# Best System for a West Marches Game?



## Wik (Jan 5, 2010)

Okay, so if you don't know about the West Marches, you might want to read this:

ars ludi » Grand Experiments: West Marches

The idea is, the land is unexplored, and the PCs explore that land.  Except, the party changes each session, with a large pool of players grouping together and launching exploration parties to their heart's content.  A sort of table-top Massively Multiplayer RPG sort of thing.  

The creator of the West Marches says you can probably use any system for this type of play, but that it should probably have "Granularity", meaning levels of character selection so that it takes a while for PCs to reach the games "end point" or "midpoint".  I'd add that the game should also have less reliance on "Character roles" (as opposed to "if the group lacks a cleric, we're screwed"), and that there shouldn't be a "Magic item necessity" (or "If I don't have a +2 longsword, I'll miss foes of my level every time).  At the same time, it should have an incentive for treasure and wealth being a means to PC improvement (to encourage competition between parties).

The system would also need to be very easy to GM for, and easy to plan encounters - because the GM is going to spend a LOT of development time stocking dungeons and making random encounter tables.  Because of this, I think the monsters should be quick and easy to run (with little reading necessary to run things, because the GM is probably going to be running the encounter "cold" - ie, with little to no preparation).  It also helps if the system expects the party to only fight a small selection of monsters at any one time, or if there is an easy system of accessing monster stats (such as the adventure builder for 4e).  

So, what system would work?  Which is ideal?  Has anyone run a west marches game?  And what other necessities am I missing?


----------



## Wik (Jan 5, 2010)

To answer my own question, I'm thinking 4e has some things going for it.  1st level PCs can enter ECL 3 areas and be expected to live (at least for a while), and while many encounters will be of mixed groups of monsters, there are enough programs out there that any GM with a laptop should have little problem running these groups "cold".  

The game would need a redefined treasure system (since treasure has to be placed - you can't just hand out "treasure packets"), and I think it'd be a smart idea to try the "inherent bonuses" optional rule from the DMG so groups don't NEED certain magical items, but overall, the system has merit.  The big problem I foresee is the fact that combats in 4e can take a while, which means less exploration time for the party (and exploration is the keystone of A West Marches game).

Savage Worlds doesn't seem to work, though, because there's not enough player granularity (you can have a character with a maxed out combat stat at game start).  

Earthdawn shows some promise, though.  Though, it seems like a very character-focused game, which could go against the main purpose of West Marches (which is relatively NPC-light).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2010)

My sig gives you my answer, although the completed Player's Guide won't be available until March.


----------



## Wik (Jan 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> My sig gives you my answer, although the completed Player's Guide won't be available until March.




Isn't it a re-working of the 3e rules?  And, um, why specifically is it "the answer"?


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 5, 2010)

Technically, a starting (Novice) SW character can't be absolutely maxed out, as there are edges that can boost skills that are only available to Veteran, Legenendary, etc. characters. A maxed out at start character will be deficient in other areas, which might easily get him killed. That said, you could always cap starting characters at a d8 or d10 skill or something.

I know there was someone running a West Marches game using GURPS; I don't remember if it they were explicitly using GURPS Dungeon Fantasy or not. 

You could do it in Hero, as well; ISTR seeing West Marches mentioned on their forums, too.

I don't know if using Warriors & Warlocks/M&M would work; you could probably tweak it to work, but I think it was written to be more like Warlord or Marvel's Conan comics, which aren't very West Marshy.

I don't remember what edition Ben & co. used. Perhaps he will appear to enlighten.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2010)

Wik said:


> Isn't it a re-working of the 3e rules?  And, um, why specifically is it "the answer"?




A significant reworking, IMHO.  And I didn't say "the" answer; I said "my" answer.  

*  RCFG is intentionally written with an eye toward the sandbox.

*  The power-level curve is flat enough that characters have some staying power, but steep enough that said staying power relies upon good thinking and good play.

*  The weapon skill system allows PCs to adjust their attack rolls, damage, and/or Armour Class, or their chances of rolling a critical hit.  Without requiring magic weapons or armour.

*  Actually, I'm quite proud of the combat system.  It allows for fast-paced, tactically satisfying engagements without a grid.  IMHO and IME, of course.

*  I can pick up my Encyclopedia Magica again and insert anything I want into adventures without doing a lot of work.

*  I can use monsters from any era sourcebook with minimal work.  My 1e FF and MM now get as much of a workout as do my 3e ToH and MM.

*  It is easy to convert any era adventure to RCFG.....In playtests, I have used 1e, 3e, and even 4e materials without requiring too much reworking.  4e materials, obviously, require the most reworking.

*  There is a clear "Normal Man" standard that makes even scenarios from games like Harn and MERP convertable without too much difficulty.  Again, IMHO.

*  Core rules will include an appendix for Modern characters and Planetary Romance.

Downside?

*  Not done yet.

*  Made for my style; may require modification for yours.


RC


----------



## Wik (Jan 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Snip




Ah, I see now.   Good to know!

Everything you mentioned seems like they'd work as selling points.  



			
				coyote6 said:
			
		

> Technically, a starting (Novice) SW character can't be absolutely maxed out, as there are edges that can boost skills that are only available to Veteran, Legenendary, etc. characters. A maxed out at start character will be deficient in other areas, which might easily get him killed. That said, you could always cap starting characters at a d8 or d10 skill or something.




