Challenge in Sandboxes

[Quertus]

Woah, woah, woah. Where is this coming from?

Were I posting from computer rather than phone, I might try to answer that, and see exactly where the communication failed.

That might actually be instructive for us both.

For now, let's try to suss out the differences between what I thought I heard, and what you thought you said.

I have repeatedly said in this thread that I don't want every fight to be a big deal, and for years I have been saying that my adventures as a whole contain 4-6 combat encounters, 4-6 non-combat encounters, and all together use up ~80% of the parties resources.

Of course most encounters are trivially stomped when the total of 8-12 of them only adds up to ~80%.

This might be a player vs GM perception thing. Or it might be an "I'm a grognard" thing. But, when I think "attrition", I think big dungeons, with 50 rooms and 20 set encounters, plus random encounters, both in the dungeon and during travel. I think "how much ammo you can physically carry" actually matters, and the 10th level PC casting sleep on the goblins to save the party 5 HP is actually an important strategic decision. Where *maybe* the party calls those goblins "trivially stomped", or maybe the party realizes that that decision wasn't trivial at all, and only the poison gas room, that the all Necropolitan party was immune to, actually qualified as "trivially stomped".

Note: that poison gas room would have been *tough* for most parties. This party spanked it. *That* is the kind of thing that makes *this party* look cool. In case that helps you understand one of our other conversations.

The problem with a hex-crawl is that my players want a situation where they only have 1 encounter per day AND they want it to be trivially easy on its own, which makes for a very slow boring game where tactical decisions and dice rolls don't really matter.

Then give them that? And keep giving them that until they realize that that isn't what they want, and all ask for something else.

Only, don't make it slow! Just instantly skip to the next day / encounter.

If they cannot take their turns quickly, nova quickly, and breeze through many, many encounters per night, there's something more wrong in Bizarro World than most of us suspect.

Wow, rude.

While the gist of what you are saying is correct, you are putting a lot of words in my mouth.

I don't believe I have ever called my players cowards, although its possible I said something I didn't mean for dramatic effect.

You said that their PCs were not heroic. You've spilled a lot off virtual ink to that effect. I can totally see why someone would have that takeaway. And how that attitude could contribute to the toxic cycle in your group, too.

[Lord Torath]

This is actually exactly how I did it, and also exactly how I expected it to work.

The problem was, the players knew the treasure was still waiting for them in the dungeon, so they would always choose to turn back after each fight, random or planned.

What if it wasn't? What if, after clearing a few rooms a day at a time, they get back to the dungeon the next time and discover that the loot was gathered up by the inhabitants who then fled for safer locations? Sandbox doesn't mean the players do whatever they want without consequence. It means they do what they want, and the world reacts with verisimilitude.

[icefractal]

What if it wasn't? What if, after clearing a few rooms a day at a time, they get back to the dungeon the next time and discover that the loot was gathered up by the inhabitants who then fled for safer locations? Sandbox doesn't mean the players do whatever they want without consequence. It means they do what they want, and the world reacts with verisimilitude.

I find that's tricky to do in a way that really feels like a natural consequence rather than a gamist push though.

Like, this ruin has been around for decades or centuries, it's been known as a point of interest since at least two months ago, when we initially heard about it, and remained undisturbed until we reached it 10 days ago. But now, right as we start to clear it, that's when a rival group showed up? Not "before we even heard about it" or "during the six weeks between hearing about it and reaching it" or "in another week or so after we were done with it", but right now during this relatively narrow window? Honestly, even with a GM I trust, I'd perceive that as "the GM introducing some rivals" rather than "a natural consequence of events" - not that I'd generally have a problem with that.

I think for this to make more sense IC, you'd need the PCs entering it initially to change something. Perhaps most ruins have guardian monsters, more powerful than most things inside. Once you defeat the guardian, the ruin will be easier to access for anyone else, so you probably want to delve it ASAP.

[Alcore]

I find that's tricky to do in a way that really feels like a natural consequence rather than a gamist push though.

Like, this ruin has been around for decades or centuries, it's been known as a point of interest since at least two months ago, when we initially heard about it, and remained undisturbed until we reached it 10 days ago. But now, right as we start to clear it, that's when a rival group showed up? Not "before we even heard about it" or "during the six weeks between hearing about it and reaching it" or "in another week or so after we were done with it", but right now during this relatively narrow window? Honestly, even with a GM I trust, I'd perceive that as "the GM introducing some rivals" rather than "a natural consequence of events" - not that I'd generally have a problem with that.

