Best System for a West Marches Game?

[Clyde Starr]

For long term effects in 4e, use creatures that cause diseases, use curses and geas, make your magic items more scarce so they need to go to town to craft items, gather ritual components, etc...

Going into town just for Quest Dumping, I agree is boring. Of course, you 5x'ing the costs also probably had something to do with it as well. If they do get plenty of food, create conditions that spoil the food, steal or infest it. Also, you can use the Training rules and make them spend time in town before they can benefit from new levels (or new tiers, or when acquiring completely new stuff/abilities)

 

[Jhaelen]

I've never found 4e combat to take too long...I can run a complete battle between 15 players, and an equal number of enemies in under 2 hrs(of equal EL)....smaller groups in 45 mins or so. Secret is to make sure players pay attention, so they know what's going on when their turn comes up, and don't give in to decision paralysis. If they aren't ready, they hold their action, move on.

15 players? That's quite impressive.

We've found that the game startes to get bogged down with more than six players (we've played with up to ten), no matter how much everyone concentrates on the action. The problem is that it will take a rather long time until your next turn is around even if every player is done in less than a minute. And in that time, a lot of things will have changed, especially in 4e because of the very dynamic combats. You can rarely plan ahead for your next turn.

I also wonder about the level range of your example. We've found that 4e combat is very fast unitl about the first half of the heroic tier. After reaching Paragon tier, it has already slowed down quite noticeably. There's a bunch of reasons for this:
- monster hit points increasing faster than the party's damage output
- lots of status effects that need to be tracked and/or cause action denial
- 'option overload' for the heroes
- plenty of interrupt powers

Having said that, I cannot say that I have ever minded. I still prefer 4e vastly over any other edition of D&D because combat is so much more _interesting_. And other editions also run into issues at the higher levels.

 

[Clyde Starr]

Admittedly, the games I ran with 15 players were a little different than most...I like large groups, but rarely did too many others. The level range the longest running got up to was 14th level characters. This was a rotating roster group (was a 'Store Game' where I basically let anyone who showed up with an appropriate level character play that day, up to start time, Start time generally being held off until the 5 regulars all were there).
I will say that higher level combat does in fact slow down considerably...as it does in every other edition, but as overall combat still seems faster than other editions it's a zero-sum equation. If 4e's 45 min average group now takes 2 hrs, 1e for instance's 2hr group now takes like 5hrs to finish a similar encounter. (both groups are taking 250% longer to run a combat) The big difference is, now, at higher levels, everyone in 4e is still contributing equally to the action, the Wizard isn't overshadowing everyone at the table.

I also was very efficient in tracking effects, I used my laptop, and had a program on that one made in VB, that told you when status effects ended, who's turn it was, etc... Interrupts were still an issue, but honestly, didn't see them used a whole lot. Often players tended to forget all but their favorite interrupts, so they mostly didn't trigger them. I almost always triggered the monsters interrupts, because I planned around their strategy that way, but again that meant I was prepared for several options when the monsters were able to act (their turn or others)

Oh, coincidentally, it probably says I'm new to EnWorld, because I haven't logged in for a long time, and I logged in via facebook, which wasn't linked to my old account. Old account here was either ShamanStarr or GamerSeuss (can't remember which I used here)

 

[S'mon]

4e seems a particularly poor choice if status-quo sandboxing is the aim. 4e IME is best at superhero style reactive play & similar, eg Arthurian fantasy. Using a wilderness as the "super adventure" per 4e DMG can work
though; MV Threats to the Nentir Vale is basically this and nicely done. I guess exploring each new area should be at least a "minor quest" for XP, with more minor quest awards for loot.

Pathfinder Beginner Box works pretty well, maybe use Slow Track advancement from core and an E5 cap (at 5th 5000 XP = 1 Feat).

5e would work but lacks premade encounter tables, an unforgivable lapse IMO.

I would use an old school D&D system designed to motivate exploration (XP for gp, magic items are found in dungeons & are very useful), with reasonable class balance (so not 1e with UA) and ability to easily run monsters & NPCs inc hired retainers.
1e - PHB only, or OSRIC
2e with XP for GP - PHB only
BECM/RC
Labyrinth Lord
Basic Fantasy RPG
Swords & Wizardry

Would be top pics. I think I might go for Labyrinth Lord with AEC (but use ascending AC), it probably has the closest vibe to what I'd be looking for. Or else BFRPG.

edit: I see this Necro includes my posts from 2010!