Yeah, technically true, but I've played SW just enough to notice that most spellcasters have a d10 or d12 in spellcasting, and most fighters have a d10 or d12 in fighting.  And that d12 in fighting means that you're harder to hit.  And in a West Marches game, since there are fewer "RP opportunities", you can get away with neglecting many of those SW skills - really, I think a SW character can do just fine with Fighting, Survival, Heal, and Notice.  

The cap is probably a good idea, but it still seems to me like there's less dividing the characters - a veteran of a dozen forays could rub shoulders with a complete newbie, and the two would be on a similar playing level.  



> I don't remember what edition Ben & co. used. Perhaps he will appear to enlighten.




He used 3.5E D&D, which is an absolute "no" for me.  Mostly because the game is a bit too "rulesy" for me, and because I've always thought it a pain to GM for.  At lower levels, it is a pretty good idea of what to look for on the player's side of things (especially if you limit the number of books accessible to the players - but that works with every system).


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 5, 2010)

Wik said:


> The cap is probably a good idea, but it still seems to me like there's less dividing the characters - a veteran of a dozen forays could rub shoulders with a complete newbie, and the two would be on a similar playing level.




True, but I am currently thinking of that as a good thing, myself. 



Wik said:


> He used 3.5E D&D, which is an absolute "no" for me.  Mostly because the game is a bit too "rulesy" for me, and because I've always thought it a pain to GM for.  At lower levels, it is a pretty good idea of what to look for on the player's side of things (especially if you limit the number of books accessible to the players - but that works with every system).




I was thinking it was 3.0. In any case, you couldn't run a pure West Marches game for long past level 8-10 or so -- once wizards start teleporting around, that whole "dangerous wilderness" thing fades away fast, IME. For me, it wasn't until the PCs were past 15th level or so that I chafed at running 3.x, so I would think a 3.x West Marches should stay in the "sweet spot". 

(Not that I've run a West Marches game; I'm far too lazy. )


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2010)

If you like 3e, E6 is perfect for this sort of game.


----------



## Cerebral Paladin (Jan 5, 2010)

I'm currently running a campaign designed somewhat along West Marches ideas in 4e.  I'm not sure it's working very well so far, although obviously that doesn't necessarily mean that the system can't work well.  The lack of a consistent group has caused some weird problems-- encounters that would have been straight forward with a controller present (lots of minions) became very difficult without one.  Likewise, some players feel the need to play leaders because they're worried that if they don't, they might be without one and then be very weak.  Also, 4e assumes that the players learn something about the other characters' capabilities, so they can work together as a team.  A mixed set of players makes that much more challenging.

We'll see.  I'm still running my game, partly because I think that applying 4e outside of its core designed space is an interesting exercise.  But I'm not sure I'd recommend it.

(3.x and its variants are a good option, I would say.  Earthdawn would probably work well.  An "old school" style game would work well as a more rules-light approach, ideally using a modern rebuild that lacks some of the weird complexities of the old versions, although RC D&D would be a good option if you don't mind some of the old weirdness.)


----------



## jasonbostwick (Jan 5, 2010)

I've been hemming and hawing over this recently myself.

Low level 3/3.5E has the granularity that is necessary for player progression, but I would hate to DM it again. I just don't want to run a system without completely self-contained monster entries. 

4E would certainly be the easiest to design encounters for, and I love how it handles monsters. I worry though about the length of time combat can take - I want to be able to have random encounters en route to a destination, but not have it take 45 minutes to kill a pair of owlbears.

In addition, lethality is a hallmark of WM style games, so I'd like a system that has quick and simple character creation. 
Power selection in 4E can take some time, and if you want to print out power cards to speed up combat, it can take even more time. 

I want to play my WM style game with newish players, so I want a system where they don't have to worry as much about tactical minutiae and character builds as they do about the exploration.




One possibility I've just started looking into Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3E. 
I haven't played it yet, but I got a copy for Christmas and have been looking it over. 

Character progression is fairly granular, with experience used to purchase various advancements, providing a good motivation for exploration. Character creation seems fast and can be somewhat randomized.

Magic items are limited (only one is given in the core rules), meaning that treasure can be mostly monetary and randomly generated. There isn't any need for a +2 longsword to be able to hit monsters of your level.

Gridless combat means that maps of dungeons and bandit encampments only need to be roughly sketched out, saving a lot of time in prepwork. 

WFRP is fairly gritty, so the threats of death and danger that Ben Robbins talks about are certainly there. Lasting, critical wounds can complicate a long foray away from town.


The major limitation seems to be the monsters.

It might be difficult to gauge the difficulty of monsters to put in each encounter area. There is no numeric level, CR, or hit dice to compare monster strength, just a rough estimate of difficulty ranging from one to six skull and crossbones.

Monsters are fairly limited in variety as well, with the core rules only containing 33 monsters across 11 'types'. If I were to set up WM style sandbox for WFRP3 play, I'd have to draw up a fair number of monsters stats myself.


Interestingly, the WFRP3 system doesn't seem to be designed for sandbox, WM style play at all. 1XP is rewarded per session (regardless of what was accomplished) and the DM's book presents adventure building from a strongly narrativist angle, with suggestions of a '3 act structure' to comprise each 'episode' of gameplay.


----------



## harpy (Jan 5, 2010)

Some friends and I are putting together a West Marches style game where we have three co-DM's with their own regions.  We're going to be using Pathfinder with the E6 system.  Pathfinder because there is large pool of local players that know Pathfinder and so recruiting will be easy.  We'll be using E6 because it just does a better job of framing the game and its intent.

