PDA

View Full Version : Anyone played West Marches style?



HidesHisEyes
2017-08-27, 09:17 AM
Has anyone played D&D (or anything else) in the West Marches style?

For those as unaware of it as I was until yesterday, here's an explanation:
https://knightssemantic.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/the-west-marches-a-style-of-dd-campaign-for-large-groups/

So essentially, it's a kind of sandbox game meant for groups too large to work as a single group. You might have ten or twenty people who want to play, so you make a forum or WhatsApp group or whatever and the players use that to organise who will play and when. Four or five players can decide to play, choosing a date that the GM can do, choosing what specifically they're going to do in that session, and giving the GM a couple of days' notice to prep the specific session. The game world persists and so do the changes PCs make in it. If one group loots all the treasure from a dungeon then the next group to go there will find it empty (though perhaps with more monsters having moved in). Different regions have different levels, and the players have to discover for themselves which ones they're powerful enough to handle. No single game will have all the players present, but in the forum or whatever they will be sharing their discoveries and making plans for their next adventure - this is supposed to represent the characters' chatter in the tavern between adventures.

Personally I think this sounds awesome, and I am reaching a point where I have too many friends who are interested in playing to run a traditional group. Does anyone have any experience with this type of game? How did it go and would you recommend it?

Specifically, there are two issues that I can imagine would arise, which haven't been addressed in anything I've read about it.

1) PC levels: It's assumed that you award xp for adventures and players only get xp for the things they turn up to do. In my more conventional games I've always said anyone who misses a session gets the same xp for it as those who were there. In a WM game that wouldn't work since many players are missing many sessions all the time. So PCs will end up at different levels. They may coalesce into groups of about the same level, and that's fine, but at that point you're basically running two or more different games. If your more regular players are level 5 and your less regular ones are level 2 then it's going to be awkward to mix and match from both groups for any one adventure - perhaps not impossible, but awkward - and mixing and matching in this way seems to be the whole point.

2) Length of sessions, length of adventures: One of the ground rules laid out is that each session is one trip from the town to a location to do an adventure. At the end of a session PCs return to the town, that's one of the most basic rules. Wilderness maps, travel and exploration seems to be an integral part of the game (you need to find the dungeons before you can go in them). So I'm wondering how big each adventure can really be if the players need to travel there and do the whole thing in one session, always. Perhaps it doesn't matter and you just assume they will often be clearing part of a dungeon then returning home. I don't know.

hymer
2017-08-27, 11:18 AM
Has anyone played D&D (or anything else) in the West Marches style? [...] Does anyone have any experience with this type of game? How did it go and would you recommend it?

I have run one 3.5 WM-style campaign that went over a hundred sessions, from level 1 to 17. I'm currently running a 5e one.
Both went or are going very well, and I would recommend it heartily.


1) PC levels: It's assumed that you award xp for adventures and players only get xp for the things they turn up to do. In my more conventional games I've always said anyone who misses a session gets the same xp for it as those who were there. In a WM game that wouldn't work since many players are missing many sessions all the time. So PCs will end up at different levels. They may coalesce into groups of about the same level, and that's fine, but at that point you're basically running two or more different games. If your more regular players are level 5 and your less regular ones are level 2 then it's going to be awkward to mix and match from both groups for any one adventure - perhaps not impossible, but awkward - and mixing and matching in this way seems to be the whole point.

In 3.5, this is a minor problem, since not only does the needed XP per level rise with levels - amount of XP awarded for a given encounter is also affected by the level of the character, so the lower level ones level far faster. A single session with the level 5 guys will see you advance much closer to them. The main problem there is likely whether you are at all worth bringing along. But as long as you have a niche where you do better, say finding your way and being great in the wilderness, or finding traps, or some sort of magic, you'll have something going for you.
Aside from that, you can also ask the players to take this sort of thing into account when they invite. And those with high attendance can be encouraged to create an extra character to even things out.

That said, in mu current campaign I use a different system. There is a 'level ceiling'. The first session a PC is in play, s/he is two levels below the ceiling. Second and third session s/he is one level below the ceiling. And from the third session on, s/he is at the ceiling. And then I raise the ceiling as appropriate, at which point all characters gain a level. This keeps characters close in levels, but also gives a sense that new guys need to work a little at it to catch up. Those going out more often get more gold and magical items, but since this is 5e, it isn't destabilizing.


2) Length of sessions, length of adventures: One of the ground rules laid out is that each session is one trip from the town to a location to do an adventure. At the end of a session PCs return to the town, that's one of the most basic rules. Wilderness maps, travel and exploration seems to be an integral part of the game (you need to find the dungeons before you can go in them). So I'm wondering how big each adventure can really be if the players need to travel there and do the whole thing in one session, always. Perhaps it doesn't matter and you just assume they will often be clearing part of a dungeon then returning home. I don't know.

