Why do we have bandit scenarios?

[pemerton]

The PCs have to get to know the NPCs, or the rest of the story falls flat.

Burning Wheel tends to work on an assumption that the players will themselves introduce many of the significant NPCs.

Not all of them, so I'm not meaning to contradict you - just to point out that different games and styles can approach this in different ways.

In my own case, even for NPCs that aren't introduced by the players, I generally prefer the introduction to take place in the context of some sort of conflict, then via exploration-oriented play - so if I was going to use an external threat to push an NPC into the spotlight, I wouldn't use a filler encounter to do it.

At the same time, I don't agree with a "drop all filler" policy - sometimes it's good to remind the players that there are other things going on in the world than their current struggles against the BBEG.

I don't mind this, but rather than "filler" would use a deliberately targeted encounter to do it.

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.

I agree that the players have to project their own meaning onto the encounters that make up the game, but I don't subscribe to the "My Precious Encounter" analysis of GM-driven situation, and - as a GM - I do my best to design encounters and scenarios which are ripe for the players to engage with, given their PCs and their prior disclosed interests.

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?

I can't speak for others, but I find the adjustment you describe OK. I also don't mind the guards separately - at that point they're not just filler, they're a part of a scenario with which the players are engaging.

 

[pemerton]

the problem is created by a preconception of what CR the BBEG is "supposed" to be.

<snip>

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.

Good advice. In my own experience, by the time I've done (2) I end up having to increase the difficulty of the BBEG.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

I think this is the "encounters as making the experience seem real" that I mentioned upthread. It's a different approach from the Burning Wheel approach. It doesn't produce filler. From the point of view of the BW-aficionado, it probably will produce a lack of "structural integrity".

 

[WHW4]

On bandits: I think they are one of the more versatile opponents a party can face. They could be made up of anything; in a high fantasy world, it could even be a gang of ex-wizard's apprentices who have banded together to earn coin to feed themselves after their master is killed; in a grimdark world, it might be turn out all the missing people from the area are -actually- being possessed by demons and forced to attack and kill other travellers.

My point is I don't think I'd ever really let bandits just be "bandits." They are presumably other inhabitants of this world, and have motivations and fears of their own. Even something as simple as styling the bandits after an adventuring party (complete with hireling mooks) to show the group the flip side of the coin could be fun. After all, they aren't many steps from being labelled "bandits" themselves by most definitions of the word.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think this is the "encounters as making the experience seem real" that I mentioned upthread. It's a different approach from the Burning Wheel approach. It doesn't produce filler. From the point of view of the BW-aficionado, it probably will produce a lack of "structural integrity".

I have some major issues with Burning Wheel philosophy in a fantasy-genre game, but that's just my preference. I don't want a narrative fantasy game. I like a narrative superhero game. It just depends.

So, to the topic of Burning Wheel philosophy on bandit encounters in a fantasy game, I'll probably disagree most of the time (but not all of the time). I was just answering your post. As always, play what you like

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not every combat is an epic wager against the Great Red Dragon.

Some are just, "We met some trouble on the road." *two attack rolls* "We solved some trouble on the road."

Modern D&D editions have focused on the encounter being the center of the game, giving the impression that each combat needs to be a tremendous thing, but it really doesn't. Draining resources slowly is an important part of the game of D&D, to me.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The thing is that bandits are often a fairly believable encounter. In areas where authority is either failing or has not been established they will be common.

As discussed in the War, Huh! thread the line between bandit and mercenary can be thin, and under conditions of actual anarchy the difference between bandit and authority can be even thinner. (Raubritter or robber barons....)

They can be much more than just a 'filler' they can be a harbinger and a symptom. Clearing out the bandits that hold the old motte and bailey on the hill can be one of the first times that the PCs see their effect on the local conditions - trade burgeons, villages expand and become more fruitful, etc..

Then there is the fun when the party discovers that the lone highwayman outclasses them... what's his story?

The Auld Grump

 

[Pentius]

The thing is that bandits are often a fairly believable encounter. In areas where authority is either failing or has not been established they will be common.

As discussed in the War, Huh! thread the line between bandit and mercenary can be thin, and under conditions of actual anarchy the difference between bandit and authority can be even thinner. (Raubritter or robber barons....)

They can be much more than just a 'filler' they can be a harbinger and a symptom. Clearing out the bandits that hold the old motte and bailey on the be one of the first times that the PCs can see their effect on the local conditions - trade burgeons, villages expand and become more fruitful, etc..

Then there is the fun when the party discovers that the lone highwayman outclasses them... what's his story?

The Auld Grump

This is largely true. The only time I have a problem with bandits is when they initiate an attack on the party. It just seems unreal to me, that these people, driven to violent means to make ends meet, would attack a group of multiple, well armed people. Seems like they'd prefer the weak and lonely, no? Still, bandits with alternative patrons make a good time. I've been using "bandits" to some effect in my game. They only pretend to be lawless, though. In truth these elven warriors are under the command of their government, to enroach on the human lands and act in the interest of "elfkind"(naturally, most elves want nothing to do with these radical extremists)

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not every combat is an epic wager against the Great Red Dragon.

Some are just, "We met some trouble on the road." *two attack rolls* "We solved some trouble on the road."

Modern D&D editions have focused on the encounter being the center of the game, giving the impression that each combat needs to be a tremendous thing, but it really doesn't. Draining resources slowly is an important part of the game of D&D, to me.

Couldn't agree more on this. Not everything that happens needs to be this huge production that slurps up oodles of game time. Sometimes a few bandits are just that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Couldn't agree more on this. Not everything that happens needs to be this huge production that slurps up oodles of game time. Sometimes a few bandits are just that.

Yeah!

I think there's basically two major sorts of er..."challenges" that a party faces. Some of them are quick 1-3 roll affairs that are pretty simple that one or two characters can do without having to involve the whole party for a huge time-sucking affair. Usually, these minor challenges suck up a few resources (maybe some potions or some surges or some hp or whatever), and then are lost, leading to some point attrition, some resource management, and perhaps with several of them, some risk. Sometimes you can let the fighter kill the goblins while everyone else watches.

There are also big challenges that the entire party are involved in, great cinematic showstoppers that should take a good chunk of the night to complete. These big events might drain a party of all of their resources, risk character death, and involve a unique contribution from each party member to succeed. These can be combats, but they can also be mysteries, or exploration, or even social encounters, and they help with a feeling of climax and excitement.

But having all major challenges all the time is pointless.

Bandits typically fit in the "minor challenge" department. They're minions. They're a few rolls, then out. They might steal some supplies. They might wound you a bit. Your success isn't in question (though the DEGREE of your success might be). The risk of a minor challenge isn't that you'll fail, it's that you'll screw up enough to hurt your chances of taking on the other minor challenges (or the big challenge!) later in the adventure.

Bandits (probably) ain't gonna kill you, but they ARE going to be a hassle.

I don't know if Morrowind understands that (IMXP, most videogames are intractably stuck in the short-term model, without many nods to long-term management), but D&D pre-3e certainly did.