How important IS a home base?

[Pr6i6e6st]

So, the DMG suggests a "home base" of sorts. A town or something where nothing really happens or changes. A place the party knows they can return to in order to recoup/regroup/take some downtime or whatever. But is it really needed? Isn't that a little boring to have a place that can't be touched?

In the game I've started running, the city my players start in is burned to ashes. oh well, they were about to hang from the gallows there anyways. The King is dead, so it's not like they're on the run. But if disease reaches a location, it's likely to meet the same fate as the first city. So I mean, in my world, nothing is sacred. Nothing is untouchable. Everything can die/break.

Am I bad for doing this? Or does it really even come up enough to matter?

[KorvinStarmast]

In the game I've started running, the city my players start in is burned to ashes.

Am I bad for doing this? Nope, in the dangerous world your PC are adventuring in, bad things happen. Therefore, the world needs heroes: them! :smallbiggrin:

[GlenSmash!]

It varies form game to game. They mechanical benefits of a home base I could take or leave, but the Roleplaying benefits for them can be pretty great. It can tie your player characters to a setting if they have, family, friends, or even just investments or property at a home base, plus providing a lot of plot hooks when you start interacting with those things.

So I wouldn't say it was bad to have their city burn down, but it would be better if it would have had RP consequences.

[Kane0]

It becomes less 'necessary' the higher the level you play at, where shelter and mobility are less of an issue and time/effort required for recovery is shortened.

[Pr6i6e6st]

It varies form game to game. They mechanical benefits of a home base I could take or leave, but the Roleplaying benefits for them can be pretty great. It can tie your player characters to a setting if they have, family, friends, or even just investments or property at a home base, plus providing a lot of plot hooks when you start interacting with those things.

So I wouldn't say it was bad to have their city burn down, but it would be better if it would have had RP consequences.

Well, there are two characters who put their backstories in the city that got burned down. One is an orphan type who was raised by a privateer, so became one himself. No real connections to anyone aside from his crew. The other is basically a Jedi and mentioned towards the end of the session about wanting to check on the younglings. I'm not certain if his family was located in the city or a nearby village, so I'll have to find that out. So there's something at least :)

[Zman]

Personally I like a "home base", bit it is far from invulnerable. IMO it's great for their mid level actions and decisions to determine the fat of that place.

For instance, in my last campaign they had a inn in a town with a helpful bartender who was a low level Harper. Throughout the course of that game the town was saved by the party from a massive Orc raid, then it was usurped and captured and changed allegiance to the city state the party allied with and we're knighted by. Their actions led to a wave of refugees overburdening the town, and eventually their contact lost his tavern/inn. They even befriended a young npc who they nudged into military service.

[Ronnocius]

So, the DMG suggests a "home base" of sorts. A town or something where nothing really happens or changes. A place the party knows they can return to in order to recoup/regroup/take some downtime or whatever. But is it really needed? Isn't that a little boring to have a place that can't be touched?

In the game I've started running, the city my players start in is burned to ashes. oh well, they were about to hang from the gallows there anyways. The King is dead, so it's not like they're on the run. But if disease reaches a location, it's likely to meet the same fate as the first city. So I mean, in my world, nothing is sacred. Nothing is untouchable. Everything can die/break.

Am I bad for doing this? Or does it really even come up enough to matter?

A home base doesn't have to be invincible. It would probably be an interesting adventure if it is in danger, especially if the party has some reason to care about it.

[GPS]

A home base is unnecessary but nice. You really just need a place you can return to where commerce occurs, and you'll be fine.

[RickAllison]

I am in a game where we have gone from level 3 to level 12, and we have never had a "home base". We have been the band of misfits swept up in the storm of a coming apocalypse and always running around on the defensive. We have always been reacting, playing catch up. Until now.

Now we have time on our side. Twenty years to gather a force capable of stopping the demon that destroyed our timeline. Now we can gather gold, men, and resources to fight the coming battles. Now we can train others. Now we progress from reacting to fate to deciding it. Now we create an empire.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

You can totally destroy their home base! I would say though that if you do that, make sure the party has a faction they can join on some NPCs they can trust. If there's nothing to trust at all, it makes betrayal and loss (ironically) less significant. Just find one thing that is safe so that there's a contrast for the danger

[Thrasher92]

There were several campaigns that either I or my players decided to build a location like a castle or at least a fort with all the money we had gotten.

We used the rules from the DMG for "Down Time" and one of my friends (An Architect Major) hand drew his plans for a castle, then we spent all of our gold on building this sweet stronghold.

