Quote from: LordVreeg;579768Really?
Let me get this straight.
So...a setting that tries to use setting-internal logic instead of non-related systemic derived placement is equally 'absurd and incoherent'?

It might be more fair to say that 'setting-internal logic' is determined in part by what would be GOOD for the game, rather than strictly logical.  

For example, people in this thread have explained that a dungeon near civilization is more likely to have lower-level challenges than dungeons in the far wilderness.  Apparently, if a dragon is too close to civilization, the local lord exterminates it.  

That in itself is not logical.  There's no reason that a dragon can't be surrounded by a horde of weak enemies - and in fact, that's what you'd really expect.  If they're individually weak, they pose no threat to the dragon.  So one form a 'logical world' might take is low-level challenges surrounding a much tougher opponent.  In such a world the presence of the 'tough opponent' might attract the attention of the 'lord', but the low-level threat would help prevent organized action - a small army of goblins is still a threat for a small army of retainers.  

Of course, in such a world, the monsters probably win and civilization as we know it wouldn't exist.  

So, in a world with dragons, and wights, and greater earth elementals, having a 'safe' civilization zone is probably not 'realistic' - but it serves the game.  The rest of the 'sandbox' game-logic is similarly self-serving.  

It is this way because that makes for a good game, so that is the 'setting-expectation'.  If you make the 'setting-expectation' unsuitable for a game, than while the world would follow the 'game-world' logic, the game would be unplayable.  

Essentially, the game-world-logic is self-serving, so you can come to the exact same position from two directions.  As One Horse Town has pointed out, there's a huge overlap of common ground.

Somehow, using my magic powers of awesomeness, I have never in thirty years of gming used an 'encounter per day system'

I am not sure why anyone would actually use such a system; if only because I don't use encounters of the same relative challenge every time.

Ok, devil's advocate time.

Who out there DOES use 'ten level appropriate encounters between full rest'
or something similar, and does it work for your group?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579773It might be more fair to say that 'setting-internal logic' is determined in part by what would be GOOD for the game, rather than strictly logical.  

For example, people in this thread have explained that a dungeon near civilization is more likely to have lower-level challenges than dungeons in the far wilderness.  Apparently, if a dragon is too close to civilization, the local lord exterminates it.  

That in itself is not logical.  There's no reason that a dragon can't be surrounded by a horde of weak enemies - and in fact, that's what you'd really expect.  If they're individually weak, they pose no threat to the dragon.  So one form a 'logical world' might take is low-level challenges surrounding a much tougher opponent.  In such a world the presence of the 'tough opponent' might attract the attention of the 'lord', but the low-level threat would help prevent organized action - a small army of goblins is still a threat for a small army of retainers.  

Of course, in such a world, the monsters probably win and civilization as we know it wouldn't exist.  

So, in a world with dragons, and wights, and greater earth elementals, having a 'safe' civilization zone is probably not 'realistic' - but it serves the game.  The rest of the 'sandbox' game-logic is similarly self-serving.  

It is this way because that makes for a good game, so that is the 'setting-expectation'.  If you make the 'setting-expectation' unsuitable for a game, than while the world would follow the 'game-world' logic, the game would be unplayable.  

Essentially, the game-world-logic is self-serving, so you can come to the exact same position from two directions.  As One Horse Town has pointed out, there's a huge overlap of common ground.

I have no disagreement that there can be a large amount of overlap.  I can see that.

But the idea that every GM has created the same setting or that some have not looked at these issues is also a characterization, a simplification.  whether it be through tweaks in tha magic system or the function of how undead work, genetics, the nature of dragons, etc, assuming that some GMs have not at least tried to address the lack of logic either from the system side, the settign side, or both (creating setting/system congruency).

However, a good GM might also create said congruency absed around what is considered a 'good game' to him and his groups.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579706The long answer: sandboxes and other old-school games aren't about 'making no reference to the PC power/level', but they don't do this in a mechanistic way, rather in an organic fashion in accordance with the setting; ie. starting the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more closeby; nothing then to stop the PCs from wandering off into the deep wilderness or even intentionally going to Dragon Mountain in a suicidal fit of pique, but also nothing regulating "well, you've encountered 4 orcs today so that's your limit, whether or not you're in orcville you're not running into anything else until you've had a chance to regain your per/day powers".

I like a well-designed sandbox.  However, there is also a well-established old-school tradition where the DM creates a module or runs a published module intentionally designed for particular levels - i.e. "This module is designed for 4-6 characters of levels 6-8."  

One can criticize this, but the style has been around for ages and lots of people have played this way (and continue to do so).  

