Best System for a West Marches Game?

[Wik]

Okay, so if you don't know about the West Marches, you might want to read this:

ars ludi » Grand Experiments: West Marches

The idea is, the land is unexplored, and the PCs explore that land. Except, the party changes each session, with a large pool of players grouping together and launching exploration parties to their heart's content. A sort of table-top Massively Multiplayer RPG sort of thing.

The creator of the West Marches says you can probably use any system for this type of play, but that it should probably have "Granularity", meaning levels of character selection so that it takes a while for PCs to reach the games "end point" or "midpoint". I'd add that the game should also have less reliance on "Character roles" (as opposed to "if the group lacks a cleric, we're screwed"), and that there shouldn't be a "Magic item necessity" (or "If I don't have a +2 longsword, I'll miss foes of my level every time). At the same time, it should have an incentive for treasure and wealth being a means to PC improvement (to encourage competition between parties).

The system would also need to be very easy to GM for, and easy to plan encounters - because the GM is going to spend a LOT of development time stocking dungeons and making random encounter tables. Because of this, I think the monsters should be quick and easy to run (with little reading necessary to run things, because the GM is probably going to be running the encounter "cold" - ie, with little to no preparation). It also helps if the system expects the party to only fight a small selection of monsters at any one time, or if there is an easy system of accessing monster stats (such as the adventure builder for 4e).

So, what system would work? Which is ideal? Has anyone run a west marches game? And what other necessities am I missing?

 

[Wik]

To answer my own question, I'm thinking 4e has some things going for it. 1st level PCs can enter ECL 3 areas and be expected to live (at least for a while), and while many encounters will be of mixed groups of monsters, there are enough programs out there that any GM with a laptop should have little problem running these groups "cold".

The game would need a redefined treasure system (since treasure has to be placed - you can't just hand out "treasure packets"), and I think it'd be a smart idea to try the "inherent bonuses" optional rule from the DMG so groups don't NEED certain magical items, but overall, the system has merit. The big problem I foresee is the fact that combats in 4e can take a while, which means less exploration time for the party (and exploration is the keystone of A West Marches game).

Savage Worlds doesn't seem to work, though, because there's not enough player granularity (you can have a character with a maxed out combat stat at game start).

Earthdawn shows some promise, though. Though, it seems like a very character-focused game, which could go against the main purpose of West Marches (which is relatively NPC-light).

 

[Raven Crowking]

My sig gives you my answer, although the completed Player's Guide won't be available until March.

 

[Wik]

My sig gives you my answer, although the completed Player's Guide won't be available until March.

Isn't it a re-working of the 3e rules? And, um, why specifically is it "the answer"?

 

[coyote6]

Technically, a starting (Novice) SW character can't be absolutely maxed out, as there are edges that can boost skills that are only available to Veteran, Legenendary, etc. characters. A maxed out at start character will be deficient in other areas, which might easily get him killed. That said, you could always cap starting characters at a d8 or d10 skill or something.

I know there was someone running a West Marches game using GURPS; I don't remember if it they were explicitly using GURPS Dungeon Fantasy or not.

You could do it in Hero, as well; ISTR seeing West Marches mentioned on their forums, too.

I don't know if using Warriors & Warlocks/M&M would work; you could probably tweak it to work, but I think it was written to be more like Warlord or Marvel's Conan comics, which aren't very West Marshy.

I don't remember what edition Ben & co. used. Perhaps he will appear to enlighten.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Isn't it a re-working of the 3e rules? And, um, why specifically is it "the answer"?

A significant reworking, IMHO. And I didn't say "the" answer; I said "my" answer.

* RCFG is intentionally written with an eye toward the sandbox.

* The power-level curve is flat enough that characters have some staying power, but steep enough that said staying power relies upon good thinking and good play.

* The weapon skill system allows PCs to adjust their attack rolls, damage, and/or Armour Class, or their chances of rolling a critical hit. Without requiring magic weapons or armour.

* Actually, I'm quite proud of the combat system. It allows for fast-paced, tactically satisfying engagements without a grid. IMHO and IME, of course.