The real problem with Pathfinder and E6 that we've been looking at is that it doesn't have a lot of granularity, but we think that the widespread use of the rules in our area is what will really help for the game to thrive.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 5, 2010)

Any pre-3e D&D.  Of currently available systems, any of the D&D retro-clones should work well:

BFRPG, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry.

3e D&D is not very suitable due to the very steep power gradient and the dependency on healing magic.

4e has the advantage of robust PCs, but the disadvantage of long fights even at low level, and a lack of random tables.  Running it in 4e would require some more design work in creating encounters (including random encounters), but this work should pay off very well in the West Marches design.   Treasure needs to be pre-placed without regard for who'll find it; I'd suggest there be around twice as many magic items as in standard 4e since many will be sold.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 5, 2010)

One of my questions to the OP is what game systems do you have?

Which ones are you comfortable running?

Which ones are the players comfortable playing?

If you've got one of those everything goes groups, awesome. I love those guys. They make it easy.

In terms of game systems, from my own experience, 4e could be the way to go for a few reasons but the length of combat does go against the grain and the standard parcels of loot would have to be reworked.

If not for the 'grain' bit and the advancement of levels, I'd found that Fantasy Hero can work really well for things if you've got a lot of system mastery under you belt. I say that because it allows you to do a lot of reskinning without worrying about the numbers and while advancement is slower than standard D&D, it's lack of xp solely for combat purposes gives the players real reasons to avoid combat, to explore, and to do things that just don't involve the clash of steel on steel.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jan 5, 2010)

S'mon said:


> 4e has the advantage of robust PCs, but the disadvantage of long fights even at low level




In my experience 4e has fights that last about 5 rounds, 3.5 has fights that last about 2 rounds. 4e fights and 3.5 fights take about the same time in minutes. The iterative attacks of 3.5, huge number of spells, etc, etc really slows it down.

One good way of making fights shorter is for the monsters to try to escape after it looks like they will loose the fight. This will consume less resources from the party but that can be resolved with the characters getting less healing surges/daily powers back at a full rest.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 5, 2010)

Blackbrrd said:


> In my experience 4e has fights that last about 5 rounds, 3.5 has fights that last about 2 rounds. 4e fights and 3.5 fights take about the same time in minutes. The iterative attacks of 3.5, huge number of spells, etc, etc really slows it down.
> 
> One good way of making fights shorter is for the monsters to try to escape after it looks like they will loose the fight. This will consume less resources from the party but that can be resolved with the characters getting less healing surges/daily powers back at a full rest.




Yeah, I don't personally have a problem with the length of 4e fights - mostly because I halve most monster hit points, give 2/3 XP, and use more monsters!  And I also use morale; losing monsters will try to flee.

3e fights were quicker at very low level where the ogre would kill the PC with 1 hit; 4e fights are most similar to 3e in the ca 4-8 level range.

One thought I had for using 4e in a West Marches sandbox: replace most magic items with cash treasure, and let the PCs use the gold etc to purchase magic items, maybe restricted to Level +4.  That avoids the whole problem of non-useable items.


----------



## fba827 (Jan 5, 2010)

I'm in something similar to that, and we're using 4e for it.  But a couple observations about it ...
(all this said with the caveat of "at least how we've ended up playing, i know it's possible for this not to necessarily be the case")

1) Passage of in-game time gets dragged, hence it's entirely possible to have just one encounter per day (turning daily powers in to encounter powers) so things to either delay the recharge of daily powers (i.e. have to meet 2 milestones per dailies recharge is a house rule I've seen people talk about) or find ways to pack more encounters per day.

2) Rations/Water: if they don't have reason to believe food and water will be available, they'll need to take a wagon with such supplies.  Thus leading to a tally for rations to subtract over time. And also the logical details of "what will we do with the horses and wagon while we're off exploring that cave"   and then if you decide to have NPC companions as a way to explain who is watching the horse, but that leads to "well, can that NPC help us on adventure X? or are they even capable enough on their own to guard the supplies without getting captured and killed because we don't want to keep having to save them."

3) treasure: can't quite place it the same (at least we try to have some sort of natural explaination for it, even if just to say it's been forgotten in the dungeon for centuries) but a holy avenger longsword +5 laying in the woods is a little trickier to explain ... so an inherent bonus increase isn't a bad alternative to minimize the amount of unplausible explainations you need to come up with for other stuff...

4) ... hmm, i had more but forgot right now.   If I think of it, i'll add more later.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Jan 5, 2010)

_Savage Worlds_ would be perfect with its flatter power curve and ease of preparation. Plus its mass combat system is very good if you ever want to play army vs horde.


----------



## Chgowiz (Jan 5, 2010)

Hello! What a great question! I think one of the answers nailed it completely on the head - run the system that you're most comfortable with and that provides the best mechanism for you to be able to run an exploration/survival type of game.

I've been running a West Marches style campaign for about a year now. We're entering our second year. I have two tabletop groups and I just started a Google Wave game for an online group. 

The system I use is 1st edition AD&D. I advertise it as an AD&D/OSRIC game as I support OSRIC (and old school games in general) as a free way of getting the 1e goodness. I have bastardized 1e a bit - I use Philotomy's Combat Sequence. I have some interesting houserules. I could easily run this using OD&D or the newer retroclones. I think, though, with a year of fiddling with running a sandbox-exploration based game, that any system that offers the ability to really lethally challenge players, to provide for exploration and resource management, that can provide for random encounters, you'll have a system that works.