I just played in my first Pathfinder Society games this weekend, and there was a special event that was designed so that there would be parallel challenges for different level characters all taking part in the same adventure arc.  It was contrived, but it was also fun to be in a room full of 72 people all playing sort-of the same adventure.

Quote from: LordVreeg;579768Really?
Let me get this straight.
So...a setting that tries to use setting-internal logic instead of non-related systemic derived placement is equally 'absurd and incoherent'?

I must be missing something.

And in many games, there are reasons why adventures may not have been found or are remote enough or the challenge was not there until recently...believe it or not, other people have thought of this.

Those reasons, I believe, are what qualify as 'absurd and incoherent'.  For example, you're a first level fighter.  You were trained by a tenth level fighter.  He tells you about a local cave with goblins in it - the town is offering a reward, or some such.

Couldn't that tenth-level fighter go and claim that reward, single-handedly and in a single afternoon?  Without breaking a sweat, I'd wager.

So, aside from arbitrary 'there has to be something for first level characters to do' style reasons, why hasn't your trainer already cleared that dungeon and claimed the reward?

To put Pundit's concern in reverse, why do the high level people in the campaign only ever elect to face high level challenges?  Do low level gold pieces not spend equally as well?  Is there not any easily-attainable level where 'grinding' low content becomes so completely safe that it out weighs the prospect of meeting equal-level challenges?  And if such a level exists, how big would a population need to be to reach a 100% likelihood that someone of a high enough level has considered this already?  I'd wager, not very big.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579700Well the bad part of a somali port has somali pirates I would asume...

The fact that the Caves of Peril only has 1-3rd level stuff becuase they are close to humanity doesn't make sense in a points of light setting and only really makes sense in a more civilised setting if its lawful.  

The police patrol the bad bit of town and control its excesses but sometimes that doesn't work and you get projects where the police don't go and then you get Bad Men.
If there are no Police one assumes you get Bad Men everywhere.

Only if the setting you're dealing with is truly post-apocalyptic, and even then people would tend to try to settle in a "safer area" (whether its "safer" on a long-term basis would be another story).  Even in a "Chaotic" kingdom, the rulers would have an interest in getting rid of anything dangerous enough to challenge their rule, so a dragon that got too close (or a humanoid tribe that got too big or powerful) would very quickly lead to a situation where either the monster would no longer be there, or the humans wouldn't.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;579787Even in a "Chaotic" kingdom, the rulers would have an interest in getting rid of anything dangerous enough to challenge their rule, so a dragon that got too close (or a humanoid tribe that got too big or powerful) would very quickly lead to a situation where either the monster would no longer be there, or the humans wouldn't.

Right, but again, in a world where these things happen, why is there anything around for the heroes to do at all?

It's normally a catch-22.  Either the world is arbitrarily set to match the PC's level, or it assumes that the PC's are the only heroes in it.  Otherwise, it seems there would be a lot of already-cleared dungeons about.

Quote from: mcbobbo;579793Right, but again, in a world where these things happen, why is there anything around for the heroes to do at all?

It's normally a catch-22.  Either the world is arbitrarily set to match the PC's level, or it assumes that the PC's are the only heroes in it.  Otherwise, it seems there would be a lot of already-cleared dungeons about.

I quite like the PCs being the only heroes about (one of the reasons I hate the AD&D training rules) but in that points of light style setting there is no friendly Lord of 9th level with a retuine of suitable chaps to come and drive away the Ogres. The townsfolk themselves actually might drive away the goblins though so what you would probably be left with is tough bad guys clustering round human habitation as its an easy to access resource.
People become the Wildebeast and Zebra to the monsterous menance. As they migrate the bad guys follow...

FWIW, the standard High-to-Late Medieval inspiration for FRPG is part of the problem.  You simply don't have isolated city-states surrounded by monster-infested wilderness as much as you have a lot of rival warlords and kingdoms all jostling up against each other for territory.

The city-states of the Ancient Near East and the pre-Columbian Mexican peninsula have much more in common with the Points of Light concept and one can draw a lot of interesting inspiration from that history[1].  The Bronze Age Greek city-states not so much, though, as there wasn't a lot of land territory for monsters to be infesting.  Major travel was mostly nautical, and the existing Points of Light-style settings haven't really done much with that.


[1] The stories of the Hero Twins, Hunapu and Xbalanque particularly

Quote from: Sommerjon;579732The absurdity of your own answer nullifies your prune-facedness about encounters/level based encounters.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the absurdity. Do you care to elaborate on what, exactly, you find absurd about sandbox play?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Skywalker;579766But old school gaming and AD&D don't require running a sandbox, right? The beauty of AD&D was its flexibile playstyle and TBH I find the suggestion that it can only be played in one way to be a ridiculous assertion. I have played as many non-sandbox campaigns as sand-box campaigns with AD&D. Hell, I even played in a sand-box D&D4e campaign.