 

[76512390ag12]

I'd be quite comfortable using Savage and I am not so sure that a Marches game would have fewer RP opportunities, in fact I can see our groups RP-ING it up.
The lower range in PC skill levels in Savage actually makes it much more manageable and prevents TPKs

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

 

[Libramarian]

The default 1e game basically is the West Marches, except with maps (AFAICT West Marches doesn't actually use maps, which is a bit lame)

 

[Clyde Starr]

I still like 4e for it. Especially if you add a little tweaking to 4e. Mainly, make a new ritual for Identify, and then make magic items mysterious again (I do this a lot anyway). Also remember, yes, this is a sandbox, so it's not like there is a time limit on the dungeon, which may mean people blow their dailies just figuring they will rest after every encounter to get them back...but even in a sandbox, monsters refill the sandbox in some fashion. Not the whole video-game respawn, so much, but rather, one group of baddies get eliminated or thinned out, another group of baddies move in to fill up the ecosystem. Kill a few guard patrols, they tend to step up patrols, bigger and badder than before. Kill enough underlings so your a thorn in some under-lord's side, said underlord will send his best or go himself to find out what's the situation!

Another optional rule that helps is the inherent bonus rule. Great for scaling up weapons and giving incentives. Needing to get things Identified will give the PCs a reason to go back to town more often. Add in the Training rules, if not for every level, than for when a major new ability is reached, or at least when a new tier or multi-class feat is chosen.

You can control the tendency for gold overload in such games by adjusting prices in town up and down based on Adventurer economy (IE: when the adventurers are more flush and throwing money around, prices jack up, when they are poorer, and thus customs is scarce, prices reduce....and don't forget, that safe city may want to tax or tariff the goods coming in, and the churches that do the resurrection and remove disease type services expect tithing

4e, thus, with very little modification, works excellently in running a sandbox. Granted, 1e was truly designed around the initil Sandbox adventures. BECMI and OD&D were designed with the Sandbox in mind too, considering those rules systems were still pure (IE: focus the rules on combat, leave the out of combat stuff to the players/GM 99% of the time)....but that's also what 4e goes back too. Combat focused rules, rules-lite out of combat, very adaptable, yet very cinamatic and again embraacing the abstraction that RPGs were known for.

Would I use Savage Lands....probably not. Would I do such a campaign in D&D 4e GammaWorld....Absolutely. OD&D/BECMI/1e/2e....sure, but without the splat books, keep it simple. 3e/3.5....again, sure, without the splat books....especially anything and everything to do with NON-Combat material. 5e....probably not, however, it could probaby be tweaked.

GURPS: would depend on WHICH GURPS sourcebooks you use, and what exact Genre you end up in. World of Darkness? Actually, this would work quite well with the mechanics of WoD when you consider that WoD is a Social-focused game, as written in the guidelines, but a Combat-optimal dice system (even if it rarely sees combat)

Olde School Role-Masters? Nightmare waiting to happen, same with Adruin Grimoires. Paladium? Maybe, but it is not what I'd prefer. A ShadowRun based game? I could see it, but it would be easily fudged in a small number of characters favor. Any Supers system....in some ways, Supers games are built around a Sandbox/Rotating Roster type theme, when you consider published teams like the Avengers and the Defenders....but not all mechanical systems are equally good at reflecting that theme. For my money in that arena, I'd throw down with Mutants & Masterminds, Champions, or Villains & Vigilantes, and scrap the rest.

I'm gonna leave out the oddball games, and too many clones (Pathfinder is just a 3.x clone, for instance, and BECMI is another oodball it would be hard to judge)

~Doc

 

[S'mon]

I still like 4e for it. Especially if you add a little tweaking to 4e. Mainly, make a new ritual for Identify, and then make magic items mysterious again (I do this a lot anyway). Also remember, yes, this is a sandbox, so it's not like there is a time limit on the dungeon, which may mean people blow their dailies just figuring they will rest after every encounter to get them back...but even in a sandbox, monsters refill the sandbox in some fashion. Not the whole video-game respawn, so much, but rather, one group of baddies get eliminated or thinned out, another group of baddies move in to fill up the ecosystem. Kill a few guard patrols, they tend to step up patrols, bigger and badder than before. Kill enough underlings so your a thorn in some under-lord's side, said underlord will send his best or go himself to find out what's the situation!

