How often should I make the PCs encounter bullies?

[RoboEmperor]

My definition of a bully:
1. Initially too powerful for the PC party to deal with, but before the adventure's end they should be defeat-able.
2. Forces the PCs to do something unpleasant.

Stuff they make the PCs do
1. Rob them. It could be all of their stuff, all of the loot they gained, or just percentage of their wealth. Most of it should be retrievable upon the bullies' defeat
2. Do something evil for them. This could range to collecting protection money from an innocent broke family to ruining a hero's life.

Possible bullies:
1. Corrupt local officials
2. Super powerful criminal organizations
3. Devils the PCs previously made a deal with.

So my question is, how often should the PC party encounter the bullies? Every time they visit shop? Or if you think PCs should roll whether they encounter them or not, what % chance should it be? And what % of the time should the bullies totally rob them, rob them partially, or set them on a task?

[Ettina]

That depends on your PCs.

If you can trust them not to metagame about it, ask them.

[Red Fel]

My definition of a bully:
1. Initially too powerful for the PC party to deal with, but before the adventure's end they should be defeat-able.
2. Forces the PCs to do something unpleasant.

The problem with #1 is that the players might try to fight an overpowered enemy even when they know he's way above their pay grade. Especially then. Which means either TPK or DM fiat.

The problem with #2 is that "forces the PCs to do" anything is generally bad form. Basically, if he tries to force them to do something and they don't, and there's no consequence for them, he's an ineffectual windbag; if there is a consequence, or they do it, it's because your magical NPC forced them, and it's railroading.


Stuff they make the PCs do
1. Rob them. It could be all of their stuff, all of the loot they gained, or just percentage of their wealth. Most of it should be retrievable upon the bullies' defeat
2. Do something evil for them. This could range to collecting protection money from an innocent broke family to ruining a hero's life.

The problem with #1: Never take the PCs' shinies unless you are prepared for so much hate. It doesn't matter if all they have are non-masterwork clubs and leather jerkins; take their shinies and there will be blood. Now, if you want them to hate the bully, mission accomplished; you don't have to reintroduce the bully again until the endgame, and they'll still want to murder him seven ways until Sunday.

The problem with #2: What if the PCs don't care? As a general rule, you could have tricked the PCs into doing something Evil without resorting to force; many players will (almost blindly) listen to the questgiver, and figure out how to make things right afterwards, if at all. Further, any PCs with alignment restrictions (e.g. Paladins, Good Clerics) will basically be punished by you forcing them to commit Evil.


Possible bullies:
1. Corrupt local officials
2. Super powerful criminal organizations
3. Devils the PCs previously made a deal with.

1. PCs are stronger than they are, generally, and will either ignore them, fight them, kill them, or simply avoid the town where they have power.
2. PCs will have the moral high ground in killing them all off.
3. PCs will demand the chance to make saves against having to keep their side of the deal.


So my question is, how often should the PC party encounter the bullies? Every time they visit shop? Or if you think PCs should roll whether they encounter them or not, what % chance should it be? And what % of the time should the bullies totally rob them, rob them partially, or set them on a task?

Okay. Let's assume that we're going to use a bully. Here's my advice. It's a little formula that goes like this: The number of appearances a bully should make is inversely proportionate to how hated they are. A bully who steals the party's shinies only needs to appear once, maybe twice, and they will hate him until the end of time. For comparison, think of the bully in the bar in Superman II. We only saw him once, when he picked on a de-powered Clark Kent, then once again at the end of the film, when Supes had his powers back and decided to be petty about it. When the bully is so loathed, making him appear multiple times is just adding insult to injury; more importantly, you will be hard-pressed to stop the PCs from attempting to kill him on sight.

By contrast, one who simply mocks and insults the PCs, or who achieves their objectives ahead of them (e.g. the guy who loots the cave right before they arrive), can appear multiple times. He's merely annoying; they have no real reason to kill him.

That's the point. If you give the PCs a reason to kill an NPC, they will try to do so. If you intend your bully to have a chance at surviving, he needs to have fewer encounters with the PCs as he provokes more of their hatred.

Make sense?