In one case in my current campaign, I think the PCs went to one dungeon four times. First time they cleared the surface level, and then they penetrated ever deeper. Recently they visited again to talk to the hobgoblins who have taken up residence there and do some business dealings and diplomacy. One player has shown some impatience with the journey to a known place and the inability to end sessions elsewhere. But he's also the one who insists on attacking every little group of vermin or kobolds he encounters along the way, so he's a big cause of the problem he's stating.
I've given them the option of purchasing 'runes of teleportation' (after they helped a local wizard research and test them), which cost a medium-to-small fee and allows them to teleport back home with a ten minute ritual. This cuts the travelling down. And as they get the same random encounters and get used to an area, you can run by them faster.
In the future, they will start getting things like flying mounts and carpets, and teleportation magic, which will cut down even more on travelling time. But they still retain the option of dealing with most random encounter rather than evading them.

Do note that WM has it as a possibility to stay 'out', between two sessions, as long as the players agree to all get together and do the next session when possible, and don't do anything else in the mean time. It just shouldn't be the regular way of doing things, as it cramps the options (since the 'out' characters are locked in, and other characters can't go in that general direction to avoid confusion). The flexibility of the style also lets the players pick missions that fit with when they're playing. They can go to the great, ruined dwarven city on the weekend and dungeon delve to their hearts' content, because they can play most of the day. And then they can, say, raid the goblin village on a weeknight.

HidesHisEyes
2017-08-27, 12:56 PM
I have run one 3.5 WM-style campaign that went over a hundred sessions, from level 1 to 17. I'm currently running a 5e one.
Both went or are going very well, and I would recommend it heartily.



In 3.5, this is a minor problem, since not only does the needed XP per level rise with levels - amount of XP awarded for a given encounter is also affected by the level of the character, so the lower level ones level far faster. A single session with the level 5 guys will see you advance much closer to them. The main problem there is likely whether you are at all worth bringing along. But as long as you have a niche where you do better, say finding your way and being great in the wilderness, or finding traps, or some sort of magic, you'll have something going for you.
Aside from that, you can also ask the players to take this sort of thing into account when they invite. And those with high attendance can be encouraged to create an extra character to even things out.

That said, in mu current campaign I use a different system. There is a 'level ceiling'. The first session a PC is in play, s/he is two levels below the ceiling. Second and third session s/he is one level below the ceiling. And from the third session on, s/he is at the ceiling. And then I raise the ceiling as appropriate, at which point all characters gain a level. This keeps characters close in levels, but also gives a sense that new guys need to work a little at it to catch up. Those going out more often get more gold and magical items, but since this is 5e, it isn't destabilizing.



In one case in my current campaign, I think the PCs went to one dungeon four times. First time they cleared the surface level, and then they penetrated ever deeper. Recently they visited again to talk to the hobgoblins who have taken up residence there and do some business dealings and diplomacy. One player has shown some impatience with the journey to a known place and the inability to end sessions elsewhere. But he's also the one who insists on attacking every little group of vermin or kobolds he encounters along the way, so he's a big cause of the problem he's stating.
I've given them the option of purchasing 'runes of teleportation' (after they helped a local wizard research and test them), which cost a medium-to-small fee and allows them to teleport back home with a ten minute ritual. This cuts the travelling down. And as they get the same random encounters and get used to an area, you can run by them faster.
In the future, they will start getting things like flying mounts and carpets, and teleportation magic, which will cut down even more on travelling time. But they still retain the option of dealing with most random encounter rather than evading them.

Do note that WM has it as a possibility to stay 'out', between two sessions, as long as the players agree to all get together and do the next session when possible, and don't do anything else in the mean time. It just shouldn't be the regular way of doing things, as it cramps the options (since the 'out' characters are locked in, and other characters can't go in that general direction to avoid confusion). The flexibility of the style also lets the players pick missions that fit with when they're playing. They can go to the great, ruined dwarven city on the weekend and dungeon delve to their hearts' content, because they can play most of the day. And then they can, say, raid the goblin village on a weeknight.

Fantastic! Thanks, that's really shed some light on things for me.

Thrudd
2017-08-27, 10:20 PM
When I do this, I like to have people make two or three characters up-front, preferably of different classes. That helps in a few ways -

for one, because the same people won't always be there it lets them configure parties that are balanced (or not). Even if the person that normally plays the cleric doesn't show up - someone might have a cleric character to bring along. Or a thief or magic user or whatever. Or choose characters specifically for their utility on a certain adventure, so there is another layer of strategic planning going on.

This also helps with players who either are new and don't know what they want to play yet, and people who just want to mix it up and play a different class once in a while. I think everybody gets that now and then.