Of course we were attacked from time to time but that made it interesting. We were later granted a barony from the local king so we could collect taxes and govern the land.

It was a really fun part of that campaign because we were gathering a lot of gold and we couldn't buy magic items with the gold we had, so we invested it all into our castle.

We later even got to do some diplomatic missions for dwarves and elves so they would carve out tunnels near our castle and protect the forest near it as well.

This was actually one of my favorite campaigns I ever played.

[Temperjoke]

Something to consider, the "home base" doesn't have to actually be something like a house they own or a castle. It could easily be an inn they keep regular rooms in, an apartment they rent, their own private box under the local bridge...

The point is, having a location like that is very useful when the characters last longer than a single campaign, because it gives you a way to start off the new campaign by having it seek them out at their home. It's a place that they can store stuff they want to keep, but don't have room to carry with them, such as loot that will take dedicated time to sell, or mementos and trophies from their adventures.

[Sabeta]

That entire section is mostly about how to write an adventure, and is delivered from a very traditionalist point of view. Home Base is just a point in any given adventure that you frequently return to as a launching off point, so to speak. Phandalin makes a good example of this. Once you've exhausted Phandalin though most people move on to Red Larch. Your Home Base can change as the adventure does, but the players should ideally have somewhere they can go when a player dies and they need to wait at a tavern for the replacement PC.

[Contrast]

The DMG suggests a home base could be a 'great place to start your campaign and begin your world building'. As far as I can see nothing in the DMG suggests that to mean that it is untouchable and no harm can ever befall it. In fact, given it suggests fleshing out such a place in more detail it seems more likely that this place will change and develop as the game progresses as the PCs interact with NPCs and visit the place on multiple occasions.

If your PCs intend to stay and help rebuild the city then what you've done is make their home base a smoldering pile of rubble rather than a load of buildings - it's still a home base just a less comfortable one. Or you can abandon the city immediately and set off to do something else - to quote the DMG places 'exist primarily to facilitate the story and fun of your campaigns'.

From a personal viewpoint, I prefer having some sort of 'home' though most of the campaigns I've played in have not had one. It gives the PCs something to care about, work towards and invest in and helps grant the characters a sense of continuity. A home doesn't necessarily have to be a place - in a recent campaign the PCs were in command of a ship which served as their 'home base'.

[Decstarr]

I'd say it entirely depends on the players. If they are strong on the RP component, providing a home base - which might be destroyed and change during the course of a campaign - just offers them a lot more things to do while they are not out adventuring. So if the players enjoy roleplaying as much as adventuring/combat, a home base is a great way to have "different" situations come up and give the players a strong immersion and a higher chance to actually "shape" the world they play in. I'd also argue that not having any kind of home base might lead to an increased chance of murder hoboing because the ties to a certain place and NPCs will be much lighter if not non existent.

My players recently started on a guild hall and in an adventure in which their rest during the mission caused all the poor children to be sacrificed to the Dracolich they had to report back to the parents, handing over the corpses to them. So now they want to build and fund an orphanage in their main city. Was entirely their idea and will provide quite some nice and different things to do. If they didn't have this attachment to this specific citiy, the poor orphans would have no one to care for them!

On a side note, I have the feeling that for me as a DM it also helps to significantly increase my own abilities because the players always return to that place. The NPCs are more developed and engaged than they would be in other places and the general passing of time and effects on the environment seem to be more dynamic than they might be if the party just wandered around from town to town. At least that's the impression I get.

[Spiritchaser]

I gave the players the opportunity to take a small ship. Its their mobile home base.

Safe but not too safe
Lots of storage
Mobility where I want them to have it, but still allows travel to be a challenge for inland adventures

They are currently in good standing with imperial forces and can count on a free birth at several ports, and at least a safe one at many others

One irate quartermaster notwithstanding

[Sigreid]

I like a home base as a means of tying the party to the world. It's not a 100% safe space though. It's home and many adventures result from dealing with the threats to it.

[Maxilian]

So, the DMG suggests a "home base" of sorts. A town or something where nothing really happens or changes. A place the party knows they can return to in order to recoup/regroup/take some downtime or whatever. But is it really needed? Isn't that a little boring to have a place that can't be touched?

In the game I've started running, the city my players start in is burned to ashes. oh well, they were about to hang from the gallows there anyways. The King is dead, so it's not like they're on the run. But if disease reaches a location, it's likely to meet the same fate as the first city. So I mean, in my world, nothing is sacred. Nothing is untouchable. Everything can die/break.