I think for this to make more sense IC, you'd need the PCs entering it initially to change something. Perhaps most ruins have guardian monsters, more powerful than most things inside. Once you defeat the guardian, the ruin will be easier to access for anyone else, so you probably want to delve it ASAP.

Alternatively... you are going to this specific ruin for a specific magic item (unless you never researched why this is a point of interest). Lets say a sword of doom. So you go there to claim it from lab experiments gone rogue and possible undead and constructs.

Instead the place is filled with harpies in the upper floors and scavengers (think animals) on the bottom. Any players of mine might assume they are WoW harpies and diplomacy is not off the table; while they are monsters they are also scantily clad women. A good situation to chuck your Conan look alike at for diplomacy, lots of new eggs and an all access pass.

The sword? long gone. There might be clues, treasure or other items to make the journey worth it. Thing is is that you still need to loot now as when you return others will know it is "safe" and if they don't believe the party barbarian's "tall tale" of his wooing is free for the pickings. Harpies might also explore and arm themselves with the stuff as well; humans and other races don't go that far out into the wilds for nothing...


Of course all that is narratives...

[Calthropstu]

In my sandbox games, the pcs can do whatever they want. Hey, they want to slow tackle the dungeon with 15 minute days? Maybe teleport back to camp after a few rooms?

That's fine. The second day they try that, they come back to a completely empty dungeon. Or maybe, after a week of thisthe adventurers guild assumes they are dead and sends a recovery team to grab their bodies Or after a month they come back, find out there had been a power struggle and their main benefactor is dead. Or the quest they were on was invalidated by the guild because they took too long.

Just because it's a sandbox doesn't mean there isn't any plot. And if the plots aren't interacted with, things happen. Opportunities are missed, villians escape, people are born and die. Have dates for important events (give or take a day or two) which WILL trigger if not interacted with. And if the pcs are dragging their feet elsewhere? So be it.

[RandomPeasant]

Having bad stuff arbitrarily happen because the PCs aren't moving as fast as you'd like is a terrible idea. Consequences should be tied to the actions of the PCs, or at least deducible from information available to them. Otherwise the game immediately devolves into "guess what number I'm thinking of". Should we rush the dungeon because we'll get punished for delaying? Should we slow down because we'll get punished for pushing our luck? Should we do whatever we'd do normally, because the DM will punish us for metagaming the scenario? How do you expect the PCs to figure out that the reason arbitrary bad stuff is happening to them is because they're moving too quickly, and not because they're not taking enough prisoners or not investigating thoroughly enough? For players to be able to make meaningful decisions, events have to follow logically from their choices based on the information they had when they made the choice. "You come back to the dungeon and find it's empty" isn't that, it's the DM being unwilling to communicate with the players when he's not getting what he needs out of the group, and is no better than coming to the table with an intentionally min-maxed character that stomps on the DM's encounters.

[Calthropstu]

Having bad stuff arbitrarily happen because the PCs aren't moving as fast as you'd like is a terrible idea. Consequences should be tied to the actions of the PCs, or at least deducible from information available to them. Otherwise the game immediately devolves into "guess what number I'm thinking of". Should we rush the dungeon because we'll get punished for delaying? Should we slow down because we'll get punished for pushing our luck? Should we do whatever we'd do normally, because the DM will punish us for metagaming the scenario? How do you expect the PCs to figure out that the reason arbitrary bad stuff is happening to them is because they're moving too quickly, and not because they're not taking enough prisoners or not investigating thoroughly enough? For players to be able to make meaningful decisions, events have to follow logically from their choices based on the information they had when they made the choice. "You come back to the dungeon and find it's empty" isn't that, it's the DM being unwilling to communicate with the players when he's not getting what he needs out of the group, and is no better than coming to the table with an intentionally min-maxed character that stomps on the DM's encounters.

Yeah, you're not getting it. Things happen regardless of thePCs. In a sandbox, the pcs are open to explore and investigate. They are free to drag their feet, they are free to rush. The gm needs to take into account an entire worlds activities.

When the PCs leave for a dungeon, there may be early whisperings of discontent. There may be a rumor of a dragon making trouble in a far off land. There may be whispers of a cult kidnapping someone.