[RoboEmperor]

@Red Fel
I guess I forgot to mention this campaign is for a group experienced players who are my friends and who want something new and challenging. All your points are valid for a "normal" d&d game but this game isn't normal.

The bullies are not the quest givers, they interfere with the PC's quest.

The idea actually came from a variety of games. In paper mario, there's this bully who you have to pay money to get passed until you get strong enough to teach him a lesson. In baldur's gate 2 you are forced to not use arcane magic in a city setting until you are strong enough to wipeout the several waves of spellcasters who enforce the "no-spellcasting-in-city" law.

You don't think forcing the PC party to play with a lower wealth, make morale decisions to do stuff against their alignment or spend their lives on the lam, and having to take **** from strong NPCs throughout the entirety of the campaign challenging?

And yes I want the PCs to try and kill the bullies a.s.a.p.. They are not plot essential so I don't care if the PCs find some exploit to take em out very early in the game. They are there just to make the game more difficult and different from the standard "go to dungeon, sell loot, repeat" d&d experience.

Oh and one of the players gave me a plot hook in their background story about making a deal with a devil. I want to make that devil a bully as well :)

Anyways I posted this thread because I don't know how much is too difficult or too easy so I was wondering if someone could share some insight into this.

[Geddy2112]

There is a fine balance of using "bullies.
#1. Use sparingly- certainly there should be things more powerful than the PC's, but if every single NPC or monster except the ones you want the party to fight is basically railroading and makes the PC's powerless. However, if nothing can even challenge the PC's there is no challenge or danger. Use this enough to make the PC's question starting a random fight, and to not be cavalier about X/day abilities in combat. They should always think"well, we probably could come out ahead in a barfight, but somebody here might be more powerful" or "that was not that tough of a fight, but we don't know how deep this crypt is so it might be a good idea to be careful".

#2. Never ever ever ever force the PC's to do anything-this is blatant railroading and if you take away the freedom for PC's to make choices, why are they even playing?



The idea actually came from a variety of games. In paper mario, there's this bully who you have to pay money to get passed until you get strong enough to teach him a lesson. In baldur's gate 2 you are forced to not use arcane magic in a city setting until you are strong enough to wipeout the several waves of spellcasters who enforce the "no-spellcasting-in-city" law.

You don't think forcing the PC party to play with a lower wealth, make morale decisions to do stuff against their alignment or spend their lives on the lam, and having to take **** from strong NPCs throughout the entirety of the campaign challenging?

And yes I want the PCs to try and kill the bullies a.s.a.p.. They are not plot essential so I don't care if the PCs find some exploit to take em out very early in the game. They are there just to make the game more difficult and different from the standard "go to dungeon, sell loot, repeat" d&d experience.


So, having to follow the law is being bullied? While some people of chaotic alignment might agree that paying taxes and not being free to practice arcane magic in civilized areas is being bullied, that's not what most people would consider bullying. Having consequences for actions is not bullying-its just part of the game.

What you are proposing is certainly challenging, but de facto forcing them into such a campaign(unless you make it very clear before you start) is just railroading-the PC's actions no longer matter as the consequence will be the same. These things can add challenge, and should be used to do so. Situations with questionable morality and ethics are great roleplaying opportunities, particularly if the group is of mixed alignment. They should not be a trap designed to make the paladin fall, however. Having a thief go after adventures who clearly have some coin; sure. Making it so they have no chance to stop their loot from being taken and giving them nice things just to have them taken is pretty BS.

If they are not plot essential, but the game is full of them then they are the plot. Certainly a small side quest or challenge adds depth and fun, but if that is all the game is then that is the point of the game. Certainly fitting for a post apoc survival horror, but not a high fantasy game.

[RoboEmperor]

I see a lot of concern about railroading but I don't think it applies. Perhaps I'm to blame for not being clear, or I am planning to railroad but I can't recognize it because I'm delusional.