Where I've been challenged in running West Marches is on the social end and DM end: getting players to schedule games (my fault as I took over that duty from the get-go, that's changing in year 2); getting players to agree on goals and run with them (we're working on speeding up the "where will we go" discussion using the email list); making the wilderness more interesting (my fault, I made the dungeons far more interesting, that's been changed...). I think I would have run into these issues with any system I ran with.

The single-most biggest thing that has worked for me... letting the entire thing be player-plot driven. Yes, there are events and things happening, but the players have control over what they want to do in a game. If the goblyn and kobold armies are marching on the home base, but the players want to investigate a dungeon, that's great! I let them. I know what will happen in the world as a result of the players' actions, but there is absolutely no railroad. I think that is the real key to West Marches... letting the players truly drive the game. It's worked for me and 25 players (now 31, counting the 6 in my online game)

FWIW, the blogger PatrickWR of RPGDiehard has run a West Marches style campaign using Savage Worlds. I loved the game I played in it!

Good luck with your game! I really could write for a long time on what I think you'll need to do, but in the end, West Marches sandboxes are as much an exploration for the DM as they are for the players.


----------



## Wik (Jan 5, 2010)

These are all great replies!  I'll need to go into them in more detail, but it'll have to be later.  For now, though, some quick answers:

1)  JGK:  Current games I have access to are 4E, 3.5E (but NO.  I refuse to GM it again), Earthdawn 1e and 3e, Savage Worlds, Shadowrun (also a NO), Eldritch Role-playing (maybe?), Serenity (some possibilities there...), Basic Role-Playing (ie, Call of Cthulu), 2e D&D, BECMI D&D, d6 Space, d6 Fantasy, d6 Adventure, d20 Modern, WFRP 2e, and a bunch of d20 variants... and maybe half a dozen smaller games that I've forgotten I own.  I'd be most comfortable running the d6 system, but I'm thinking there isn't enough to differentiate PCs in ability unless I fully open the Character Generation system to the players... which will result in a huge power differential between PCs (one of the faults of the new d6 system).  A redesign on my end could help, but I don't know if the system meshes well with a WM game (d6 is very much a heroic game...)

For what it's worth, I'm asking this question more because I'm designing a game for the RPG design contest with the goal of making the "perfect" WM system, and I want to see what games people recommend so I can see what are the advantages for each (and, because one of these days, I will run a WM game!)

S'mon:  I was seeing that possibility with 4e, too - weaken the monsters, and then just use more of them!  And I was planning on losing magic items almost entirely, and using a gear list of my own creation.  There would have to be some serious house-ruling for D&D... I'd also limit the number of books used, and keep that limit in place throughout (so you're not punished for coming into the game earlier, when there are fewer options open - every player has the same options available).  

As for Savage Worlds, I know I'd have to use the Dungeons and Savages PDF (so good!).  But there seems to be a lot going against it - the flatter power curve springs to mind.  The problem I see is a character with no experience whatsoever could thereotically adventure with a group of seasoned characters and there'd be little to differentiate them.  Or, to put the same problem in a different light, it'd mean that the flatter power curve also applies to the various zones in game - there is less to differentiate my ECL 1 zone from my ECL 3 zone.  Or am I reading too much into this?  It could be because I haven't played too much Savage Worlds...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2010)

Wik said:


> But there seems to be a lot going against it - the flatter power curve springs to mind.  The problem I see is a character with no experience whatsoever could thereotically adventure with a group of seasoned characters and there'd be little to differentiate them.  Or, to put the same problem in a different light, it'd mean that the flatter power curve also applies to the various zones in game - there is less to differentiate my ECL 1 zone from my ECL 3 zone.  Or am I reading too much into this?





This is actually such a serious advantage that I am amazed you are listing it as a "con" (rather than "pro").

In a West Marches type game, you want the PCs to be able to swap out into various adventuring parties.  A flatter power curve makes this work better.

In a West Marches type game, you want your design work to remain viable for longer.  A flatter power curve makes this work better, too.

In a not-so-distant RCFG game, the party went through two dungeon levels (20+ encounter areas each) with only one fatality, and they referred to it as a "meat grinder".  Players always find a way to over-extend themselves.  You shouldn't worry that your ECL 3+ areas aren't more challenging than your ECL 1 areas.  The players will still see the difference, I assure you!


RC


----------



## Wik (Jan 5, 2010)

I guess what I'm getting at is the competitive angle of a WM game.  If I can adventure for a dozen sessions (which may be up to half a year in real life) and some new guy can come in and play with me and I'm only kind of better, it sort of detracts my work (at least how I see it).  

Whereas, in 3.5, for example, by that time I'd be 3rd or 4th level - and everyone can see the difference between a 4th and a 1st level character.  

The more I think about it, though, the more I realize you're probably right... and that were one to use Savage Worlds, there'd need to be a cap on attributes and skills at game start (say, 1d8).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2010)

In a WM-type game, though, it is your knowledge and experience _*within the campaign milieu*_ that will be the critical difference between you and the noob, not the statistical difference.  Information in such a setting is the real treasure.....and the real measure of power!


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 5, 2010)

You could make up extra Edges, too, that are only available to Seasoned or higher characters.

Or even Edges that have prereqs like, "Visited the Spring of a Thousand Flowers in the Trollgap Woods and survived" or "Explored the Hall of the Barrow Kings" -- things that are specific to your setting, that only an experienced character could qualify for. Such things would also serve as carrots to get players exploring.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 5, 2010)

Given the game systems you list, and my own familiarity with some of them, I think Warhammer 2nd ed might be the best one.