It's the job of a sandbox gm to keep his reality up to date. Not only bad things will happen, but tell me... when was the last time it was a good idea to drag your feet at work? Telling the boss "sorry" only goes so far.

And if you're repetedly raiding someone's lair and getting closer to the boss... Why would you expect them to sit around waiting? Either they'll throw everything they have at you all at once, or they'll flee the dungeon and set themselves up elsewhere. Or flee, wait a few days and come back.

They aren't going to just sit around waiting. It has always bothered me that modules do precisely that.

[Telok]

PCs wander into town (well, 2gp toll bridge so a couple of them swam and got bit by a giant catfish), mayor doesn't like adventurers and is rude but still offers 200gp to deal with farmers complaining about scary lizards & not delivering food. PCs go a days walk down river and deal with the pair of mated basilisks in an orchard. Leave the corpses and take a long trip 150 miles away to get the sorcerer un-petrified. They return a month later, walk in, insult the mayor, ask for the reward (also one swam the river again, 2gp). Mayor was all "Dudes, my guards like, killed them and hauled the like, corpses in as proof like, three weeks ago and like, I paid them the like, bounty. Now go **** ***** **** yourselves."

Sandboxy. Ticked them the heck off but they didn't complain. They started plotting to kill the mayor.

[Chauncymancer]

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.

Make resting expend resources.

So I'm curious about the bit I bolded, because I have basically the same idea as Cluedrew. The simplest idea in a game about going out to explore for treasure is to say something like "Character abilities require constant training and raw materials and a diet and lifestyle to boot and we are going to track all of that through the concept of use it or lose it. Each day you lose 100 xp for each level you are, and if that drops you below the level up threshold you lose that level. A gold piece will buy you 10 xp." And then the size of all the treasure hordes in a hex is equal to [the number of encounters in that hex divided by two] times the number of players times 10. So you can tread water by long resting after every other encounter, gain ground by resting every three encounters, and lose ground by resting after one encounter. With some exceptions and stipulations, as the treasure doesn't have to be divided evenly between the encounters, it just has to add up. If you ever end a day with 0 xp you die, roll up a new character.

I find that's tricky to do in a way that really feels like a natural consequence rather than a gamist push though.

The trick is to establish that either A: I have it preprinted in my notes that on March 4th this party will get five encounters into this dungeon, unless one of those encounters is the silver serpent, in which case they stop early. If you ask the third level fighter Humphrey he'll tell you that he's putting together an excursion on the 4th to seek the silver serpent. It's currently the second.
or B: people are specifically coming up to you all the time and trying to swap stories of daring deeds with you, perhaps at a special adventurers' inn. NPCs will ask you what you did today all the time so unless you engage in a complex disinformation campaign your party's movements are common knowledge. Run away from a dungeon on Monday? Even the blacksmith will know about all the defenseless treasure you left behind by Thursday.

Then give them that? And keep giving them that until they realize that that isn't what they want, and all ask for something else.

I think the question at hand is: Given that these players are prevented by the laws of physics from ever asking for something else, even though they want to, how do we push the rope?

I have to say, at that point it doesn't feel like a "sandbox" to me any more, it feels like a series of mission-based adventures.

YMMV, but when I think sandbox I think exploration. And exploration is not the same thing as survival!

I think one thing that happens in sandboxes but not anywhere else is the metagame understanding that at any moment you can choose for your character to disengage with a play element and never come back to it and this is not you as a person motioning to end the game. Don't like a location? Leave and never come back. Don't like an NPC? Stop talking to them. Get two rooms into a dungeon and lose interest? Just leave, buy a cart, and become tin merchants.
And you can technically achieve that metagame autonomy with a mission based game, if the party always has multiple completely different missions they can choose from.

[thirdkingdom]

The thing about a sandbox game that has been alluded to in previous posts is that the world is not static, and events in the world will occur independently of the party's actions. What I typically do is start them off with a half dozen or so plot hooks, like this:

With winter over and the bitter cold receding to the north the town of Junction comes alive once more. No longer choked with bobbing chunks of ice and slush, work continues to repair the great stone bridge spanning the Sarn and promising to open up the west once more to the civilizing forces of Man. The streets of Junction are filled with explorers and tradesfolk, mercenaries and merchants, all drawn to the frontier town at the call of the Scarlet Prince and his promise of untold wealth for those willing to brave the uncivilized wilds.

Over dinner the previous night the party's factor, a tall, stout woman named Madam Fleur had spread out the wrinkled, faded map on the table and succinctly recounts what they know.

