PDA

View Full Version : Wanderer Adventurers vs. Localized Adventuring



Cikomyr
2012-11-18, 05:03 AM
A very big dilemma I have when preparing (and choosing a game to play in) is the choice between being wandering adventurers, going from place to place and exploring, or simply playing in the same neighborhood (either a single city, or a countryside) and developing plots and intrigues in that location.

I once tried to find an idea for such setting that would be a nice mix of the two. Would be based on the Conquistadors exploration/raiding of South America. In the Warhammer Universe, the group would join a military expedition sent in Lustria to pillage ancient treasures and magic; so they'd have the whole colonial/military state intrigue and characters while accessing the exploration of the new deep into the wild jungles.


However, I was wondering what you people like most in a RPG game. Do you feel one sort of storytelling is superior to the other? Have you actually been able to create good plots with Wanderer Adventurers?

Please shed your insights.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-11-18, 05:29 AM
Depends on the style of game. On the one hand, it's a lot easier to create continuity, that is, to re-use characters and themes, in a campaign where the characters spend a lot of time in a single location. On the other hand, it's a lot easier to create diversity, that is, justifying fighting off a zombie horde one day and exploring a volcano the next, in a campaign where the characters hop around a lot.


In general though, though both are Good Things, I value the former over the latter, so my campaigns tend to center around really fleshing out a single location rather than try to spread the detail out over an entire country/continent/galaxy.

Cikomyr
2012-11-18, 05:39 AM
That's something that I am wondering. Fleshed out story and NPCs really help your players get into the story, starting to feel involved with the people they meet as they are fixtures rather than cardboard cut-out.

I am listening to Spoony's adventures in Thieves World, and he actually spell out when the players start being their own agent, actually taking the plot on their own and stop simply following hooks; it's because they really took personal the actions of some NPCs. I'd think it's much easier to achieve in a LA rather than WA.

Have you ever had that happening in a Wanderer-style game?

nedz
2012-11-18, 07:01 AM
Exploring the setting is an important part of the game. Whether this is done by trekking thousands of miles across the wilderness or rooting around in all of the back alleys of a city doesn't really matter.

I once ran an island hopping game. Now this wasn't the star trek like monster of the week game — No — this involved sailing between islands run by different kingdoms and militant orders. There was a lot of politics and NPC development in the various cities and each city had its own flavour. Given the geopolitical conflicts I'd written into the setting there was plenty of things for the players to get their teeth into, if they wanted to.

hymer
2012-11-18, 07:45 AM
Have you ever had that happening in a Wanderer-style game?

Sure. My players tend to prefer looking for hooks, preferably the obvious ones. But every once in a while, they'll decide to oppose someone on pure principle. Granted, this typically means they go around trying to find a hook that's attached to a line that'll lead to the NPC or group in question.

oxybe
2012-11-18, 10:22 AM
i have 2 anecdotes to share, one for the wanderer and one for localized.

the first is the wanderer. we weren't always wandering, usually going from one town to the next on a weekly basis, but we would move from one area to another after every few months or so.

the only consistent NPCs were our entourage of sorts: our main employer and some peripherals we would occasionally bump into again if we backtracked a bit.

now when we started we were basically fighting rats in a cellar (well poachers in a boat) and eventually moved about fighting bigger, scarier rats in bigger, more fantastic cellars. this is generally easier to do when you have the PCs move about all over the place.

we've fought and ventured in boats, above and under cities, deep within the heart of jungles, inside temples (both used and unused), ramshackled pirate-boat town, a giant floating mass of moss, a prison in hell, demon palaces, at the foot of the world tree, etc...

it's really difficult to get that sort of variety and scope in a location based game.

there was, however, very little grounding for the PCs... we had nothing to really look forward to once the beastie was killed and our wounds healed. the few that did have places they liked, were left behind. we "abandoned" several PCs along the way who decided to have their own location based adventures and not keep wandering with us as we were unable to set roots to a place. it made it difficult to have any investment in anything beyond the party.

when the campaign was over there was really nowhere for the characters to go. a few of us had goals of sorts but due to the nature of the game, pursuing those goals would have forced the characters to retire anyways so the ending basically was "some retire, others continue to the next adventure and life goes on".

which is perfectly fine, but kinda left me wanting a bit more resolution.

on the flipside the next campaign pretty much took place in one town with a few problems. this allowed for the PCs to have their own base of operations and grow attached to several NPCs. myself, it allowed my PC have something to look forwards to that wasn't necessarily ales and whores. my pc had a bed to call his own, a workshop to ply his trade, allies and mentors to help and guide him and plans beyond "what will we kill next week?".