While there is a climb in power, it's not as radical as D&D's in virtually any edition. It can't be because of you run it as is with ye old random career, the players don't start off equal, but generally have equality in survivability. This allows 'old pros' and young 'uns to hang out.  Perhaps customizing the starting career chart to those you'd think might be appropriate. Although mind you, I'm always reminded of what a friend of mine used to love about those charts, "that's what you used to do. You're a new man now!" 

In addition, because a lot of the game isn't XP for combat (unless I'm way misremembering here), there is motivation to do other things. The game is also not magic item heavy, although there are a ton of great magic items and whole books devoted to the magical side of things.

The monster system is also simple enough to gank stuff out of the table top if you have the miniatures.



Wik said:


> These are all great replies!  I'll need to go into them in more detail, but it'll have to be later.  For now, though, some quick answers:
> 
> 1)  JGK:  Current games I have access to are 4E, 3.5E (but NO.  I refuse to GM it again), Earthdawn 1e and 3e, Savage Worlds, Shadowrun (also a NO), Eldritch Role-playing (maybe?), Serenity (some possibilities there...), Basic Role-Playing (ie, Call of Cthulu), 2e D&D, BECMI D&D, d6 Space, d6 Fantasy, d6 Adventure, d20 Modern, WFRP 2e, and a bunch of d20 variants... and maybe half a dozen smaller games that I've forgotten I own.  I'd be most comfortable running the d6 system, but I'm thinking there isn't enough to differentiate PCs in ability unless I fully open the Character Generation system to the players... which will result in a huge power differential between PCs (one of the faults of the new d6 system).  A redesign on my end could help, but I don't know if the system meshes well with a WM game (d6 is very much a heroic game...)
> 
> ...


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Jan 5, 2010)

The New York Red Box group currently runs two long-standing West Marches D&D games; Eric's uses the titular Red Box Basic from 1981, while mine is using the OD&D 1974 rules. We talk about lessons from these campaigns in the forums on that site, and also on the Mule Abides blog in my sig. 

Ditto the wise Raven Crowking on the huge importance of information, if only to know where to go for maximal fun and profit. My personal feeling is that West Marches games work best in systems where information-driven planning confers a direct benefit to survival (e.g. you know which Vancian spells to prepare). I've been frustrated with the feeling that a fight in 4E that the PCs are totally prepared for plays out almost identically to one that catches them by surprise, but YMMV.

An advantage of using old-school D&D is that things like the tables in the AD&D DMG and Kellri's free Old School Encounters Reference make this style of play tons easier. However, I'm gearing up to run a West Marches-style game using Rogue Trader; my feeling is that it'll be possible but more work without the framework that all those lovely random tables provide. I'll let y'all know how the experiment turns out once it's underway!


----------



## teach (Sep 2, 2011)

Some ways that I've made 4E work within the mindset of a West Marches game.

1.  Make sure there are plenty of potions of healing. That way if they are without a leader, they can still survive.
2.  Use some of the odder magical items, like potions, salves and the such that players can use after they've done some recon.  These make great treasure as well.  And then reward them for using them.  I also tend to give a bonus to XP if they are prepared for a battle rather than just blundering into it.  
3.  Use lots of minions.  Lots of them.  Keeps the combats quicker.  Have them come in waves to draw out the battles and keep areas blasts for ending a combat in one shot.
4.  Have them fight "random" wilderness combats versus 1 enemy and 2 minions.  These will usually be pretty quick, but unless they are being ultra careful, I'll usually give the enemies a sneak attack round against the party.  These usually last only 20 minutes or so, but keep the party on their toes.  
5.  Give out basic +1 magic items, but make them sound interesting.  A +1 longsword made out of black steel, with a faded symbol inlaid in the hilt makes for a pretty interesting item. (I always get the question, "what's the symbol?" and then I give a cryptic answer and the player spends the next three adventures trying to figure out what the symbol means).    Then, tell the player, "you can tell there is more to this item, but you are not sure how to unlock it." How do they unlock the additional power?  Why, by picking the magic item that fits their character build between sessions of course!  This way, I can control a bit of how the magic items are handed out, but the players get to have the item that they need for their build.  

And now, the new Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium will have better rules for henchmen and hirelings, so if you every run into problems with not enough players, you'll have a way to work around it.  

I really think 4e is a great system for this type of play, due to the incredible ease with which to create an encounter and an adventure.  

Hope this helps anyone who has been thinking about playing a 4E style west marches campaign.


----------



## Iron Sky (Sep 2, 2011)

I tried running a WM style game in 4e and it fizzled. That might be due to our group's mindset however, the system itself was working ok.

Basically, after a few forays into the wilds where they fought a few monsters that I rolled no loot for (Rules Compendium's random loot generator), they ended up broke and starving and spent a week in town doing menial tasks to get enough money for more food to go out again.

They got annoyed with the prices of things in town (I marked common goods things up 5x since there was only a single tavern/shop in town) and decided they were just going to make their own town using some refugees they rescued as the townsfolk. Soon the game wasn't *West Marches - Exploration, Adventure, Danger!*, it was *West Marches - How to Design, Populate, and Create a Self-sustaining Fortified Village in the Wilderness!*

Dunno, maybe we'll play again. The group's favorite part was that I had a caravan come through every month (from which they could buy cheap goods/rare items) and each time it came, a new shop set up in town as well as a few scenery buildings showing up to give it the feeling of a frontier boom-town like it was.