“This map dates back to the end of the Fifteenth Cycle of Law, and has potentially changed. You may find that the landscape – or the inhabitants found there – are not what is indicated.”
“Here,” she says, pointing to the road leading to the town of Rocky Mount, “a pride of manticores is said to lurk, devouring all who attempt to pass. Their lair is said to be in these mountains here, overlooking the forest below. I have spoken to a merchant who claimed they are denning halfway up an almost sheer cliff, with a difficult approach.”

“A man has made contact with me, wild-eyed and bushy-bearded, claiming to know the location of a lost gold mine that he is willing to sell for the sum of five hundred gold alcedes. Ordinarily I would discount such tales as the raving of a lunatic or the sugary words of a con man, but I have sources who confirm that there was at one point an attempt to mine a lucrative vein somewhere about here.” She points to a section of the map labeled “70.44”.

“Explorers tell tales of Pesh, a fabled city far to the west. However, in order to get there one would have to either pass through Rocky Peak or take a longer and more circuitous route south, and then west.”

“There are also tales that the land west of Junction and south of Rocky Peak are exceptionally fertile. They tell me the Prince has his eye on expanding this way, at some point, as his domain is somewhat lacking in rich soil.”

“The Rufous Baron, ruler of Junction, has offered a reward of 1,000 gold alcedes for anyone able to clear the land directly opposite the bridge of all threats, so that he may garrison a squad of troops there and begin construction of a watchtower.” Her finger traces a ring around hexes 73.46 and 73.47.

“There’s a community somewhere to the north of Alice,” says Madam Fleur, “called Kimrid. It’s a largely unremarkable village, heavily fortified against the incursions of Chaos, and valuable only because it is contains a monastery that trains holy warriors, known as dervishes, that are well-regarded in the Principality as bodyguards and assassins. We haven’t had any contact with Kimrid since the end of the previous Cycle of Law. The Prince is willing to pay 2,000 alcedes if the road north to this monastery is cleared and contact re-established, should it still exist.”

“The Principality in general, and Junction in particular, relies on the mining camps to the north,” her fingers trace the Sarn north to where the woods thin out and give way to hills. “Ore, especially iron, is in short supply, not just in the Principality, but the Variagated Kingdoms in general. There are a number of mining camps spread throughout these hills, run by private mercantile concerns. The largest company, the Red Sky Mining Company, is offering a bounty on beastmen heads. Their main office is here, but they’ve established a semi-permanent camp here,” she indicates hex 72.43. “That’s about as far north as the riverboats can go before bottoming out. Goblin heads are five alcedes, orcs ten, hobgoblins twenty-five, and ogres one hundred.”

Madam Fleur takes a sip of wine and warns the adventurers that they surely will not be the only brave souls called to the frontier. “There are two other parties that I am aware of currently in Junction, and more will certainly follow with the warmer weather. I have told you what I know and leave the final decision to those more experienced in such matters. I will be here, looking after your concerns. You can reach me via the magic mirror every seven days”. With that she sits back, cradling her wineglass in both hands, and lets the adventurers have time to decide their next course of action.

The party is free to pick any of the initial plot hooks, or, if they don't like what is offered, they can spend some time and money tracking down other options. Or, they can just decide to do something else entirely, but usually they'll pick one of the hooks that is offered. At this point, all of the other options are placed on a timer; other adventuring parties composed of NPCs might be hired to deal with one hook, or maybe one resolves (or gets worse!) on its own.

As was mentioned above, if the party delves into a dungeon, gets in one fight, and then leaves, the (intelligent) inhabitants aren't going to sit around in stasis waiting for the PCs to return; they're going to reinforce the perimeter, set traps, make alliances with other denizens to repel the invaders, etc. Traditionally, too (in older versions of D&D) dungeons are actually the safe space compared to wilderness travel, so spending time traveling to and from a dungeon each day *should* be dangerous. In a dungeon you've got a rough idea of the level of opposition you're facing, with increasing challenge as the party descends deeper, but in the wilderness you can encounter *anything*.

[kyoryu]

The first thing is that, really, the sandbox isn't static. If you have an encounter in Hex A, that doesn't mean there won't be one there next time you come back.

And the dungeon will "restock" itself. Different monsters will move in, power vacuums will happen, etc.

If you take long enough to go back to town and rest up, any "progress" you made will be gone. You're fighting your way back there. Good luck.