Another optional rule that helps is the inherent bonus rule. Great for scaling up weapons and giving incentives. Needing to get things Identified will give the PCs a reason to go back to town more often. Add in the Training rules, if not for every level, than for when a major new ability is reached, or at least when a new tier or multi-class feat is chosen.

You can control the tendency for gold overload in such games by adjusting prices in town up and down based on Adventurer economy (IE: when the adventurers are more flush and throwing money around, prices jack up, when they are poorer, and thus customs is scarce, prices reduce....and don't forget, that safe city may want to tax or tariff the goods coming in, and the churches that do the resurrection and remove disease type services expect tithing

4e, thus, with very little modification, works excellently in running a sandbox. Granted, 1e was truly designed around the initil Sandbox adventures. BECMI and OD&D were designed with the Sandbox in mind too, considering those rules systems were still pure (IE: focus the rules on combat, leave the out of combat stuff to the players/GM 99% of the time)....but that's also what 4e goes back too. Combat focused rules, rules-lite out of combat, very adaptable, yet very cinamatic and again embraacing the abstraction that RPGs were known for.

How do Inherent Bonuses provide incentives to exploration? I find more the opposite. Contrary to earlier posts I am actually 8 sessions in to running a sandboxy 4e Nentir Vale campaign - http://nentirvalecampaign.blogspot.co.uk/ - and one incentive I use is that exploration gets the PCs magic items, which are unavailable or expensive back in Fallcrest.

With Threats to the Nentir Vale detailing out factions in the sandbox it works pretty well, though there is still a tendency to 'dungeon of the week' I am treating most of the dungeons as permanent fixtures that can be revisited. I'm rolling for encounter checks but not on an encounter table per se, I find it very hard to make them work well in 4e.

 

[Clyde Starr]

You provide the Inherent bonuses only as rewards for area completions. Like magic items, which are always a great incentive, mind you, but without doing the parcel system, not always what the players 'use' so much or want, with inherent bonuses, when you grant them, you can give the player a say in the direction of the bonus their weapon/armor gains. This way, the player has some of the feeling of usefulness that was established by the parcel system (the whole 'wish list' but it goes into their pre-existing primary weapon, or armor. Even without giving them a 'choice on how the weapon/armor 'grows' you can still focus the growth according to how it is earned. A group of adventurers who have been fighting to clear out an orcish stronghold reaches the point where you grant an inherent bonus to one or more of their weapons, and you decide to grant +1/+2 vs Orc-kin as a benefit (which is thematic to what they were fighting when they earn the inherent bonus, and encourages them to go out and diversify what kind of challenges they face, to make their weapon more versatile, but also makes the weapon more useful in the current encounter zone(s) as it becomes not only stronger, but stronger still against the current primary foes)

Yes, you can do this with found magic items, it's true, but intelligent foes, especially Vampires and Liches, and Elder Dragons, are actually not likely to keep around magic items specifically geared to fighting their own kind....powerful enough beings would either destroy non-artifact level items of this nature, or hide such things away in other plains of existence. Now, such items do make for grand final chapter/quest-level treasure (we know we're going after a LichKing, we need to go to the Stronghold of the Elder Black Dragon, who is said to guard a LichSlayer)

Use a mix of inherent bonuses, and targeted magic items of lore to incentivize your explorers motivations.

 

[xBobble]

I guess what I'm getting at is the competitive angle of a WM game. If I can adventure for a dozen sessions (which may be up to half a year in real life) and some new guy can come in and play with me and I'm only kind of better, it sort of detracts my work (at least how I see it).

Whereas, in 3.5, for example, by that time I'd be 3rd or 4th level - and everyone can see the difference between a 4th and a 1st level character.

The more I think about it, though, the more I realize you're probably right... and that were one to use Savage Worlds, there'd need to be a cap on attributes and skills at game start (say, 1d8).

Couple of Savage Worlds comments:

Check out Zadmar's combat simulator. If you throw in a Novice versus a character with a couple more advances, you can see how much more effective the experienced character is.

I don't think you'd have to restrict the initial characters as long as the encounters aren't all about challenging the character's sword-arm. None of the existing SW fantasy settings seem to have to do restrict starting characters.

There are a number of cool fantasy settings you can draw from: Hellfrost (Skyrim or Game of Thrones), Beasts and Barbarians (Conan), Shaintar (high fantasy), and the Fantasy Companion are popular, not to mention all the fan-made conversions.