Am I bad for doing this? Or does it really even come up enough to matter?

Actually that may give the players the desire to help those that are now homeless, help rebuild the town... so yeah...

(The Home base does not mean that it won't change or nothing really happens, it depends on how you make it, sometimes, the "home base" becoming the place for the next adventure)

[CaptainSarathai]

The point of the home base is to give them NPCs that they can rely on, and return to, and build a relationship with. The base isn't invulnerable at all, and it's a tool best used for leverage later in the campaign.

I used to be like most of you - no home base, just the party on the run. Then one day we played the Kingmaker Pathfinder campaign, and I realized how amazing it was that the players suddenly engaged the world for the first time. Usually it's just,
"Save the townsperson because they're paying us."
But when it becomes
"Save Brom, the lovable, hilarious town drunk who also happens to help the Rogue fence his loot"
Suddenly they're furious. If you can make up a handful of NPCs that the characters relate to on a truly personal level (not Skarzdag the Barbarian, but Tim, the finance accountant) then they'll be a lot more invested and you can get more of a reaction out of them.

It also gives the party a "plan b" for when they don't know where to go next. When they're out of ideas or your clues and hooks weren't quite strong enough, they'll "go home" and essentially reset the campaign, putting them back in a location that you are familiar DMing and can bring hooks and plots to them. This is much preferable to the
"We don't know where to go - let's steal a boat!" outcome

I'm currently running an Arthurian campaign, where the party is a group of questing knights traveling around a small island realm. They don't have a collective home-base, although some players are loyal to certain groups that will take them in. Rather, the castles in this realm are duty-bound to take in knights, especially in the winter months when there is no adventuring to be had. Furthermore, all knights are held to the same "Order of the Round," even if they're enlisted by rival masters.

So in my campaign, I bring the base to the party. Every few sessions they have to retire to a castle for the winter. Here, they meet up with a small cast of common NPCs, or hear about what that NPC is up to.
When they're out questing, they occasionally cross paths with these NPCs, who are also out doing feats of knight valor. Sometimes, they are met on the roads by squires and page-boys, who pass on messages from these other knights. They might hear a bard in the tavern singing ballads or telling stories of their comrade's recent deeds.
It's hilarious to watch the party arguing over how best to draft a letter to 'Sir Kaide the Dun' or 'Lady Etaine of the Rose', asking which castle they will be wintering in this year, or which tourneys they plan to attend in the coming spring. It's cool to have a PC Fighter who's true passion is jousting, and who seeks any news of his rival, 'Sir Agrilius' whenever the party has down time.

This network of contacts will make things interesting at mid-campaign, when the poop hits the fan and Mordred, dark heir to the vacant throne, reappears. Just like the shattering of the round table in Arthurian myth, the party is going to see Mordred's impact on their group of NPC allies. The war will feel more like an actual war, on a larger front, as their NPC friends fight and die in concurrent battles that spread across the realm. Some NPCs are even going to ally with Mordred, seeing him as the rightful king and the "BFG" (Big Friendly Guy) of the whole campaign.

[90sMusic]

Home base is great because it always feels like a safe and reliable place for your adventurers to relax and let their hair down a little. Most of the time they're so paranoid of every person they run into and always having to watch their backs lest they get murdered.

Then after a long campaign and many levels and they're utterly convinced of the safety and security of their base... Then you destroy it. Have some big badass come along and wipe it out and shatter their illusions about safety and make them feel foolish for ever thinking they were truly safe in the first place. Then begin another major quest to kill the super bad that destroyed their home town for that very satisfying revenge.

[Slipperychicken]

What if instead of blowing up the one place the players care about for cheap drama (and running the risk of discouraging your players from forming bonds and caring about your campaign worlds or their NPCs), you just put in problems that the players can deal with. Examples could include muggers who prey on locals or monsters being a nuisance on the outskirts of town. Players deal with them, do what you wanted, might feel warm and fuzzy, and aren't as likely to fall back on muderhobo behaviors.

You could even have a relatively imprecise, non-existential threat like the possibility of local famine or economic decline if the villain wins. Then the players can still feel like heroes without you dashing everything they love for a power trip or whatever GMs get out of it.

[solidork]

The point of the home base is to give them NPCs that they can rely on, and return to, and build a relationship with. The base isn't invulnerable at all, and it's a tool best used for leverage later in the campaign.

