How can I avoid a Monty-Haul campaign in DnD?

[Sunseeker]

Hrm... Yeah, S'mon, totally my imagination.

I understand the objection to being captured by overwhelming forces and being forced to escape with nothing but the skin on your back being objectionable in that the DM is obviously trying to take your stuff.

But bandits are a fairly regular thing to lower-level adventurers to encounter, though usually they are setting a trap for someone else or some such. Shiny adventurers with lots of gold are IMO, fair targets for such people.

I'm not suggesting that the players should face someone attempting to take their stuff at every turn, only that getting nice stuff means you attract attention. Eventually bandits will pass along the word to their fellows that these players aren't to be messed with, at which point the adventurers might be out for revenge against these bandits that have so accosted them, and find the bandit secret lair and thusly their trove of stolen goods!

 

[Hussar]

It's quite possible I'm over reacting here. That's true.

My point is, whenever this sort of thing comes up, it's pretty much standard advice for the DM to manipulate the setting in such a way to strip away what the characters have.

After all, do the bandit attacks continue after the PC's have had their goodies taken? After all, the next bandits might not know that they don't have their pretty toys anymore. Or, they might come back just because. But, it almost never happens. Once the goodies have gone away, the floggings stop.

I just really dislike this sort of advice to be honest. Bending the setting to fix problems, whatever those are, smacks of very heavy handed railroading to me. The only reason the bandits are attacking is because of a perceived mistake the DM made in the first place. The bandit attacks have nothing to do with the ongoing campaign. They aren't part of anything other than trying to take the stuff from the PC's.

How is this different than any other railroad? The DM is forcing specific encounters onto the PC's that they cannot avoid and will continue forcing these encounters onto the group until a specific goal is met.

It's just too heavy handed for my taste.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's quite possible I'm over reacting here. That's true.

My point is, whenever this sort of thing comes up, it's pretty much standard advice for the DM to manipulate the setting in such a way to strip away what the characters have.

After all, do the bandit attacks continue after the PC's have had their goodies taken? After all, the next bandits might not know that they don't have their pretty toys anymore. Or, they might come back just because. But, it almost never happens. Once the goodies have gone away, the floggings stop.

I just really dislike this sort of advice to be honest. Bending the setting to fix problems, whatever those are, smacks of very heavy handed railroading to me. The only reason the bandits are attacking is because of a perceived mistake the DM made in the first place. The bandit attacks have nothing to do with the ongoing campaign. They aren't part of anything other than trying to take the stuff from the PC's.

How is this different than any other railroad? The DM is forcing specific encounters onto the PC's that they cannot avoid and will continue forcing these encounters onto the group until a specific goal is met.

It's just too heavy handed for my taste.

But a setting in which the power of the players isn't accounted for(in all varieties thereof) seems equally railroady the opposite way. The DM, and the game, and the world should account for all aspects of players, their attitudes, their power, their alignments, their gear even. I mean we account for when the party picks up the "Shard of Ultimate Evil"(which has no mechanical properties but serves as a plot device to get badguys to attack the party), but we don't account for when they're decked out better than the royal guard?

While the game may stay "on the rails", the "rails" may still have many paths. Warping the setting to punish the players for some perceived fault on the part of the DM de-rails the game, setting it up so that the game can only truly progress when the DM gets his way. Ignoring certain aspects of the players in order to keep the game on it's rails makes people miss out on a lot of interesting stuff.

D&D is about the journey, not the destination. So why not take the scenic route? Why not make the scenic route more possible?

 

[FireLance]

Human psychology is interesting. Once people have acquired something, they are usually very unwilling to give it up (this is usually referred to as "loss aversion"). It's the reason why players dislike bandits, rust monsters, disenchanters, and NPCs with the Sunder feat more than they should.

Frankly, I am of the view that powerful magic items in the hands of the PCs is only a problem if the players start to enjoy the game less because standard encounters are no longer challenging. And when that happens, it seems to me that increasing the level of challenge is a solution that is just as viable and less frustrating to the players than taking their PCs' magic items away.