Here's example #1.
1. Party returns from a dungeon only to encounter a criminal organization
2. Criminal organization demands that the party give them half of the loot as "taxes"

Party's choices
a. Give them half the loot and avoid the trouble.
b. Give the loot now and steal them later
c. Don't give them the loot and run away. If they succeed they are now in total war with the faction and has to deal with assassins and such, and is cutoff from the city's shops unless they can sneak into the shops and convince the shopkeepers to do business with them.
d. Kill them all now with a way I haven't thought of and is not prepared for
e. Give the loot now, and then try to get rid of the organization by riling up the locals into a mob, getting assistance from past allies like a noble you rescued or w.e, etc.
f. Give the loot now, take their ****, and once the party gets strong enough, slaughter every single member of the organization until the players are satisfied.

Example #2
1. The devil a character made a deal with in her backstory demands her to steal a precious item from the mayor of this town. Mayor is a super nice guy.

Her choices
a. Obey and steal item from the mayor
b. Somehow try to fool the devil with a counterfeit
c. Enlist the party's help into getting her out of her contract
d. Disobey and run from the various cultists and devils the devil sends after her

etc.



So, having to follow the law is being bullied? While some people of chaotic alignment might agree that paying taxes and not being free to practice arcane magic in civilized areas is being bullied, that's not what most people would consider bullying. Having consequences for actions is not bullying-its just part of the game. .

If you played the game you'd know the "enforcers" are a power hungry corrupt organization (they even openly admit that they're evil) who wants to monopolize power in the city, and since magic is power they want to be the only ones allowed to use it. You have to buy a license from them at an "outrageous" price, or kill them until they stop coming at you.

[Red Fel]

I see a lot of concern about railroading but I don't think it applies. Perhaps I'm to blame for not being clear, or I am planning to railroad but I can't recognize it because I'm delusional.

Here's example #1.
1. Party returns from a dungeon only to encounter a criminal organization
2. Criminal organization demands that the party give them half of the loot as "taxes"

Party's choices
a. Give them half the loot and avoid the trouble.
b. Give the loot now and steal them later
c. Don't give them the loot and run away. If they succeed they are now in total war with the faction and has to deal with assassins and such, and is cutoff from the city's shops unless they can sneak into the shops and convince the shopkeepers to do business with them.
d. Kill them all now with a way I haven't thought of and is not prepared for
e. Give the loot now, and then try to get rid of the organization by riling up the locals into a mob, getting assistance from past allies like a noble you rescued or w.e, etc.
f. Give the loot now, take their ****, and once the party gets strong enough, slaughter every single member of the organization until the players are satisfied.

Actually, you've basically given only two choices:
1. If you don't give them the loot now, you'll be fighting them until you've killed them all.
2. If you give them the loot now, I guess you can come back later and kill them. You know, if you have nothing better to do.

It's not technically railroading, inasmuch as you're not actually forcing the players to take a single course of action. But that's like saying that when a guy jumps you in an alley and says "Your money or your life," he's actually giving you a choice. Come to think of it, it isn't like that; for the PCs, it's exactly that. You are basically telling the PCs that they have to either give up a portion of their hard-won gains or hope that their combat rolls are both lucky and enduring. That's not much of a choice.

More importantly, why are you doing it? It doesn't forward the plot if they give up their loot or not. You just really wanted a "bully" in the story. It serves no function except to make the players feel either powerless or angry. They either roll over and feel crappy - which is a terrible thing to feel in a game of larger-than-life heroes - or they commit themselves to a war they likely lack the strength to win. And they do it, either way, for no good reason.


Example #2
1. The devil a character made a deal with in her backstory demands her to steal a precious item from the mayor of this town. Mayor is a super nice guy.

Her choices
a. Obey and steal item from the mayor
b. Somehow try to fool the devil with a counterfeit
c. Enlist the party's help into getting her out of her contract
d. Disobey and run from the various cultists and devils the devil sends after her

This is different. In this case, the PC chose to have in her backstory a debt to an Evil being. Those tend not to end well. This is a case of getting what you pay for.

That said, as you note, there are many ways to do this. If she's smart, she will involve the party. Again, however, it's worth noting that sending an army of cultists and devils is a bit disproportionate; a smart Devil will simply find ways to make thing inconvenient for her in a more general way until he has his revenge.


If you played the game you'd know the "enforcers" are a power hungry corrupt organization (they even openly admit that they're evil) who wants to monopolize power in the city, and since magic is power they want to be the only ones allowed to use it. You have to buy a license from them at an "outrageous" price, or kill them until they stop coming at you.