I used to be like most of you - no home base, just the party on the run. Then one day we played the Kingmaker Pathfinder campaign, and I realized how amazing it was that the players suddenly engaged the world for the first time. Usually it's just,
"Save the townsperson because they're paying us."
But when it becomes
"Save Brom, the lovable, hilarious town drunk who also happens to help the Rogue fence his loot"
Suddenly they're furious. If you can make up a handful of NPCs that the characters relate to on a truly personal level (not Skarzdag the Barbarian, but Tim, the finance accountant) then they'll be a lot more invested and you can get more of a reaction out of them.

100% this.

[90sMusic]

What if instead of blowing up the one place the players care about for cheap drama (and running the risk of discouraging your players from forming bonds and caring about your campaign worlds or their NPCs), you just put in problems that the players can deal with. Examples could include muggers who prey on locals or monsters being a nuisance on the outskirts of town. Players deal with them, do what you wanted, might feel warm and fuzzy, and aren't as likely to fall back on muderhobo behaviors.

You could even have a relatively imprecise, non-existential threat like the possibility of local famine or economic decline if the villain wins. Then the players can still feel like heroes without you dashing everything they love for a power trip or whatever GMs get out of it.

Sounds like you've had a lot of bad D&D experiences, there is some heavy bias in there.

You have the wrong idea here. If it is done well, destroying the home base can be a huge motivation for your players. They build relationships with all the various NPCs you have populated the place with. They are already invested in your world, they already care about the NPCs and the world they live in. After going on countless adventures and always returning here, they have really strong bonds with a lot of the NPCs there.

When the place is attacked and destroyed by a new threat, it doesn't make them pout and stomp their feet like children and say "im not going to play anymore". Instead, they feel emotional about the whole thing. The NPCs they knew and liked could be injured, missing, or dead, they don't even know right away. They are highly motivated to look for survivors and try to find everyone that they knew. And they want revenge on the entity responsible for this more than just about any other motivation they've ever had.

Adventurers basically "save the world" all the time. It is a tired old cliche and most of the players don't really care or take it seriously because it's such a common little trope. But by getting them attached to characters and places, making them actually care about those things, then raining havoc on those places it makes them genuinely care. Now they aren't just run of the mill "good guys" trying to save the world, now they're out for revenge. They want that enemy to suffer for all the harm it caused to them personally.

It's the kind of move that is best left for later in the campaign after a bunch of adventures have already been completed, maybe around 15 and up. It gives them ample time to get attached to everything and to feel like that place is invulnerable and a permanent fixture that isn't going to be going away.

Then after they kill the big bad, they can start to rebuild and that is also satisfying. You will see players do things like give up their own gold and possessions to NPCs which they would NEVER do if they didn't actually care about the world and the characters in it. They spend time helping to rebuild themselves, using their own skills and magic to help reconstruction if they can. Establishing new government either by restoring the old rulers to power or by taking it in a different direction and putting in a new system of government or maybe they choose to rule it themselves. It gives them a lot of opportunity to shape the future of the world they're in and can also set things up for a satisfying ending to the campaign.

[Contrast]

Snip

I believe he was riffing off the idea on which the that trope that D&D players make their characters orphans is based (as otherwise the DM will inevitably get the BBEG to kill/kidnap their parents for drama). Its effective the first time. The 5th time it happens it somewhat loses the impact and can result in players not bothering to connect to the world. Everything in moderation :smalltongue:

[Slipperychicken]

Sounds like you've had a lot of bad D&D experiences, there is some heavy bias in there.

I've also seen other people have them for years, and heard them on here. I'd say there's "bias" all around because that's the norm when GMs rip away players' connections to game-worlds without thought to the impact on their development as players.

Amateur GMs may see an immediate, intense emotional reaction from their players which they might imagine to be the mark of a good GM, but more often than not their players make a metagame connection that proves harmful over time (i.e. "if I make my PC connect with NPCs, that just makes them targets for the GM to disadvantage my character and make me sad and frustrated during my precious leisure time, so why bother? I should stay safe and protect NPCs by not expressing feelings toward them."). Players generally don't quit on the spot, but the atmosphere serves as a breeding ground for murderhobo tendencies as players associate emotional vulnerability with cheap GM tricks. This is especially true for new players who are more likely to adapt their playstyle rather than question their GMs, and who likely were already taking a leap of faith by opening up in the first place.

And yes, the GMs I've seen do this sincerely did think they were "doing it right", to a one, even as they watched their players quickly relapse into classic murderhobo behavior-patterns like writing orphan loner backstories and failing to consider NPCs' interests.