The downside of 4e is the lack of long-term effects - once the group can afford enough food, there's no real reason to ever go back to town except to "turn in quests".


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 3, 2011)

I think I may have found your problem ...



Iron Sky said:


> ... no loot ...
> 
> ... menial tasks ...
> 
> ... marked common goods things up 5x ...


----------



## Clyde Starr (Jun 20, 2017)

I've never found 4e combat to take too long...I can run a complete battle between 15 players, and an equal number of enemies in under 2 hrs(of equal EL)....smaller groups in 45 mins or so. Secret is to make sure players pay attention, so they know what's going on when their turn comes up, and don't give in to decision paralysis. If they aren't ready, they hold their action, move on.

I've run and played since 1978, so I didn't start with 4e, but I do love the elegance of the system. If you run it using the built in abstraction, it can be an olde school style game like OD&D

I'd recommend4e for any Sandbox/on the fly gaming for several reasons

Quick down and dirty monsters (I have the Adventure Tools offline edition, and Character Builder) with varied roles so you can have a mixed group that works together and makes some sense. Higher HPs at lower levels, so accidental death of 'disposable characters' doesn't deter you (but with very good lethality still built in, just takes a couple rounds to kill/run away now)


----------



## Clyde Starr (Jun 20, 2017)

For long term effects in 4e, use creatures that cause diseases, use curses and geas, make your magic items more scarce so they need to go to town to craft items, gather ritual components, etc...

Going into town just for Quest Dumping, I agree is boring. Of course, you 5x'ing the costs also probably had something to do with it as well. If they do get plenty of food, create conditions that spoil the food, steal or infest it. Also, you can use the Training rules and make them spend time in town before they can benefit from new levels (or new tiers, or when acquiring completely new stuff/abilities)


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 21, 2017)

Clyde Starr said:


> I've never found 4e combat to take too long...I can run a complete battle between 15 players, and an equal number of enemies in under 2 hrs(of equal EL)....smaller groups in 45 mins or so. Secret is to make sure players pay attention, so they know what's going on when their turn comes up, and don't give in to decision paralysis. If they aren't ready, they hold their action, move on.



15 players? That's quite impressive.

We've found that the game startes to get bogged down with more than six players (we've played with up to ten), no matter how much everyone concentrates on the action. The problem is that it will take a rather long time until your next turn is around even if every player is done in less than a minute. And in that time, a lot of things will have changed, especially in 4e because of the very dynamic combats. You can rarely plan ahead for your next turn.

I also wonder about the level range of your example. We've found that 4e combat is very fast unitl about the first half of the heroic tier. After reaching Paragon tier, it has already slowed down quite noticeably. There's a bunch of reasons for this: 
- monster hit points increasing faster than the party's damage output
- lots of status effects that need to be tracked and/or cause action denial
- 'option overload' for the heroes
- plenty of interrupt powers

Having said that, I cannot say that I have ever minded. I still prefer 4e vastly over any other edition of D&D because combat is so much more _interesting_. And other editions also run into issues at the higher levels.


----------



## Clyde Starr (Jun 21, 2017)

Admittedly, the games I ran with 15 players were a little different than most...I like large groups, but rarely did too many others. The level range the longest running got up to was 14th level characters. This was a rotating roster group (was a 'Store Game' where I basically let anyone who showed up with an appropriate level character play that day, up to start time, Start time generally being held off until the 5 regulars all were there). 
I will say that higher level combat does in fact slow down considerably...as it does in every other edition, but as overall combat still seems faster than other editions it's a zero-sum equation. If 4e's 45 min average group now takes 2 hrs, 1e for instance's 2hr group now takes like 5hrs to finish a similar encounter. (both groups are taking 250% longer to run a combat) The big difference is, now, at higher levels, everyone in 4e is still contributing equally to the action, the Wizard isn't overshadowing everyone at the table.

I also was very efficient in tracking effects, I used my laptop, and had a program on that one made in VB, that told you when status effects ended, who's turn it was, etc... Interrupts were still an issue, but honestly, didn't see them used a whole lot. Often players tended to forget all but their favorite interrupts, so they mostly didn't trigger them. I almost always triggered the monsters interrupts, because I planned around their strategy that way, but again that meant I was prepared for several options when the monsters were able to act (their turn or others)

Oh, coincidentally, it probably says I'm new to EnWorld, because I haven't logged in for a long time, and I logged in via facebook, which wasn't linked to my old account. Old account here was either ShamanStarr or GamerSeuss (can't remember which I used here)


----------



## S'mon (Jun 22, 2017)

4e seems a particularly poor choice if status-quo sandboxing is the aim. 4e IME is best at superhero style reactive play & similar, eg Arthurian fantasy. Using a wilderness as the "super adventure" per 4e DMG can work 
though; MV Threats to the Nentir Vale is basically this and nicely done. I guess exploring each new area should be at least a "minor quest" for XP, with more minor quest awards for loot.

Pathfinder Beginner Box works pretty well, maybe use Slow Track advancement from core and an E5 cap (at 5th 5000 XP = 1 Feat).

5e would work but lacks premade encounter tables, an unforgivable lapse IMO. 

