Why do we have bandit scenarios?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Nobles have a lifestyle, and would probably still be importing delicacies. Wine, fish, whatever isn't immediately available. Also, they have vulnerable forests where they can hunt venison, and so forth.

Someone has to carry those goods to the lords, and those traveling merchants are probably at risk of robbery. Someone is sneaking into those forests and making off with the duke's deer.

Caravans are pretty tough, though; bandits should only attack if they're desperate. Merchants might organize into caravans if the bandit threat becomes great, because which merchants wants to be robbed of their livelihood?

 

[Mark CMG]

Maybe, but who would the bandits then rob?

Historically, as we were discussing tangentially, in times of famine anyone who had even a crust of bread is a target for someone starving and without even a crust of bread.

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.

"Tales" are a different thing than our tangent was discussing. However, in time of famine and plague mobs of desperate peasants certainly could be a threat to independent merchants and small bands of warriors (adventuring parties, too), since the peasants have nothing to lose and much to gain by attacking militarily superior forces if the number of defenders is relatively small. If a GM wants his bandits to be evil, they can be out-of-work mercenaries preying on the weak. If the GM wants a more ethically gray scenario, then the Robin Hood types and desperate peasants make for convenient bandits.

 

[Meatboy]

No arguing with that. Medieval Europe was rife with such infighting even after they decided to take up arms against "heathens" in the holy lands (which seemed to be a vague facade to go and take the WHOLE loaf from your neighbour in stead of rinds from each other) Though in that light war just turns into banditry of a different sort.

"Tales" are a different thing than our tangent was discussing...

True and that is the fun and frustration of RPGs and DnD in particular. They are drawn from so many sources, both historic and fictional, that its tough to seperate them. Especially something like Robin Hood which seems to be both historical and fictional.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't so much see "filler" and "non-filler" as things that are potentially filler or not. And that is pretty much how I write my homebrew adventures, too--more for time spent, than anything. That is, if I need 3 encounters, I'll probably have 10 roughed out. The ones that seem to catch the interest of the players are the ones that get used. The rest are "filler", and get glossed over quickly or ignored entirely.

I started doing this a long time ago when I noticed that a lot of encounters in published modules that were meant to be interesting were about as interesting to the players ... as bandits used as mere filler.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

In my current campaign, I have players who are fledgling warlords in an area. They had a deal with a large group of bandits who were hitting the towns they owned, and they still taxed those towns. Not far off from what you're talking about.

On to answering pemerton myself, I don't use "filler" encounters, but bandits have attacked the party unprovoked. This isn't just for experience points or for some form of pacing, it's to show that the world is a dangerous, corrupt, uncontrolled place (which is very different from the last game world they played in).

Bandits don't have to be "filler", nor do they have to have some deep plot attached to them. They can show your players something about your world. Do they try to kill you on sight? Do they ask for all of your stuff at sword point? Do they only ask for half of your coin and nothing else? These all represent different mindsets in the bandits, and say something about the world. It's informative.

And, since consistency is key for my game (as immersion is one of my top goals), they remain a part of the setting as long as it makes sense for that area of the setting. For example, my players (who are warlords of a region) recently hired a group of adventurers to help them deal with the bandit problem (mainly to get the group of adventurers to stop messing with them, but still). So, the forest area north of their castle is mainly free of bandits for now, but the road to the south will still contain bandits. And, at some point, bandits might venture into that area of the forest again.

Bandits are just like anything else in the world: a part of the setting. I don't see them as "time to fight" (especially since my players have avoided fights with them before) nor do I see them as "filler" (nor do my players). I see bandits (or lack of bandits) as part of the setting, and their presence (or lack of presence) helps shape the setting.

Just my take on it. As always, play what you like

 

[frankthedm]

Some historical claims about bandits.

A Companion to the Worlds of the ... - Guido Ruggiero - Google Books

Of interest is the concept of the bandits being declared non persons by the law, with local sympathizers aiding said bandits.

 

[fireinthedust]

I think bandits are used best in the form used in Shrek: French-accented evil Robin Hood knockoffs!

"I rob from the rich to give to the needy
I take a little cut, but I'm not greedy"

Musical bandits, accompanied by accordian music!

 

[Pentius]

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.

Approval ratings as in measured, numerically represented ideas of what the populace thinks seems more modern, to be sure. But the basic idea remains that the Baron who has his men openly walk the streets beating extra money out of the people just because he wants it is a lot more likely to face revolts, assassinations or the king stripping his power away than the one who makes sure his nose stays clean.

 

[terrya]

If you want a good way to run bandits just look at keep on the borderlands Return or Orginal (Return is slightly better in this regard). The bandits in this module are in some ways as boring as all of you describe but by giving them quirky charecter traits, an agenda and a whole ton of traps they bring them to life as probably one of the best caves in the module imo.

 

[Rogue Agent]

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

One of the problems 4th Edition has is that it systemically eliminated weaker encounters that can be quickly resolved while still being strategically interesting. (This is largely because 4th Edition has no interest in strategy, only tactics.) As a result, any encounter in 4th Edition requires so much time to resolve that it's difficult to include anything unless it's worth spending at least 45 minute on it.

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.

This is encouraged by the "grind" mentality of XP-for-monsters. It's a mentality that also encourages PCs to never bypass an encounter because they're "missing XP". Or, conversely, encourages DMs to force PCs into encounters because otherwise they're "stealing XP". (I'm not saying these are entirely rational predilections. But they exist.)

In general, the problem is created by a preconception of what CR the BBEG is "supposed" to be. (Or, in the case of a published adventure, an editorial edict that the adventure is supposed to get the players to level X.) Due to the nature of the game, thsi means that there is a mandated amount of material necessary to reach point B (the BBEG) from point A (where the PCs are now).

If there's not enough material to fill that mandate, the result is meaningless padding.

Once you've identified the cause, there are two solutions:

(1) Lower the difficulty of the BBEG.
(2) Add additional content which is also meaningful.

If you really can't think of anything to satisfy #2, add a second, independent plot running in concert with the first.