Recurring villains - How many is too many?

[Rhunder]

I'm wanting to introduce a couple more villains and really drown my players with problems, but not sure if there is a rule of thumb I should be going by. My villains typically don't survive their first encounter but I currently have two that'll be making their third appearances soon and have plans for three more that'll hopefully survive the first encounter.

Any concerns I should have about having too many villains or issues going on at once?

[oudeis]

Off the top of my head, I'd say it depends on how many plots or plot threads each villain represents. If each has a unique role in the game then it would be very easy to overwhelm your players. If they are all part of the same group, then I would argue that you shouldn't have more hostile NPCs at one time than you have active players. Ultimately, however, this isn't going to be a static number, but an ongoing calculation based on player interest and your judgement on how many of these elements you feel comfortable handling at one time given the extant circumstances in your game.

[GunDragon]

I'd keep the most interesting villains on the table, and perhaps allow the PCs to kill off the lesser ones.
How many villains are you able to juggle around in your mind? For me, I usually think 3 is an optimal number.
And I always found it interesting in comic books or tv shows when villains switched sides, sometimes joining up with other villains to take down the heroes, or even siding with the heroes to take revenge on a bigger villain.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

I believe that the concern enters when you make it apparent to the players that if they don't kill these villains when they first show up, they are going to be vexing them for the rest of their lives. At what point do the players decide, "Right, we have too many of these people running around. No more letting them escape, or letting them go. Kill them or they will show up again when they are unwanted the most. Also, for the ones still running around, make plans to cut off their escapes next time, just to deal with this nonsense." I know my limit for this kind of thing is like maybe two, three tops. Anything past that, and if I can get rid of these problem people, I will. Now, this is all assuming that there isn't some grander reason that they can't just be dealt with. Like if they were political opponents who, while antagonistic, aren't villains/evil, or cannot just be killed without repercussion. But if these are just mustache twirling evil types, who are no better than bandits or mad men, and on the fringes of society, and they keep showing up and causing problems, I see no reason why the players would want to let them continue to show up to ruin their day.

[The Jack]

There's no limit to how many you can have at once, but you'll probably want to make them feel organic, unless of course you want to embrace the cheese. Giving them good motivations to appear at X or Y is vital.

Then again, some players aren't great with so many names and you yourself might struggle, so maybe not too many villains if you've got people like that at the table (you always do). It might be a good idea to tailor some to parts of your troupe and only a few to all of them. You'll want more Sabertooths if you've got too many Magnetos and Sinisters

Strong introductions and a wide arsenal of voices will keep the memories in check.

[Rhunder]

snip

This isn't normally a problem as my players always kill their foes pretty routinely, but this particular campaign the players are dealing less damage and are less mobile than usual. Retreat is unusually easy for the villains in this so it's a new problem.

As for why more villains, the two current villains are both part of my main story. The were meant to be two different possible hooks for the same storyline, played two different ways and somehow both lived and are continuing. The 3 additional ones were going to be character back stories and such coming forward to go on while the bbeg starts his next phase.

[halfeye]

This isn't normally a problem as my players always kill their foes pretty routinely, but this particular campaign the players are dealing less damage and are less mobile than usual. Retreat is unusually easy for the villains in this so it's a new problem.

As for why more villains, the two current villains are both part of my main story. The were meant to be two different possible hooks for the same storyline, played two different ways and somehow both lived and are continuing. The 3 additional ones were going to be character back stories and such coming forward to go on while the bbeg starts his next phase.
The '60s Batman had a few, The Joker, The Riddler, Cat Woman, the Penguin, I don't remember any more, but there probably were some, thing is they were one a week, or at most two.

[Yora]

My intuition would be to not have more than three groups oppose the players at the same time. If there are several villains in one group that shouldn't be a problem.

[Maelynn]

You could try and incorporate them into one big evil plot. Off the top of my head I can think of 2 ways to do that:

- to use the '60s Batman example from above: in the (horrible, awful, yet awesome) film with Adam West, at some point the Penguin, Catwoman, the Riddler, and the Joker decide to work together. Normally they're seen as separate BBEG's, but for this film they joined forces and became a BBET (Big Bad Evil Team).

- you could make some of them turn out to be lieutenants to the main BBEG, their boss. Then you could turn the others into mini-bosses they need to face before the main course.

[Misereor]

Any concerns I should have about having too many villains or issues going on at once?

The rule of thumb is "enough to scare them, but don't actually ruin their fun".

New BBEGs can do research on their foes and discover that they have old enemies that are still kicking about.
And as every BBEG knows, "the enemy of my enemy is someone I can always kill later, if they should survive being my meat puppets".

[Cespenar]

Why not go with the simulationist method? Intelligent, humanoid enemies should bail if they feel overwhelmed. Anyone who succeeds in escaping is practically a "recurring" character.

[CharonsHelper]

The '60s Batman had a few, The Joker, The Riddler, Cat Woman, the Penguin, I don't remember any more, but there probably were some, thing is they were one a week, or at most two.

Part of the reason that worked is that they were separate plots. The Penguin didn't show up with a continuation of his evil scheme from 4 episodes back, it was an entirely new one.

Plus - I will say that the visual aspects make them easier to remember. Classic Batman villains are all have very memorable looks.

[Calthropstu]

One thing I like to do in my sandbox campaigns is have a "third wheel" type of thing. On initial contact, a third party enters tbe fray against the bbeg, presumes the party hostiles and attacks. If the party slaughters them wholesale it will negatively impact future encounters.

My bbeg's also never act alone. Various organizations work for/with them, just as rival organizations work against them.

The politics in my worlds are very complex and I usually map out about 200 or so involved organizations thst the pcs could possibly encounter.

[YohaiHorosha]

Real answer:
How ever many you can keep track of.

If you can keep track of them, you can make them relevant to the party in ways that make them memorable. 1, 20, 50. Whatever.

My tolerance is about 10, who phase in and out. Once it gets higher than that , one villain has to be resolved before I introduce another one. Anything more is too cumbersome for me. But if I keep rotating, the players keep caring. And, at some point, they're going to resolve that foe (death, imprisonment, befriending, whatever the system calls for).

My friend keeps up to 30 on tap. Thats to say that there are 30 or so unique storylines that interlap with villains that the pcs can't vanquish at any given time. And we care about it. (He's a creative monster.)

But if your personal answer is "i can't storyboard more than 5", that's ok. If the PCs feel they need more, make them disposable. Or make a few disappear before coming back.

[dmteeter]

Id say there is no limit to the number of reoccuring villians tou can have in your campaign as long as you can make each one unique and make their motivations, backstory, etc make sense in a way that doesn't make your players feel like you are just throwing the kitchen sink at them......

*Unless of course one of your villians is the kitchen sink in which case throw away.

[Calthropstu]

Id say there is no limit to the number of reoccuring villians tou can have in your campaign as long as you can make each one unique and make their motivations, backstory, etc make sense in a way that doesn't make your players feel like you are just throwing the kitchen sink at them......

*Unless of course one of your villians is the kitchen sink in which case throw away.

I will now run a kitchen sink mimic.

[rsnull]

No limit dude. But few are too good.

[NRSASD]

Q: How many recurring villains is too many?

A: When your villains are actively collaborating to take down the party. Especially if they wouldn't normally cooperate.

Serious answer: When you can't keep track of them. Otherwise, pile them on!

[Jay R]

I favor one-time villains and recurring rivals.

The dragon you're after will probably die. But the other party that wants to get there first will still be around to annoy you when you go after the evil high priest.