 

[Trit One-Ear]

I agree with [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION], raising the challenge to meet the PC's rather than lowering the PC's power level. Setting out with a goal to take their stuff away is a possibility, but one I would not recommend. The difference +1 will make at low level will be minimal; heck, you could even keep encounter design the same and give your monsters +1 to AC or to hit, neutralizing the "imbalance" till it feels more in line with where you want the PC's to be.

Which isn't to say I disagree with the posts saying PC's with ni e stuff shouldn't be targeted. Just keep it within the logic of the world, and don't pre-determine the outcome of their possessions.

Trit

 

[keterys]

Just in case it's not clear.

Having +1 gear at levels 1 - 5 is _not_ monty haul. It's even expected.
Having a carriage is _not_ monty haul. It's just a roleplaying thing.

You don't need to do anything. You don't need to add to AC or attack bonuses. You don't need to use tougher monsters. You don't need to alter treasure. The extra gear when sold or disenchanted is also of meaningless value in the grand scheme of things.

Go ahead and just keep in playing. There's nothing to see or worry about here.

 

[D'karr]

Just in case it's not clear.

Having +1 gear at levels 1 - 5 is _not_ monty haul. It's even expected.
Having a carriage is _not_ monty haul. It's just a roleplaying thing.

You don't need to do anything. You don't need to add to AC or attack bonuses. You don't need to use tougher monsters. You don't need to alter treasure. The extra gear when sold or disenchanted is also of meaningless value in the grand scheme of things.

Go ahead and just keep in playing. There's nothing to see or worry about here.

I totally agree with this. Nothing to worry about at this level.

If you were using the inherent bonus rules the PCs would be getting a boost at 2nd & 4th Level. At this level, a +1 because of equipment is negligible.

 

[The Human Target]

Yup, nothing to worry about.

You're doing fine.

Keep it breezing.

 

[Hussar]

As an aside, I totally agree with the previous three posters in that this is a total non-problem. It's not even remotely close to Monty Haul at this point.

Now, back to this sidebar...

D&D is about the journey, not the destination. So why not take the scenic route? Why not make the scenic route more possible?

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this POV, although it is very common. I know that people advocate this, but, from a purely personal POV, I'm awfully tired of the journey. I've been gaming a long time, and I've done the journey more times that I can care to count. The number of actual destinations I've arrived at is a whole lot fewer.

IOW, I'm really tired of playing D&D as foreplay and I'd like to get to the climax a lot quicker a lot more often. Back when I used to game eight, ten hours a week, that was fine. Not a problem. But now, where I'm lucky to get much more than a couple of hours a week, "the journey" winds up lasting months and months of real time. I'd be a whole lot happier with some clearly destinations happening much more frequently.

 

[Sunseeker]

As an aside, I totally agree with the previous three posters in that this is a total non-problem. It's not even remotely close to Monty Haul at this point.

Now, back to this sidebar...



I'm not entirely sure I agree with this POV, although it is very common. I know that people advocate this, but, from a purely personal POV, I'm awfully tired of the journey. I've been gaming a long time, and I've done the journey more times that I can care to count. The number of actual destinations I've arrived at is a whole lot fewer.

IOW, I'm really tired of playing D&D as foreplay and I'd like to get to the climax a lot quicker a lot more often. Back when I used to game eight, ten hours a week, that was fine. Not a problem. But now, where I'm lucky to get much more than a couple of hours a week, "the journey" winds up lasting months and months of real time. I'd be a whole lot happier with some clearly destinations happening much more frequently.

I think that's just an issue of making your preferences clear when you first come to the table. But I understand this which is one of the reasons I include lots of smaller, but important, plot points in my longer campaigns. It usually works out to the best of both worlds, assuming the majority of players show up. Small goals are met nightly or bi-nightly, accomplishing smaller tasks such as stealing the secret cookie recipie. Intermediate tasks are usually every monthish, such as deciphering the secret recipie by hunting down the last known person who can speak Chef-ese. Larger goals take months of real time, such as putting an end to the Baker War and ending the cookie shortage.