it felt far more grounded and the group as a whole had far more investment in things that happened outside of "oh noes, the world is in danger". it's the old adage of making your PCs orphaned ninjas with amnesia, really: if the character has ties beyond the party, they're fair game for NPC to target.

on a few occasions we had to help out NPCs who were caught in the blowback of our actions. when we started throwing a few wrenches in the works, the current villains decided they would capture my mentor among a few more... it brought out a darker side to my PC i didn't actually expect. when they started causing chaos in town, my character was worried for reasons beyond his next paycheck.

when the campaign was over, my PC had something to look forward to and saw the results of his work grow beyond "my +X item is now +Y". he became independent of his master though they still collaborated, he became more active on the city council and continued his activities bettering he local life.

the first character literally saved the world but it was one his ties to were entirely material... for him it fit and that was his motivation to save it as he was a rather selfish person, but there was no fanfare for the party as a whole. the second character saved a single town and has renown within it. NPCs identify him by name and face and offer him a drink in a pub. saving the city we worked hard to better felt, as a whole, more satisfying then the world due to the connections we had.

both campaigns were fun, don't get me wrong, but for entirely different reasons.

in the current campaign i'm playing in, about 5 sessions in, seems to be playing out as a mix of the two. we have one consistent base of operations we're working out of and few consistent NPCs we talk to (the owner of the inn/dry goods/trading spot we're staying at), but our adventuring is really more about the area around that base rather then focusing on the base itself. my character is already making plans to settle down among other things (she's seeing a few opportunities so i'm tying her down to the campaign), but it's a bit too early to say how things will go.

my own preference is location based though. i've done what is basically a monster-of-the-every-other-week gaining enough levels in one area to finally cross the bridge to fight the stronger monsters across it and while it has it's charm, i wouldn't really do that again as there was nothing really motivating my character beyond personal power for it's own sake.

awa
2012-11-18, 12:45 PM
you could do what they often do in video games. That is they spend a long time in one location doing all the stuff their is to do in that location then eventually when their to much stronger then all the local critters move on to the next city. This would remove the concern about lack of variety.

SowZ
2012-11-18, 03:40 PM
Basically, DA:O vs. DA2. I prefer wandering and have found that you can still craft memorable NPCs effectively, even in a couple sessions. The players and certain NPCs are involved in the same threads so meet up from time to time. And returning to the same locations isn't out. If it is going to be a single campaign, following one plot thread, that is far easier and I think a wandering campaign feels nice. If it is going to be more episodic, staying around one place or leaving for a bit but returning to home base sounds better. (Which correlates with both games, too, even though most people agree DA:O is better, taht isn't the point.)

Cikomyr
2012-11-18, 03:51 PM
Basically, DA:O vs. DA2. I prefer wandering and have found that you can still craft memorable NPCs effectively, even in a couple sessions. The players and certain NPCs are involved in the same threads so meet up from time to time. And returning to the same locations isn't out. If it is going to be a single campaign, following one plot thread, that is far easier and I think a wandering campaign feels nice. If it is going to be more episodic, staying around one place or leaving for a bit but returning to home base sounds better. (Which correlates with both games, too, even though most people agree DA:O is better, taht isn't the point.)

But then again, the limits of Video Game vs Tabletop RPG have to be considered.

Wandering game will be heavily dependent on what the players will get to meet. The players won't necessarily control WHY they wander, nor WHERE they have to go there. The GM's story will be based on the wonders they shall encounter, and a well-crafted Video Game can really capture such spirit. You don't stick somewhere once the quest hub is depleted.

Localized games might be dependent on the GM's driven plot, but as the players get to know more and more the local players and NPCs, the players will become their own agents. A live GM can make NPCs adjust to the player's interaction, where as a Video Game will be forced to railroad you along specific predefined paths. You WON'T be able to properly manoeuver inside a video-game generated city.

There is a reason you don't stay in Whiterun to explore the repercussion of the quests you completed there. You just do them, and you leave.

Slipperychicken
2012-11-18, 08:08 PM
There is a reason you don't stay in Whiterun to explore the repercussion of the quests you completed there. You just do them, and you leave.

Does it count if I tried to do that, barely leaving Whiterun for the first 16 levels or so, then got bored of the randomly-generated "Oh hey go kill a dragon on the other side of the map because who the hell cares why here's some gold" quests (the ones that crop up once you beat all the real quests)?

valadil
2012-11-18, 09:49 PM
I can happily play either type, but as a GM I'm only interested in a localized game. NPC relations are a pretty big deal to me. If the players are are constantly traveling they just can't build up as big of a relationship with any NPCs, much less stick around long enough to see how the NPCs relate to each other. That's not to say I'd never send the players traveling, but that it's the exception rather than the rule and the players will have a home base to return to after any adventure.