I would use an old school D&D system designed to motivate exploration (XP for gp, magic items are found in dungeons & are very useful), with reasonable class balance (so not 1e with UA) and ability to easily run monsters & NPCs inc hired retainers.
1e - PHB only, or OSRIC
2e with XP for GP - PHB only
BECM/RC
Labyrinth Lord
Basic Fantasy RPG
Swords & Wizardry

Would be top pics. I think I might go for Labyrinth Lord with AEC (but use ascending AC), it probably has the closest vibe to what I'd be looking for. Or else BFRPG.

edit: I see this Necro includes my posts from 2010!


----------



## 76512390ag12 (Jun 22, 2017)

I'd be quite comfortable using Savage and I am not so sure that a Marches game would have fewer RP opportunities, in fact I can see our groups RP-ING it up.
The lower range in PC skill levels in Savage actually makes it much more manageable and prevents TPKs

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk


----------



## Libramarian (Jun 23, 2017)

The default 1e game basically is the West Marches, except with maps (AFAICT West Marches doesn't actually use maps, which is a bit lame)


----------



## Clyde Starr (Jun 23, 2017)

I still like 4e for it. Especially if you add a little tweaking to 4e. Mainly, make a new ritual for Identify, and then make magic items mysterious again (I do this a lot anyway). Also remember, yes, this is a sandbox, so it's not like there is a time limit on the dungeon, which may mean people blow their dailies just figuring they will rest after every encounter to get them back...but even in a sandbox, monsters refill the sandbox in some fashion. Not the whole video-game respawn, so much, but rather, one group of baddies get eliminated or thinned out, another group of baddies move in to fill up the ecosystem. Kill a few guard patrols, they tend to step up patrols, bigger and badder than before. Kill enough underlings so your a thorn in some under-lord's side, said underlord will send his best or go himself to find out what's the situation!

Another optional rule that helps is the inherent bonus rule. Great for scaling up weapons and giving incentives. Needing to get things Identified will give the PCs a reason to go back to town more often. Add in the Training rules, if not for every level, than for when a major new ability is reached, or at least when a new tier or multi-class feat is chosen.

You can control the tendency for gold overload  in such games by adjusting prices in town up and down based on Adventurer economy (IE: when the adventurers are more flush and throwing money around, prices jack up, when they are poorer, and thus customs is scarce, prices reduce....and don't forget, that safe city may want to tax or tariff the goods coming in, and the churches that do the resurrection and remove disease type services expect tithing

4e, thus, with very little modification, works excellently in running a sandbox. Granted, 1e was truly designed around the initil Sandbox adventures. BECMI and OD&D were designed with the Sandbox in mind too, considering those rules systems were still pure (IE: focus the rules on combat, leave the out of combat stuff to the players/GM 99% of the time)....but that's also what 4e goes back too. Combat focused rules, rules-lite out of combat, very adaptable, yet very cinamatic and again embraacing the abstraction that RPGs were known for.

Would  I use Savage Lands....probably not. Would I do such  a campaign in D&D 4e GammaWorld....Absolutely. OD&D/BECMI/1e/2e....sure, but without the splat books, keep it simple. 3e/3.5....again, sure, without the splat books....especially anything and everything to do with NON-Combat material. 5e....probably not, however, it could probaby be tweaked. 

GURPS: would depend on WHICH GURPS sourcebooks you use, and what exact Genre you end up in. World of Darkness? Actually, this would work quite well with the mechanics of WoD when you consider that WoD is a Social-focused game, as written in the guidelines, but a Combat-optimal dice system (even if it rarely sees combat)

Olde School Role-Masters? Nightmare waiting to happen, same with Adruin Grimoires. Paladium? Maybe, but it is not what I'd prefer. A ShadowRun based game? I could see it, but it would be easily fudged in a small number of characters favor. Any Supers system....in some ways, Supers games are built around a Sandbox/Rotating Roster type theme, when you consider published teams like the Avengers and the Defenders....but not all mechanical systems are equally good at reflecting that theme. For my money in that arena, I'd throw down with Mutants & Masterminds, Champions, or Villains & Vigilantes, and scrap the rest.

I'm gonna leave out the oddball games, and too many clones (Pathfinder is just a 3.x clone, for instance, and BECMI is another oodball it would be hard to judge)

~Doc


----------



## S'mon (Jun 23, 2017)

Clyde Starr said:


> I still like 4e for it. Especially if you add a little tweaking to 4e. Mainly, make a new ritual for Identify, and then make magic items mysterious again (I do this a lot anyway). Also remember, yes, this is a sandbox, so it's not like there is a time limit on the dungeon, which may mean people blow their dailies just figuring they will rest after every encounter to get them back...but even in a sandbox, monsters refill the sandbox in some fashion. Not the whole video-game respawn, so much, but rather, one group of baddies get eliminated or thinned out, another group of baddies move in to fill up the ecosystem. Kill a few guard patrols, they tend to step up patrols, bigger and badder than before. Kill enough underlings so your a thorn in some under-lord's side, said underlord will send his best or go himself to find out what's the situation!
> 
> Another optional rule that helps is the inherent bonus rule. Great for scaling up weapons and giving incentives. Needing to get things Identified will give the PCs a reason to go back to town more often. Add in the Training rules, if not for every level, than for when a major new ability is reached, or at least when a new tier or multi-class feat is chosen.
> 
> ...




How do Inherent Bonuses provide incentives to exploration? I find more the opposite. Contrary to earlier posts I am actually 8 sessions in to running a sandboxy 4e Nentir Vale campaign - http://nentirvalecampaign.blogspot.co.uk/ - and one incentive I use is that exploration gets the PCs magic items, which are unavailable or expensive back in Fallcrest.

