Why do we have bandit scenarios?

[pemerton]

The ENWorld frontpage led me to this discussion of bandit encounters.

In general, it's all reasonable stuff for those wanting to build exploration-focused bandit scenarios, but I was struck by this comment:

In Morrowind, as in D&D, these bandits serve a key role: to fill dungeons and let low-level characters become more powerful.​

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

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmm. I am currently contemplating a new 1st level adventure, and consider using bandits as antagonists there as well. But I immediately started thinking about "bigger" implications - that they were possibly working for a respected mage in the character's home town to gather supplies or something like that.

I don't use bandits all too often. Usually more as a way to introduce the PCs to a region and give them a "simple" first task to deal with.

 

[delericho]

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

Filler encounters are like the side dishes that come with a steak. Too many, or too little steak, makes for an unsatisfying meal. But if you choose the sides carefully, they can complement the steak and make the whole better.

Unfortunately, there's a tendency for adventure writers to throw in filler simply as padding without any real thought, because it's an easy way to pad out the page count of the adventure.

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.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Isn't there another possibility, namely, changing the XP-to-combat ratio so that filler encounters aren't necessary?

I like these comments from "Burning THACO" pdf, which has ideas on how to run D&D modules for Burning Wheel:

it seems that every module I pick up has the structural integrity of mushy peas. You'll have to take it into your own hands. Front load conflict. The first module I ran ... had the players join up with a caravan in a town and described days of journey before it got to the point that something happened (other than random encounters, natch). We're talking potentially hours of play before something significant happens...

A lot of obstacles and opposition in modules is filler. It's there to take up time, to provide a reason for the niche skills of one type of character, or to make the experience seem "real." It's ok to leave a few of these in for old time's sake, but mostly, unless it's something your players will really get a kick out of, just go ahead and invoke the Say Yes or Roll Dice rule. Give maybe a sentence describing how the characters overcame the obstacle and move on.​

This was writen about AD&D modules, but I think has remained true in more recent adventures too. (I think the comment about "making the experience seem real" is especially on-target.) Personally, though, I've got enough trouble fitting in the non-filler stuff that I want to deal with in the campaign!

 

[delericho]

Isn't there another possibility, namely, changing the XP-to-combat ratio so that filler encounters aren't necessary?

Probably. But if you're doing that, I would suggest just dropping XP-for-combat entirely. There's not really any need for it, and it just gives the DM much more freedom in his pacing.

The first module I ran ... had the players join up with a caravan in a town and described days of journey before it got to the point that something happened (other than random encounters, natch). We're talking potentially hours of play before something significant happens...

See, it's difficult to comment on that without knowing what "something significant" means. If the key conflict in the encounter comes about due to interactions with the various NPCs in the caravan, than those "days of journey" aren't filler - they're needed so that the rest of the module makes sense. (The PCs have to get to know the NPCs, or the rest of the story falls flat.)

On the other hand, if the adventure is really about some external threat to the caravan, then those "days of journey" are indeed filler. In which case, the thing to do is probably just drop them. But that's just bad adventure design. (Which, of course, I'm not going to defend!)

A lot of obstacles and opposition in modules is filler. It's there to take up time, to provide a reason for the niche skills of one type of character, or to make the experience seem "real." It's ok to leave a few of these in for old time's sake, but mostly, unless it's something your players will really get a kick out of, just go ahead and invoke the Say Yes or Roll Dice rule.

Sure.

This was writen about AD&D modules, but I think has remained true in more recent adventures too.

Yep. I recall running the first adventure in the "Savage Tide" adventure path, and being struck with the fact that there's a huge thieves camp (or were they bandtis/pirates?) that, frankly, just isn't very interesting - just room after room of filler encounters.

It was okay with that group, since we were playing weekly for six hours at a time. However, with my current group we play mostly fortnightly, for three hours a session. In that environment, my tolerance for filler is minimal. Indeed, I don't use pregen adventures with this group at all, as the assumed pacing just doesn't work for us.

(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.)

 

[Hand of Evil]

Bandits are adventurers that never had the guts to make it deeper into the scenario.

My games I try to make the bandits the last thing players meet when leaving the dungeon. They are waiting around to steal the treasure from a weaken party. You know, let the good guys do the work and just live off the leavings.

Bandits are also a way to act as go-betweens for many parties, they are henchmen to some other group at the drop of an clue. Bandits can also become greater as villians in thier own rights. Then there is the returning bandit, the likable foe, the guys that lead the players into the shadow world of crime or the world between the underdark and the surface world. They are a guide for the adventures to use.

 

[amerigoV]

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.

QFT.

It takes lots of crap to fill out 13.3333 encounters per level (in 3.x).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Bandits can fill a variety of roles and serve as an entry point to quite a few different scenarios. The generic nature of a band of people or humanoids that steal from others through the use of force lends itself well to so many common adventure themes.

Generally speaking, bandits are a great easy way to advertise that something is amiss in the local area. Near civilization, bandit activity can indicate a weak or corrupt power structure. The underlying cause of the weakness or corruption may or may not have anything to do with the bandits themselves. Part of the fun is figuring out how the bandits are connected to whatever else might be going on.

Bandits certainly can serve as low level combat fodder but using them this way seems like such a wasted opportunity.

The XP issue can easily be solved by not basing XP primarily on body count. Whatever system is in use can easily have its XP system replaced by something more interesting and related to campaign goals than loading up on kills. Quite simply, once the need for filler is gone then there is little reason to keep including it.

 

[Weregrognard]

I always thought D&D bandits were a Western trope, since the D&D "world" is pretty much the Wild West with swords and spells.

Then again, armed bands of men pillaging the countryside have an overwhelming precense in our history and mythology.

Indeed, even standard D&D humanoids (goblinoids, orcs, etc.) can be considered "bandits" in the way they operate, and we all know what they're for (i.e. killing them and taking the stuff they killed others to get.)

 

[Meatboy]

Generally speaking, bandits are a great easy way to advertise that something is amiss in the local area. Near civilization, bandit activity can indicate a weak or corrupt power structure. The underlying cause of the weakness or corruption may or may not have anything to do with the bandits themselves. Part of the fun is figuring out how the bandits are connected to whatever else might be going on. .

Yeah bandits are a great way to show that you are in a bad place. 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.

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...)

That in its self could make for an interesting encounter or series of encounters. The heroes hear tales of travelers being accosted by bandits but when they search the area all they find is a group of kings soldiers enforcing the local toll road...