Non-fight travel encounters

[Imaro]

I'm trying to find a correct term for what I'm about to suggest, but what about a "sense of mood" encounter. Basically the type of encounter that doesn't really offer a conflict, reward or even a real resource, but stresses the effects and consequences of the world around them. Something along the lines of this...

A party of 1st lvl PC's know that the county of Barak-Gurn is suffering a great famine due to it's ruler squandering tax money and hoarding it's food supply. Now upon entering said county they come upon a deserted farm-dwelling encompased by withered fields and the bodies of a family that have died(from starvation). There are even signs that some of the bodies themselves have been gnawed upon. etc. by human teeth.

The PC's don't really have anything to come into conflict with here, don't get any new information, no reward, but an encounter like this can really be used to set the type of mood that a particular DM is looking to convey, especially if there is good description involved in setting the encounter before the PC's. I have done this with my PC's before and noticed that it gives the PC's a chance to explore themselves...perhaps one of them takes a token off one of the bodies to remember the attrocity, or another takes the time to bury the bodies, perhaps they swear an oath to eventually stop the ruler(can't do it now they're only 1st level), or maybe they feel nothing at all....Whatever they choose to do or how they react says alot about the character they're playing. I never factor these types of "encounters" in as real encounters because they only last as long as the PC's wish to explore this aspect of the game, but if they want to do certain things or explore it further I don't rush them either.

 

[Ry]

My criteria aren't expected to rule out a lot - but they do rule out vacuous setting exposition. Imaro, your idea is a great example of an encounter that sets up a problem. The PCs can't solve it then, but it's definite problem. They're not supposed to go "well, people are starving, too bad."

 

[S'mon]

My criteria aren't expected to rule out a lot - but they do rule out vacuous setting exposition.

What's vacuous setting exposition?

 

[Ry]

Examples:

Cleric in town telling the players how the gods of good interrelate, even though this has nothing to do with anything the players will be doing.

Bartender talking to PC about nothing at all. "Hello." "Hello." "Want a beer?" "Sure." "Nice weather we're having." "Yep."

Some GMs put these in because they think they need to inject realism in the game, but they are aggravating and poor design IMO.

 

[amethal]

What's vacuous setting exposition?

In my case, it was when I emphasised the crocodile-like traits of the peasants living in swampy ground next to a lake. For those players paying attention, the response was "So, these guys are a bunch of were-crocodiles who have no reason to fight us, and who we have no interest in attacking. Yawn. Ok, carry on along the road."

I did find in a second edition game that a customs post makes for an interesting encounter. Most PCs can't resist the opportunity to be rude to minor government officials, which leads to a baggage search and possible confiscation of dubious items.

 

[Celebrim]

Cleric in town telling the players how the gods of good interrelate, even though this has nothing to do with anything the players will be doing.

Bartender talking to PC about nothing at all. "Hello." "Hello." "Want a beer?" "Sure." "Nice weather we're having." "Yep."

Some GMs put these in because they think they need to inject realism in the game, but they are aggravating and poor design IMO.

One man's vacuous setting exposition is another man's characterization. I think the real question before you can dismiss either of those cases is, "If what is being said isn't important, is who is saying them important?"

 

[amethal]

One man's vacuous setting exposition is another man's characterization. I think the real question before you can dismiss either of those cases is, "If what is being said isn't important, is who is saying them important?"

The problem arises where we have "second man" as the DM and the "first man" as the players.

In all my years of role-playing I have only played one character who was interested in knowledge for its own sake. All the rest wanted a payoff in the short term.

 

[Ry]

One man's vacuous setting exposition is another man's characterization. I think the real question before you can dismiss either of those cases is, "If what is being said isn't important, is who is saying them important?"

Remember, the maxim is not supposed to be limiting, just focusing. If the character is important, they're important for a reason. For example:

The bar is the players' favorite place to rest (reward, expands DMs options for problems and threats)
The bar is a great place for the players to learn about events in the world or recruit mercenaries (resource)
The bartender is drawing attention away from the lice, which the players have probably caught (problem)
The bar is in the path of a horde of terrible ghouls (threat)

 

[Alnag]

rycanda: I really like this theory of yours about the reward/resource/problem/threat. Have you ever write more about it in some thread or article? I would be really happy to read more on it.

Anyway here is another idea... characters travel round the world. Once they get back from where they came, everything (or rather just the common things) is the other way around. People speaking and writing backwards. Sleeping in day, working at night. Etc.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Seconded. RV, That's a good little rule of thumb. You should expand on it a bit and see if Dragon would be interested.