If you make it so things don't "repopulate"? Then, yes, clear a room, go rest, and repeat forever is the optimal strategy.

[Yora]

Good rules are designed to make the desired narrative structures sensible mechanical choices.

If you want a game for a certain type of stories, the rules should make behaving in that way the most rewarding option.

[Segev]

Good rules are designed to make the desired narrative structures sensible mechanical choices.

If you want a game for a certain type of stories, the rules should make behaving in that way the most rewarding option.

Absolutely. This is something that game designers need to keep in mind at all times.

[Talakeal]

Good rules are designed to make the desired narrative structures sensible mechanical choices.

If you want a game for a certain type of stories, the rules should make behaving in that way the most rewarding option.

Absolutely. This is something that game designers need to keep in mind at all times.

I agree, but a lot of people, some of them in this very thread, act like this is a form of arrogantly strong arming people into playing the game how you want them to play it.

[thirdkingdom]

I think what it boils down to -- more than having mechanics that support the style of play -- is to have a robust social contract with your players. The DM needs to sit the players down and have a discussion about what their expectation is, what the players' expectations are, and how to come to an agreement on how the game will be played. Because, correct me if I'm wrong, not having that much experience with the current editions of D&D, the general assumptions of 5e aren't based around a single daily encounter, either.

If I were the DM I would lay it out to the players: "I notice you've been playing like this, which is fine, but you should now that taking it slow like this is going to have in-game consequences. The denizens of the dungeon will likely take time to organize and mount a resistance, other adventuring parties may take advantage of your slowness, etc."

[Segev]

I agree, but a lot of people, some of them in this very thread, act like this is a form of arrogantly strong arming people into playing the game how you want them to play it.

It's all about buy-in with the players. If you're playing a game that is to have a particular tone, or mimic a particular genre, or otherwise engage with tropes that make for a particular feel, then presumably the players are playing the game with the intent of playing that kind of game.

A "Resident Evil" RPG is ideally going to be about zombie fighting with conceits around how that's done. A superheroes game will ideally enable people to act like superheroes in comic books and cartoons tend to (so if you catch a falling reporter, she is saved, not broken in your super-strong arms). An action heroes game will encourage dashing into combat and pounding the enemy with your awesomeness, while a game trying to emulate a stealth-focused game would have mechanics that help play stealthy and penalize stealth failures with more than merely a combat to win.

Mutants and Masterminds 3e has a mechanic that relates your falling damage to a height rating from which you fell, and a rule for catching people that subtracts levels of superstrength from that height rating, for exactly the kind of superheroic catch that would, by realistic physics, be just as bad as them hitting the ground, but in comics always saves the day.

You need the players buying into the genre conventions your game is going to showcase, so that they agree that mechanics that encourage them to play to those tropes are a good thing.

[Satinavian]

I agree, but a lot of people, some of them in this very thread, act like this is a form of arrogantly strong arming people into playing the game how you want them to play it.

Well, guilty of that.

I believe, It is.


Making rules that strongly favor behavior that you want the PC to do but the players don't want their PCs to do, could very well be described as arrogantly strong arming people into playing the game how you want them to play it.

I already said the same thing as Yora. But i qualified it with the whole group having to be on the same page about what actually is desirable behavior first. If you have reached it, you can write rules to guide it there and the players will even help you. If not, it is a waste of time at best.

[kyoryu]

Well, guilty of that.

I believe, It is.


Making rules that strongly favor behavior that you want the PC to do but the players don't want their PCs to do, could very well be described as arrogantly strong arming people into playing the game how you want them to play it.

I already said the same thing as Yora. But i qualified it with the whole group having to be on the same page about what actually is desirable behavior first. If you have reached it, you can write rules to guide it there and the players will even help you. If not, it is a waste of time at best.

All rules suggest favored ways to play. Inevitably.

Good rules provide multiple choices that are all valid. IOW, good rules don't promote a single path, but rather suggest a number of decisions to the players which don't have clearly superior answers to them.

[RandomPeasant]

I agree, but a lot of people, some of them in this very thread, act like this is a form of arrogantly strong arming people into playing the game how you want them to play it.

