Diary SiteMap RecentChanges About Contact 2013-10 Calendar

Search:

Matching Pages:

2013-10-23 Settlements in Sandboxes

Recently, Gregor Vuga talked about the West Marches campaign model on Google+. He summarized the model as “one safe home base + lots of very dangerous wilderness” and wondered about adding cities that are “interesting places where there might be a lot to do”.

Here’s what I wrote, slightly edited.

I run a similar campaign. There are some small differences in how the thing is organized, but in terms of using many cities and other safe havens, I have had no problems. I treat settlements either as safe places and thus as not very interesting with the exception of one, two or three important non-player characters. Or settlements are treated as a simple adventure locale with a handful of “rooms” (one, two or three buildings) with a particular enemy and their minions need to be fought (were rats, cultists, evil tax collectors). The key is that once the adventure is over, the settlement returns to safe place status. There’s never an invitation to spend more time in a settlement. Most adventure and all the treasure is found outside.

I think this is still compatible with the West Marches campaign model because it depends on what you want from it. I want to encourage players to choose a goal or a destination, and go there, and do something. The original West Marches did this by saying the starting village was boring and safe. If the city is teeming with intrigue, then adventure comes to the players. They did not “choose” this adventure. So that’s what I want to avoid. If I treat other cities either like the starting village (boring, safe) or like a dungeon (remote, dangerous), then I am still achieving my goal. Whether you still want to call this “West Marches style” I don’t know.

If I wanted to add cities as interesting places to my campaign, I’d make sure that cities are generally boring and safe but they contain adventuring locales. In my game, for example, the players visited Sigil. It’s a big city, it has factions, it has adventuring locales, and so on. Not a problem, as far as I am concerned. Sigil wasn’t their home base. Players came to Sigil in order to achieve something. They did that, navigated the dangers, visited interesting locales, got involved in intrigue, and left again. Had the players decided to stay in Sigil, perhaps that would have made things more problematic. Will the faction war catch up with them? Will they still get to choose their adventures, session after session? I tried to mitigate this by declaring their guest house to be safe and boring, for example.

I guess what happens is that I just redefine the sandbox. It’s like a fractal. Once you get to Sigil, the thing is self similar: a safe place, adventuring locales, more dangerous when farther away, and so on. Basically “one safe home base + lots of very dangerous wilderness”.

Tags: RSS RSS RSS

Show Google +1

Comments


Please make sure you contribute only your own work, or work licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. See Info for text formatting rules. You can edit the comment page if you need to fix typos. You can subscribe to new comments by email without leaving a comment.

A carefully selected set of emoji for you to copy and paste: • ✕ ✓ ✝ ☠ ☢ ☣ ⚛ ☭ ☮ ☯ ⚒ ⚓ ⚔⚙ ★ ☆ ✨ 🌟 🐣 🐤 🐥 🐦 🐧 🐨 🐷 🐻 🐼 🐢 🐝 🐛 🐙 🐒 🐌 🐋 👑 ✊ 👊 ✌ 👋 👌 👍 👎 👏 👸 🍵 🍷 👹 👺 👻 👽 👾 👿 💀 ❤ ❦ ♥ 💔 📓 📖 📜 📝 🔒 🔓 🔔 🔥 🔨 🔪 🔫 🔮 😁 😂 😃 😄 😅 😆 😉 😊 😋 😌 😍 😏 😒 😓 😔 😖 😘 😚 😜 😝 😞 😠 😡 😢 😣 😤 😥 😨 😩 😪 😫 😭 😰 😱 😲 😳 😵 😷 😸 😹 😺 😻 😼 😽 😾 😿 🙀 🙇 🙈 🙉 🙊 🚶 🚲 🚀 🚽

To save this page you must answer this question:

Please say HELLO.