* I can pick up my Encyclopedia Magica again and insert anything I want into adventures without doing a lot of work.

* I can use monsters from any era sourcebook with minimal work. My 1e FF and MM now get as much of a workout as do my 3e ToH and MM.

* It is easy to convert any era adventure to RCFG.....In playtests, I have used 1e, 3e, and even 4e materials without requiring too much reworking. 4e materials, obviously, require the most reworking.

* There is a clear "Normal Man" standard that makes even scenarios from games like Harn and MERP convertable without too much difficulty. Again, IMHO.

* Core rules will include an appendix for Modern characters and Planetary Romance.

Downside?

* Not done yet.

* Made for my style; may require modification for yours.


RC

 

[Wik]

Snip

Ah, I see now. Good to know!

Everything you mentioned seems like they'd work as selling points.

Technically, a starting (Novice) SW character can't be absolutely maxed out, as there are edges that can boost skills that are only available to Veteran, Legenendary, etc. characters. A maxed out at start character will be deficient in other areas, which might easily get him killed. That said, you could always cap starting characters at a d8 or d10 skill or something.

Yeah, technically true, but I've played SW just enough to notice that most spellcasters have a d10 or d12 in spellcasting, and most fighters have a d10 or d12 in fighting. And that d12 in fighting means that you're harder to hit. And in a West Marches game, since there are fewer "RP opportunities", you can get away with neglecting many of those SW skills - really, I think a SW character can do just fine with Fighting, Survival, Heal, and Notice.

The cap is probably a good idea, but it still seems to me like there's less dividing the characters - a veteran of a dozen forays could rub shoulders with a complete newbie, and the two would be on a similar playing level.

I don't remember what edition Ben & co. used. Perhaps he will appear to enlighten.

He used 3.5E D&D, which is an absolute "no" for me. Mostly because the game is a bit too "rulesy" for me, and because I've always thought it a pain to GM for. At lower levels, it is a pretty good idea of what to look for on the player's side of things (especially if you limit the number of books accessible to the players - but that works with every system).

 

[coyote6]

The cap is probably a good idea, but it still seems to me like there's less dividing the characters - a veteran of a dozen forays could rub shoulders with a complete newbie, and the two would be on a similar playing level.

True, but I am currently thinking of that as a good thing, myself.

He used 3.5E D&D, which is an absolute "no" for me. Mostly because the game is a bit too "rulesy" for me, and because I've always thought it a pain to GM for. At lower levels, it is a pretty good idea of what to look for on the player's side of things (especially if you limit the number of books accessible to the players - but that works with every system).

I was thinking it was 3.0. In any case, you couldn't run a pure West Marches game for long past level 8-10 or so -- once wizards start teleporting around, that whole "dangerous wilderness" thing fades away fast, IME. For me, it wasn't until the PCs were past 15th level or so that I chafed at running 3.x, so I would think a 3.x West Marches should stay in the "sweet spot".

(Not that I've run a West Marches game; I'm far too lazy. )

 

[Raven Crowking]

If you like 3e, E6 is perfect for this sort of game.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

I'm currently running a campaign designed somewhat along West Marches ideas in 4e. I'm not sure it's working very well so far, although obviously that doesn't necessarily mean that the system can't work well. The lack of a consistent group has caused some weird problems-- encounters that would have been straight forward with a controller present (lots of minions) became very difficult without one. Likewise, some players feel the need to play leaders because they're worried that if they don't, they might be without one and then be very weak. Also, 4e assumes that the players learn something about the other characters' capabilities, so they can work together as a team. A mixed set of players makes that much more challenging.

We'll see. I'm still running my game, partly because I think that applying 4e outside of its core designed space is an interesting exercise. But I'm not sure I'd recommend it.

(3.x and its variants are a good option, I would say. Earthdawn would probably work well. An "old school" style game would work well as a more rules-light approach, ideally using a modern rebuild that lacks some of the weird complexities of the old versions, although RC D&D would be a good option if you don't mind some of the old weirdness.)