That's the exact thing that rules do. Rules exist to say "things work in this way and do not work in other ways". That's the whole point of rules. When you say "I want rules that support this sort of playstyle", you are implicitly dismissing other playstyles as not being worthy of consideration. That is perhaps the most arrogant thing you can do. That's dampened somewhat by the fact that there are a lot of different sets of rules that support a lot of different playstyles, but it is absolutely true that a set of rules forces people to play in a particular way, because forcing you to do things in a particular way is what makes them rules.

[Segev]

When you say "I want rules that support this sort of playstyle", you are implicitly dismissing other playstyles as not being worthy of consideration.

Er, no, that is not what you're implying. You are stating, outright, that the game for which you are making or seeking these rules is one where this sort of playstyle is desired.

It makes no value judgment on other playstyles except that they are less desirable for the game you want to play/run.

It is no more "arrogant" to do that than to say that you want to play a standard game of chess, and therefore do not want to bring in Knightmare Chess cards.

[NichG]

I don't think it's always arrogant to make rules to encourage a specific desired playstyle. But I do think it can be, if the playstyle you're trying to encourage is one that the people you're playing with don't actually like.

Good design:

- A player says 'I want to play a heroic, brave character who takes a lot of risks, but this game really punishes suboptimal play'. The designer says 'Okay, I'm going to design a game that actually rewards taking risks more than not taking risks, to enable the kind of play that you want.'

Bad design:

- A player says 'I really don't want to take risks or have a chance of losing or failing just because of what the dice decide, so I'm going to play very carefully and defensively'. The designer says 'I want you to take risks, so I'm going to design the game so that careful and defensive play is strictly suboptimal, so that you'll end up having to do risky things if you don't want to fail'.

It's reasonable to say for example 'I want to run a game about taking risks, so I'll design rules for that and then find the players who are on board with that idea'. It's unreasonable to say 'I have a fixed set of players, and I'm going to design rules to shape their behaviors so they're playing the kind of game I want to run even if they don't normally like playing that way'.

[WindStruck]

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!

Only read this and not any of the other responses. And my answer is... you can't.

Sandbox games are supposed to offer players a lot of freedom, so they are therefore free take things at their own pace, make all the well-thought-out decisions they want, and generally speaking, unless they have really messed up (or that's what they want) danger will not be seeking them.

The only thing you can really do is throw time-sensitive plot hooks their way. And upon taking the bait, your players are now involved in a quest or campaign. Of course, if the going is too risky and difficult, your players could also just give up on that and go back to what they were doing. Because after all, it's still a sandbox.

[RandomPeasant]

It is no more "arrogant" to do that than to say that you want to play a standard game of chess, and therefore do not want to bring in Knightmare Chess cards.

Well, yes, that's the mitigating factor I mentioned where you creating one set of rules doesn't destroy others. But imagine that neither Knightmare Chess nor regular chess existed, and you had the option to create one or the other. Making the decision to create regular chess is deciding that it's (in whatever sense) more valuable or more important than Knightmare Chess. That decision is, in itself, arrogant. You're deciding that the thing you want to do is better or more important than the things other people want to do. Now, you might point out that no one game can support every playstyle, and that's totally true. But it doesn't make the dismissal of other playstyles any less hurtful for the people who would rather you supported them instead. That's why the idea of a "universal system" is so tempting, even if it's ultimately impossible.

[kyoryu]

Only read this and not any of the other responses. And my answer is... you can't.

Sandbox games are supposed to offer players a lot of freedom, so they are therefore free take things at their own pace, make all the well-thought-out decisions they want, and generally speaking, unless they have really messed up (or that's what they want) danger will not be seeking them.

The only thing you can really do is throw time-sensitive plot hooks their way. And upon taking the bait, your players are now involved in a quest or campaign. Of course, if the going is too risky and difficult, your players could also just give up on that and go back to what they were doing. Because after all, it's still a sandbox.

Well the other thing is look at what your rules implicitly recommend.

Again, let's look at a hypothetical situation: The dungeon is three hexes away. There are five rooms in the dungeon. At the end of the dungeon is a treasure. Rooms and hexes, once cleared, stay cleared, and there's no resource cost or penalty to going back to town after a combat.

Well, of course people are going to rest up in that situation, after each fight.

Same if all the rewards are from combat - of course people will just rest up if the benefits from a fight in the first hex are the same as the deepest room of the dungeon. Why wouldn't they?