Certainly. But no old school play would suggest that the emulation of the game world should take a back seat to some kind of absurd balance quota. The notion that the players are entitled to x amount of encounters (only level-appropriate at that) per day, and not more nor less regardless of how absurd that seems in context of the setting is something you would never see in any style of old-school play.

QuoteI am getting a little confused as to what your point in this thread has become. It seems to be that "mechanics that drive the flow of play are an abomination to a sandbox style of play".

If that's your point, then I agree. You are blindingly obviously correct.

No, the point is that since the goals of an RPG are Emulation and Immersion, mechanics that determine some kind of prefabricated circumstances of play while completely ignoring setting are an abomination to any kind of RPG play.

RPGPundit

Quote from: mcbobbo;579782Those reasons, I believe, are what qualify as 'absurd and incoherent'.  For example, you're a first level fighter.  You were trained by a tenth level fighter.  He tells you about a local cave with goblins in it - the town is offering a reward, or some such.

Couldn't that tenth-level fighter go and claim that reward, single-handedly and in a single afternoon?  Without breaking a sweat, I'd wager.

So, aside from arbitrary 'there has to be something for first level characters to do' style reasons, why hasn't your trainer already cleared that dungeon and claimed the reward?

To put Pundit's concern in reverse, why do the high level people in the campaign only ever elect to face high level challenges?  Do low level gold pieces not spend equally as well?  Is there not any easily-attainable level where 'grinding' low content becomes so completely safe that it out weighs the prospect of meeting equal-level challenges?  And if such a level exists, how big would a population need to be to reach a 100% likelihood that someone of a high enough level has considered this already?  I'd wager, not very big.

Your theoretical high-level fighter is probably a Lord with his own stronghold to manage, or army to lead, or what-have-you, and a little too busy planning to take down something that will net him 100000gp instead of 1000gp.

Again, the point here isn't "realism", though. Its emulation of a setting that makes internal sense.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;579838Certainly. But no old school play would suggest that the emulation of the game world should take a back seat to some kind of absurd balance quota. The notion that the players are entitled to x amount of encounters (only level-appropriate at that) per day, and not more nor less regardless of how absurd that seems in context of the setting is something you would never see in any style of old-school play.

I agree. Then again I think this is true of more than just old-school play too including 4e, being the offender you identify.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579838No, the point is that since the goals of an RPG are Emulation and Immersion, mechanics that determine some kind of prefabricated circumstances of play while completely ignoring setting are an abomination to any kind of RPG play.

I agree, I think. On saying that, if I can have Emulation and Immersion and a mechanical transparency which gives me a better idea as a GM of the difficulty of challenges and adversity I place in my game, I don't see that as an abomination. Its an added benefit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579842Your theoretical high-level fighter is probably a Lord with his own stronghold to manage, or army to lead, or what-have-you, and a little too busy planning to take down something that will net him 100000gp instead of 1000gp.

Again, the point here isn't "realism", though. Its emulation of a setting that makes internal sense.

RPGPundit

No, grinding on low end challenges is the logical way to go. PCs have little fear of death because the can get ressed/reroll but if you're not in a hurry grinding on low level stuff is ideal for NPCs. No risk of death and they're still gaining exp. Unless this is 3e we're talking about where stuff 8 levels below you nets you no xp.

So if there are enough high level dudes around the that only means the orc/kobald/goblin genocide is happening even faster. On the other hand if there are no high level dudes it behooves you to explain why the PCs aren't under the heel of the Dragons/Giants/Mindflayers/whatever.

Very simple, high level people are often busy with high level tasks. If you've ever ran a named level or the domain management part of the game, like Birthright, you'd easily understand this. Just like business or government or any large hierarchical organization, the people at the top usually have better things to do with their limited time.

When you have a lot on your plate, you delegate.

(For example, I assume that 10th lvl fighter isn't giving one-on-one training as much as teaching a new batch of recruits. It also makes questing for hermit master trainers more of a quest, too. Yes Virginia, magic shops and a plethora of bored veteran heroes waiting for apprentices don't happen in my settings -- though you're welcome to play your setting as you please.)

And yes, it's perfectly reasonable for a Great Wyrm Dragon to have a demesne of low power cities and strongholds under his thrall. In fact, I'd expect it - a spare servant horde helps make the treasure hoard more defensible, no? As long as great dragons and other powerful monsters don't have an overwhelming spawn rate, there shouldn't be a problem. All you have to do is sub out mortal fiefdoms for monster ones. IME this is not hard.