Again, this just feels arbitrary. It feels like a cudgel designed to reduce the players' feeling of victory. Now, if overthrowing the Enforcers is a major plot point, that's something else; setting them up as recurring antagonists is worthwhile. But just having this organization in the story, serving no function except to make the PCs miserable or hunted, galls me.

[Geddy2112]

You HAVE to buy a license from them at an "outrageous" price, OR kill them until they stop coming at you.

So you are saying it is either their money or their life?

[RoboEmperor]

@Red Fel
Your concerns are interesting.
You're saying if the bullies are just a non-essential side thing then they're just a pain in the ass and accomplish nothing but ruin everyone's time.

Unfortunately you've encouraged me to make the bullies' encounter rate 100% and make them essential to the plot XD.

Anyways don't worry about the players. I told them that bullies will be taking their wealth in addition to other things and they will be designed to be defeat-able before the party moves to the next area. Like a post-dungeon optional boss. They said they're fine with that as long as they get to gut the bully like a fish eventually, and they're looking forward to my campaign because it sounds challenging and different. These people have experience playing minimal wealth campaigns so i'm not worried.

I'll try to design at least several ways for the players to overcome the bullies, few are evil, few are purely diplomatic, maybe at a stealthy way like stealing a precious item that made the bully strong.

Thanks for the advice!


So you are saying it is either their money or their life?

No. I'm saying it's either my money or their life because I have to defect to them or kill them :)

[Yukitsu]

I personally despise these situations. I have my PCs slap enough explosives on themselves and the party that if someone comes along insisting we do some stupid work for them, I just blow us all up. If you pay these sorts the cash or do their job, things go downhill from there until they kill you anyway, cooperation is a fool's option even if the other option is dying. I might as well blow up them, their base as publicly as possible in the process of them potentially killing the group. No more of that "they knock you out and then make you do the job anyway" or "there's no way you could win if you fight, you should just give up." One of the pluses is that enough campaigns have ended this way that DM's have stopped using that. Prior to us doing that, the party just got beaten senseless and had to do the stupid whatever anyway.

[Red Fel]

@Red Fel
Your concerns are interesting.
You're saying if the bullies are just a non-essential side thing then they're just a pain in the ass and accomplish nothing but ruin everyone's time.

Not quite. I'm saying that the bullies, as you've described them, appear to be non-essential to the plot. And that non-essential bullies ruin the fun for no reason.

Essential bullies, on the other hand, are what some of us call "antagonists," and the fact that they ruin the PCs' fun is one of their defining features. If you want to take these bullies and make overcoming/destroying them a focus of the plot, I'm all for it. The same conduct that makes them horrible and wasteful as "bullies" makes them highly effective as "antagonists."


Unfortunately you've encouraged me to make the bullies' encounter rate 100% and make them essential to the plot XD.

Indeed.


Anyways don't worry about the players. I told them that bullies will be taking their wealth in addition to other things and they will be designed to be defeat-able before the party moves to the next area. Like a post-dungeon optional boss. They said they're fine with that as long as they get to gut the bully like a fish eventually, and they're looking forward to my campaign because it sounds challenging and different. These people have experience playing minimal wealth campaigns so i'm not worried.

Sounds like everything is taken care of, then.


I'll try to design at least several ways for the players to overcome the bullies, few are evil, few are purely diplomatic, maybe at a stealthy way like stealing a precious item that made the bully strong.

If I may offer an alternative? Don't "try to design" ways for the PCs to defeat the bullies. Let the players be creative. You say they're experienced, right? Let them put on their problem-solving hats, and if they come up with something feasible and fun, run with it.

[Honest Tiefling]

If I may offer an alternative? Don't "try to design" ways for the PCs to defeat the bullies. Let the players be creative. You say they're experienced, right? Let them put on their problem-solving hats, and if they come up with something feasible and fun, run with it.

I don't know. I often find it best to take a middle approach. Have 1-2 ways of 'defeating' such encounters, with the expectation that most of the time, the players won't figure them out or favor those tactics and will probably make their own way. This way if they get stuck, NPCs or spells can indicate a way out should they decide to turn to such, but I am prepared for the idea they'll think of something better.