There's also the variability of cost (given an attrition based game like this is described as). If you have 100 resources, and an encounter could take 10-60 resources, then it really makes sense to return to town any time that you have 40 resources depleted or more than one potential encounter on the way back. If an encounter can take 5-10 resources, then as long as you have (encounters*10) resources available, you're still "safe". The math gets wonky here combined with perception, but it doesn't even really matter if there's only a 10% chance of that encounter taking 60 resources, it's still going to throw off the probability and perception of risk.

Note that resource cost shouldn't presume you just attack the monster. If you "encounter" a red dragon at level 3 (and who put that there or on the table anyway???) then that "encounter" should be signs that a red dragon is near, seeing it in the distance, etc. The goal should be avoid/bypass, not attack. Encounters should be survivable with that level of resource loss, not beatable

So, no, if somebody really really wants to be super cautious, you can't make them not be. But you can ensure that your game actually makes the behavior you want a reasonable choice.

[Segev]

Well, yes, that's the mitigating factor I mentioned where you creating one set of rules doesn't destroy others. But imagine that neither Knightmare Chess nor regular chess existed, and you had the option to create one or the other. Making the decision to create regular chess is deciding that it's (in whatever sense) more valuable or more important than Knightmare Chess. That decision is, in itself, arrogant. You're deciding that the thing you want to do is better or more important than the things other people want to do. Now, you might point out that no one game can support every playstyle, and that's totally true. But it doesn't make the dismissal of other playstyles any less hurtful for the people who would rather you supported them instead. That's why the idea of a "universal system" is so tempting, even if it's ultimately impossible.

I'm sorry, I reject any assertion that creating something because it's what you want to create is inherently "arrogant." By that logic, everything ever made was made out of sheer unadulterated arrogance. Which, at best, dilutes and alters the meaning of the word "arrogant" to the point that it is sometimes a virtue. Arrogance, by definition, is never a virtue.

Google's top (and only, as far as I bothered clicking) definition for "arrogant" is: "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities."

[RandomPeasant]

I'm sorry, I reject any assertion that creating something because it's what you want to create is inherently "arrogant."

That's great, because I've never made such an assertion. What I said was arrogant was excluding the things you don't like. Deciding that things shouldn't exist just because you dislike them is absolutely "an exaggerated sense of one's own importance".

[Calthropstu]

That's great, because I've never made such an assertion. What I said was arrogant was excluding the things you don't like. Deciding that things shouldn't exist just because you dislike them is absolutely "an exaggerated sense of one's own importance".

I have to disagree here. Making a game you like is not arrogant. It would be arrogant if someone then said "I made this game to be the besterest game ever played so why are you still playing that dumb old game we were playing when we first met?"

If someone dislikes penguins, why should he put penguins in his game? He doesn't have to. It is HIS game. It is the height of arrogance to try to force him to include penguins because you like them. Same goes with everything else.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's great, because I've never made such an assertion. What I said was arrogant was excluding the things you don't like. Deciding that things shouldn't exist just because you dislike them is absolutely "an exaggerated sense of one's own importance".

I'd say that dreaming that you can make a universal system is the arrogant one. Humility would be to accept that you can't please everyone all the time and trying to build something that does a few things well instead of trying to build one that does everything.

Knowing your limits and the scope of the project is entirely not arrogance.

At the campaign and worldbuilding level, I don't add things I don't like. I try to make sure I like everything that needs to go in--if I don't like it, one of two things has to happen. Either it gets left out[1] or I change my tastes[2].

[1] An example of this is alignment as a cosmological factor. It doesn't exist in my setting, period.
[2] I thought I liked low-power, "slow" things. That's changed.

[kyoryu]

I'd say that dreaming that you can make a universal system is the arrogant one. Humility would be to accept that you can't please everyone all the time and trying to build something that does a few things well instead of trying to build one that does everything.

Some things are directly opposed. The only way to try to support both of them is to have a system with so many options that it ceases to be a system any more, and is more of a "make your own game" toolkit.

GURPS heads this direction, but only partially - GURPS games still feel like GURPS.

There is no truly universal system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Some things are directly opposed. The only way to try to support both of them is to have a system with so many options that it ceases to be a system any more, and is more of a "make your own game" toolkit.

GURPS heads this direction, but only partially - GURPS games still feel like GURPS.

There is no truly universal system.

Exactly. "Universality" is a pipe dream. All rules, including foundational "what dice do we roll" and "do we have a DM role" exclude certain play styles. That's rather the point of rules--to narrow the field. Even free-form, which only has meta-rules, excludes certain play styles.