Why do we have bandit scenarios?

[ExploderWizard]

Bandits tend to be a symptom of underlying social issues (look at Somalia for a RW example) especially a weak governement. I will disagree with ExploderWizard on bandits showing a corrupt government though. Because a corrupt goverenment is just as want to discourage banditry so that they can enforce their own, whether its taxes, tolls or fines. (At least I found that when travelling abroad the easiest way to lose money was for a cop to just straight up ask for it...)

Suppose a dispicable Baron wants to raise taxes. He needs a reason to give the people to lessen the chances of a revolt. He says the taxes are needed to maintain more soldiers. Why do we need more soldiers? Because bandit activity is up and we need to protect the people. The bandits work for the Baron. A simple example of a corrupt noble using bandits to further his agenda.

 

[Meatboy]

Suppose a dispicable Baron wants to raise taxes. He needs a reason to give the people to lessen the chances of a revolt. He says the taxes are needed to maintain more soldiers. Why do we need more soldiers? Because bandit activity is up and we need to protect the people. The bandits work for the Baron. A simple example of a corrupt noble using bandits to further his agenda.

If the country as a whole is more "good" aligned this works well. I was looking at it from more of a historical view point but that is probably not as fun. At that point the peasants already give 10% to the church and 90% of the rest to their lord not sure their is much left for bandits or the "raising" of taxes...

Though I'm not sure whats stopping the evil baron from just dressing up the bandits in his colours and walking into towns to "enforce" the "kings law" on new taxes. (except for those pesky adventurers and their little dog too)

 

[billd91]

In any case, I think to a certain extent, 'filler' encounters are inevitable in a system where the bulk of XP comes from combat. The PCs need to gain levels so they can take on the BBEG, which means they need to gain XP, which means they need combats. In this paradigm, it's difficult to make every encounter meaningful, so you get filler. Break the XP-combat link and there's a lot less need for filler, allowing the adventure to be streamlined much more.

I suppose that's one reason they may be there. But I think this line of reasoning also leads to the "My Precious Encounters" school of design. I don't believe every encounter needs to be particularly meaningful, certainly not from the point of view of the DM. The PCs may come away with an entirely different understanding of the significance of the encounter than what the DM thinks he's projecting. Plus, if they work at skipping an encounter, what do you do as a DM to convey the meaning the encounter supposed to have? Railroad them back to it?

I think a source of what people perceive as filler is more a problem with pacing the adventure as it plays. Encounters on the way to a destination, even if not particularly meaningful or important, give the DM tools to inject action when relatively mundane things are going on, like travel. But too many of them in an adventure site leads to too much combat grind, which also disrupts the pacing. This would be true whether the encounters are relatively mundane (bandit after bandit after bandit) or "meaningful".

In the end, bandit encounters offer games a number of benefits. On the road, they give characters with outdoorsey powers or longer ranges with powers or weapons a chance to shine in ways they don't in dungeons or ruins. If used judiciously, they give characters information about the surrounding area - law enforcement is difficult, travel dangerous, legitimate economy depressed, and the bandits usually have good local knowledge if interrogated. Trick, as with anything in adventure design, is to not overuse them.

 

[delericho]

I don't disagree with anything in your post; I just want to pick up on a couple of things...

But I think this line of reasoning also leads to the "My Precious Encounters" school of design.

Indeed, that's a risk. And the 4e adventures, in particular, do see to fall too often into this trap.

I don't believe every encounter needs to be particularly meaningful, certainly not from the point of view of the DM.

Certainly, different encounters serve different purposes, whether to set the scene, or raise the stakes, or act as the climax for the adventure, or just to break things up, or whatever.

I'd just like to see an end to encounters added to the adventure for no reason other than to give the PCs the XP they need so they can face the BBEG. Heck, they could even still have those encounters, but let DMs know up-front that that's why they're there, so that DMs with limited time (such as myself) can easily spot and remove them, to run a "good bits" version of the adventure.

 

[lulzapalooza]

Well, look at all the wind-eggs!

We all know, by virtue of caring about the game enough to be reading this, that sometimes a GM has to edit a published adventure, and that there is no end to the nuance that can be had in doing it, but ultimately it's a matter or taste.

When you introduce bandits you're introducing an element to the game, a hook, that can lead to other things. You don't necessarily have to justify the bandits existence, because the party, should they be so inclined, can usually provide you with the justification for you.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Though I'm not sure whats stopping the evil baron from just dressing up the bandits in his colours and walking into towns to "enforce" the "kings law" on new taxes. (except for those pesky adventurers and their little dog too)

How bout approval rating? It will be more of a challenge to adventurers if the dirtbag in question is loved by the people. Normal folk will be on his side and it will be more likely that loyal subjects would report pesky vagabond adventurers nosing around stirring up trouble.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't think this approach - encounters as filler - makes for very satisfying adventures, but was curious about other views.

What if instead of running into some low level opponents then later running into a higher level boss-type, you run into them all at once (a boss plus low-level minions). Does that logisitical adjustment make it more satisfying inherently? More satisfying for low-level character play? More satisfying for you? More satisfying for everyone?

 

[Mark CMG]

Historically it seems that bandits are usually ex-soldiers or deserters who capitalize on the fact that during a war most of the leaders/fighting men are off where the war is.

Banditry during times of famine probably sees more non-military types.

 

[Meatboy]

How bout approval rating? It will be more of a challenge to adventurers if the dirtbag in question is loved by the people. Normal folk will be on his side and it will be more likely that loyal subjects would report pesky vagabond adventurers nosing around stirring up trouble.

True, but approval rating seems rather modern, if we are talking about a psuedo feudal society anyway. In feudal societies from what I've gathered the warrior class, knights or samurai take your pick, pretty much get to do whatever the want regardless of approval or disapproval from their lessers. Due in part to the warrior class being better armed/ fed/ trained than the peasants and usually having the backing of the King, at least in theory as vassals anyway as long as the king got his share and the warriors showed up to the wars.

In fantasy however things are rarely as grim as they were in RW history and there is generally a strong middle class in fantasy setting (ei, people of wealth who aren't heaviy armed warrior class) which then brings scenarios like yours into focus. Allowing for people to be robbed who actually have something (unlike peasants who probably had next to nothing) And therefore making the evil baron more likely to use such a round about method of banditry.

 

[Meatboy]

Banditry during times of famine probably sees more non-military types.

Maybe, but who would the bandits then rob? If its a time of famine chances are the local lords make sure they get food first. So then the peasants have little, and probably aren't worth robbing and if they may want to rethink going after people who do have food because they are probably knights and if they have food are well fed and being knights probably better armed.
I could see a scenario where given the above that hungry knights might rob knights with food. But then we get the Robin Hood thing, at least the majority of the tales I've heard paint him as an ex-knight/noble/soldier taking back from the evil lord who is sucking the people dry.