With Threats to the Nentir Vale detailing out factions in the sandbox it works pretty well, though there is still a tendency to 'dungeon of the week' I am treating most of the dungeons as permanent fixtures that can be revisited. I'm rolling for encounter checks but not on an encounter table per se, I find it very hard to make them work well in 4e.


----------



## Clyde Starr (Jun 23, 2017)

You provide the Inherent bonuses only as rewards for area completions. Like magic items, which are always a great incentive, mind you, but without doing the parcel system, not always what the players 'use' so much or want, with inherent bonuses, when you grant them, you can give the player a say in the direction of the bonus their weapon/armor gains. This way, the player has some of the feeling of usefulness that was established by the parcel system (the whole 'wish list' but it goes into their pre-existing primary weapon, or armor. Even without giving them a 'choice on how the weapon/armor 'grows' you can still focus the growth according to how it is earned. A group of adventurers who have been fighting to clear out an orcish stronghold reaches the point where you grant an inherent bonus to one or more of their weapons, and you decide to grant +1/+2 vs Orc-kin as a benefit (which is thematic to what they were fighting when they earn the inherent bonus, and encourages them to go out and diversify what kind of challenges they face, to make their weapon more versatile, but also makes the weapon more useful in the current encounter zone(s) as it becomes not only stronger, but stronger still against the current primary foes)

Yes, you can do this with found magic items, it's true, but intelligent foes, especially Vampires and Liches, and Elder Dragons, are actually not likely to keep around magic items specifically geared to fighting their own kind....powerful enough beings would either destroy non-artifact level items of this nature, or hide such things away in other plains of existence. Now, such items do make for grand final chapter/quest-level treasure (we know  we're going after a LichKing, we need to go to the Stronghold of the Elder Black Dragon, who is said to guard a LichSlayer)

Use a mix of inherent bonuses, and targeted magic items of lore to incentivize your explorers motivations.


----------



## xBobble (Jun 26, 2017)

Wik said:


> I guess what I'm getting at is the competitive angle of a WM game.  If I can adventure for a dozen sessions (which may be up to half a year in real life) and some new guy can come in and play with me and I'm only kind of better, it sort of detracts my work (at least how I see it).
> 
> Whereas, in 3.5, for example, by that time I'd be 3rd or 4th level - and everyone can see the difference between a 4th and a 1st level character.
> 
> The more I think about it, though, the more I realize you're probably right... and that were one to use Savage Worlds, there'd need to be a cap on attributes and skills at game start (say, 1d8).




Couple of Savage Worlds comments: 

Check out Zadmar's combat simulator.  If you throw in a Novice versus a character with a couple more advances, you can see how much more effective the experienced character is.

I don't think you'd have to restrict the initial characters as long as the encounters aren't all about challenging the character's sword-arm.  None of the existing SW fantasy settings seem to have to do restrict starting characters.

There are a number of cool fantasy settings you can draw from:  *Hellfrost *(Skyrim or Game of Thrones), *Beasts and Barbarians* (Conan), *Shaintar *(high fantasy), and the *Fantasy Companion* are popular, not to mention all the fan-made conversions.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 27, 2017)

Clyde Starr said:


> You provide the Inherent bonuses only as rewards for area completions. Like magic items, which are always a great incentive, mind you, but without doing the parcel system, not always what the players 'use' so much or want, with inherent bonuses, when you grant them, you can give the player a say in the direction of the bonus their weapon/armor gains. This way, the player has some of the feeling of usefulness that was established by the parcel system (the whole 'wish list' but it goes into their pre-existing primary weapon, or armor. Even without giving them a 'choice on how the weapon/armor 'grows' you can still focus the growth according to how it is earned. A group of adventurers who have been fighting to clear out an orcish stronghold reaches the point where you grant an inherent bonus to one or more of their weapons, and you decide to grant +1/+2 vs Orc-kin as a benefit (which is thematic to what they were fighting when they earn the inherent bonus, and encourages them to go out and diversify what kind of challenges they face, to make their weapon more versatile, but also makes the weapon more useful in the current encounter zone(s) as it becomes not only stronger, but stronger still against the current primary foes)
> 
> Yes, you can do this with found magic items, it's true, but intelligent foes, especially Vampires and Liches, and Elder Dragons, are actually not likely to keep around magic items specifically geared to fighting their own kind....powerful enough beings would either destroy non-artifact level items of this nature, or hide such things away in other plains of existence. Now, such items do make for grand final chapter/quest-level treasure (we know  we're going after a LichKing, we need to go to the Stronghold of the Elder Black Dragon, who is said to guard a LichSlayer)
> 
> Use a mix of inherent bonuses, and targeted magic items of lore to incentivize your explorers motivations.




So I think the idea here is that the GM gives bonuses (Boons, in 4e/5e speak) to PCs (Inherent Bonuses) or to their gear (Item Bonuses) depending on what is fought, not what treasure is found.
Yes, that works well.


----------



## Clyde Starr (Jun 27, 2017)

Yes, exactly...it builds into the story and adds more roleplay to what is essentually a mostly hack'n'slash kind of sandbox game. By building the inherent bonuses into what caused them to happen, you build a living legend out of their weapons, and their heros themselves. Then later on, groups come into the game and hear the legends of the heroes and hope to maybe find some of those lost weapons and armor that they've heard tell about. Inherent bonus weapons of previous games become your artifacts for later games


----------

