) basically boil down to melee characters rolling a few dice for fun, results don't really matter, while the wizard blows their most powerful spells and resolves the situation.

I am aware you want a technical answer over a narrative one... but you asked about a sandbox. What you describe is a hexcrawl that reminds me of Arkham City were I (Batman) would walk into a room and fight a dozen dudes. Which can be good fun, it was exhausting after an hour, but it's likely only 15 minutes of fun.

The last paragraph of the quote leads me to believe you have an entirely different problem. Three in fact and none of them have any definite correlation to just hexcrawls.

1. Your wizard is too OP or you have no idea how to challenge him or both. A lot of unspoken nuance in that last sentence. Instead implementing new rules try talking to him/them.

I tried numerous rules tweaks; only resting in town, daily costs for supplies, reduced lethality, but all they did was slow down the game or open themselves up to player exploits and arguments about "gentleman's agreements".

2. You have already done technical solutions which opened up a different problem to me; you are not providing what they want and they are not providing what you want. You say you know what they want so i assume you guys talked so i can only assume there is some definition disconnection between both parties. Language can be funny that way.

3. If technical solutions have already failed why not a narrative solution?




At the end of the day i see a "players" vs "DM" mindset being cultivated.

[Talakeal]

Post some rules to the Playground. Let us evaluate them. Then use those "fixed" rules to run your hex crawl.

If people want to workshop rules with me, I would be more than happy to do so. But, as I generally run my own system, there would have to be an added layer of difficulty as I would need to explain the difference between relevant game rules and house rules for the one campaign.

1. Your wizard is too OP or you have no idea how to challenge him or both. A lot of unspoken nuance in that last sentence. Instead implementing new rules try talking to him/them.

Its not really about my wizard. Wizards in general are more powerful because they are more limited in most RPG systems. The fact that wizards dominate games where you don't get your recommended 4-6 encounters per day in is very common in D&D.

But, honestly, unless the encounter has some sort of gimmick, four barbarians charging in and mindlessly hacking the nearest enemy would be just as pointlessly one sided, it would just take a little longer. Without some form of attrition, a balanced enemy encounter can't hope to win, and without any hope of winning tactical decisions are ultimately pointless.

2. You have already done technical solutions which opened up a different problem to me; you are not providing what they want and they are not providing what you want. You say you know what they want so i assume you guys talked so i can only assume there is some definition disconnection between both parties. Language can be funny that way.

3. If technical solutions have already failed why not a narrative solution?

At the end of the day i see a "players" vs "DM" mindset being cultivated.

Forget my players and our relationship. The game is over and I won't be running another hex-crawl with them or anyone else for years.

What I want is a situation where a theoretical player who is a perfectly rational actor doesn't have to choose between making the optimal decision for character success and having an exciting game where tactical decisions and dice rolls matter than moves at a reasonable pace.

[Lord Torath]

Mechanically? Stop giving xp for monsters defeated, and instead give xp for accomplishing goals/acquiring treasure.

They clear the first room and return home to rest, repeating the process for the whole dungeon? By the time they come back to clear the 4th room, either something else has moved into the first room, or the other denizens see how things are going, grab their loot, and flee. It is no longer in their best interest to rest for a full night after each encounter.

[Telok]

Mechanically? Stop giving xp for monsters defeated, and instead give xp for accomplishing goals/acquiring treasure.

They clear the first room and return home to rest, repeating the process for the whole dungeon? By the time they come back to clear the 4th room, either something else has moved into the first room, or the other denizens see how things are going, grab their loot, and flee. It is no longer in their best interest to rest for a full night after each encounter.

I did something like that once... memory... memory... May have been something like:
1 level per 4 general dungeons/quests
1 level per 2 major dungeons/main plot quests
1 level at each of 4 major milestones (which were main plot quests so yeah, 2 levels at once).
Replacement characters come in at -1 average party level (calculation included the character being replaced).
Anyone a level (or more) behind the average party level got 2 levels at a level-up.