It has the obvious benefit of having backups ready if/when a character dies, and the backup might have a bit of experience already. You could even have a policy that if a character dies in the middle of a session and the rest aren't going to leave the dungeon for a while, one of the player's other characters can "drop in" miraculously to help out (assuming they don't have some henchman that was along on the adventure to take over playing instead). This is one occasion where I'm ok with waving off verisimilitude in an extreme way for the sake of the game.

If players like to switch up using their characters regularly, they won't level quite as quickly and you won't get extreme level disparities with people who can't show up as much - alternatively, those who play the same character a lot and show up a lot can switch to one of their lower level characters when less frequent players are there.

If you are rolling the ability scores, which I recommend, it hopefully makes it a bit more fair - each player hopefully gets at least one pretty good set of scores, and it makes it feel less harsh that one of their sets might be a more challenging play with weaker scores (even though those characters are sometimes the most fun). I like have them roll in ability order, a predetermined number of arrays. Pick three to make into characters. Players can give arrays that they don't want to use to others, or trade them for ones that will let them make a character they really want. Hopefully everyone gets at least one character that they really want to play, and also the chance to make some characters that might be surprising.

Yes, you can wait to make the extra characters if and when it seems necessary, but I've experienced that people like the idea of having those extra characters to choose from, that ability to strategize about the party composition rather than leaving it completely up to the chance of who showed up. Having a set number of characters from the beginning also puts a defined limit on it so it feels fair for all - not just having people rolling up new characters ad-infinitum until they get some ridiculous set of scores with multiple 18's.

HidesHisEyes
2017-08-28, 01:38 AM
Cool, I really like the multiple characters per player thing. It does seem like it could be a little overwhelming for players who are new to the game (as many of mine are), but even just two characters to start with could help solve the xp balance thing as long as people are reasonable about playing the right level character for the current group.

Blymurkla
2017-08-28, 10:37 AM
The article linked in the opening post in turn links to the original blog post (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/), but I think it's worth making it more clear where this stuff comes from.

One thing I've been thinking about is to have 'safe havens' to start and - more importantly - end sessions from. Like HidesHisEyes, I've been a bit worried about the part where the PCs start and return to town each session. It makes longer forages into the wilds harder, not because of the shortcomings of the PCs but the time constraints of the real world. And that doesn't feel entirely right. At the same time, I really like the idea of clearly finishing up sessions, rather than ending mid-dungeon delve.

So, just as an idea, would it be possible to designate additional 'safe havens' where the session can end? Villages, a settlement of friendly elves, etc. It can be reasonably assumed that a PC can make it back from a safe haven to the town (or possibly another haven). This would mean that a session could end when the PCs reach a the elven settlement, and the next session could start in town with the same (or some of the same) PCs. What constitutes a safe haven could, to some degree, be fluid. An orc raid against a village makes it unsafe, the elves could need some persuasion before they open up their settlement to adventurers. Is this a good idea, or am I on the wrong track?

HidesHisEyes
2017-09-01, 03:41 AM
The article linked in the opening post in turn links to the original blog post (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/), but I think it's worth making it more clear where this stuff comes from.

One thing I've been thinking about is to have 'safe havens' to start and - more importantly - end sessions from. Like HidesHisEyes, I've been a bit worried about the part where the PCs start and return to town each session. It makes longer forages into the wilds harder, not because of the shortcomings of the PCs but the time constraints of the real world. And that doesn't feel entirely right. At the same time, I really like the idea of clearly finishing up sessions, rather than ending mid-dungeon delve.

So, just as an idea, would it be possible to designate additional 'safe havens' where the session can end? Villages, a settlement of friendly elves, etc. It can be reasonably assumed that a PC can make it back from a safe haven to the town (or possibly another haven). This would mean that a session could end when the PCs reach a the elven settlement, and the next session could start in town with the same (or some of the same) PCs. What constitutes a safe haven could, to some degree, be fluid. An orc raid against a village makes it unsafe, the elves could need some persuasion before they open up their settlement to adventurers. Is this a good idea, or am I on the wrong track?

I had the same idea, but I think there are one or two problems with it. If there are settlements west of Viriskali then they are necessarily very isolated since by definition the West Marches are dangerous wilderness. That begs the question of how they survive out there.

And if your players are founding new settlements or other safe havens, or even making friends with existing ones, I think you run the risk of drifting away from the West Marches style, since you're going to have to accommodate gameplay that's about diplomacy, settlement-building and so on. That might be fine but it's something to be aware of.

My alternative solution is that the great magical empire whose ruins dot the wilderness built teleportation circles, and someone who has been to a circle and attuned to it can then teleport from one circle to another (along with the rest of their party, since I guess that would be required).

Kane0
2017-09-01, 05:13 AM
Multiple safe spots for resting/charswapping/shopping changes the paradigm from something like say Dungeon Siege to resembling more Diablo II.

Nothing wrong with it, just a matter of taste.