Progress on “perfecting” my campiagn is proceeding apace. And by that, I mean I identified a few campaign issues and some things I’m going to be doing to fix them. Each step, each tweak, brings us closer to the ideal form. For this particular group and premise, at least.

Let’s go through them.

Problem 1: An issue with the XP system

My players are starting to get enough gold to level up. Mostly, because I’ve been giving my teens table a 500 gp bounty if they bring me a book report IRL. (I like encouraging them to read and think a bit, even if there isn’t the depth of analysis that I’d love to see.)

My XP system, as it stood, gave a player depositing valuables 100% of that in XP, and then gives ALL player characters 20% of that value. Imagine my surprise that as I approached the 5th character to level up, that all of the other players are reaching that level up as well. I seriously hadn’t seen that coming. For some reason after I created the bare bones of that system, I hadn’t run it through any paces. And I’d be okay with it, except for maybe 3 issues.

First, passive players are going to be leveling quicker than I want. I certainly want the bottom line of character level to increase, but running the numbers, if I have 5 active players who are all progressing their level, all of the passive players are going to pretty much be at their level. (There’s some fascinating remainders going on, which I’ll talk about in point three here) That’s too fast, IMO. The rate of growth is more of a player controlled variable, but coming back to the table and suddenly needing to level isn’t very rewarding. And needing to start new players at a higher level is always concerning to me. Complexity stacks up quick and my table is supposed to be the one open for newbies.

Second, the potential for hoarding. If there are the 5 active players, then a 6th player could hypothetically choose to use their gold in other ways, never donating. They’d keep on parity with the people engaging in the leveling mechanic, but have more and more gold to spend on things. Not that there’s an infinite number of things to spend gold on. I honestly don’t think this is a thing that any of my players would actually do, but I don’t like that there is the potential for this abuse.

Third, the character who donates the most gets a bit less bang for their buck. This took a bit for me to grok, so let me demonstrate.

If Characters Alpha, Beta, and Gamma all need 100 XP to level up…

• Alpha spends 100 gp and levels up, with a bit extra. Beta and Gamma get 20 xp from this as well
• Beta now needs to spend 80 gp to level up. Everyone gets 16 xp in resonance.
• Gama spends 64 gp to level up. Every one gets 13 exp.
• At the end
  • Alpha spent 100 gp and got 149 xp (149% ROI)
  • Beta spend 80 gp and got 129 xp (161% ROI)
  • Gamma spent 64 gp and got 113 xp (176% ROI)

It’s possible that as the game progresses, this may sort of balance out. It’s supposed to, I think. But if Alpha is always leveling first, they’re going to be paying a bit more for their levels than people who wait to get the resonance from Alpha’s deposit.

The third issue is made worse due to my technological setup. I have a spreadsheet where I record people’s deposits, one at a time. So I reward resonance XP immediately as it’s earned. If I did some sort of thing where I held off and calculated that between sessions, then there would be a bit more parity, as Beta and Gamma would have needed to spent 100 gp if they were leveling that session. If Gamma chose to wait until the next session, though, he’d have an even better ROI from Beta’s higher payment.

So, I think for this issue, I need there to be some sort of reward for the Alpha. I’m not brave enough to make the person with the highest deposit party leader, as that way feels like chaos. But I think I need to give some sort of benefit to that person. Maybe let them shape the development of Ravonn’s Tower more? idk.

My solution for parts 1 and 2 comes down to tweaking the resonance XP system, without changing any numbers that I’ve said publicly. When the XP ticks over to a new amount, the base character level will raise, but the resonant XP is going to drop to 0, instead of just continuing.

(## Return here after testing the exact results of what this means for passive characters.)

Problem 2: Stepping on toes

It’s been fascinating to watch players try to stay out of each other’s way and then follow the same rumor that the other table decided to follow for the same reason. If my players were all in communication, I wouldn’t worry about this as much, but since they only know of each other through me, I’m worrying about people being invested and the other group swooping in and delving the prize out from under their noses.

So, I’m going to be setting up a concept of “claims”. Like an old prospecting dibsing, if a party wants to say “we’re delving this dungeon”, then I’ll tell other groups that adventuring there is off-limits. There’s enough world that I’m not concerned about people being limited. A group can only claim one thing at a time. And people don’t have to claim something. But if they’d like, they can.

Problem 3: Small parties

On Wednesday, I had only 2 players. Which wasn’t really a problem, but they felt limited on where they could go because they realized how easy it would be to get in over their heads. I haven’t really figured out hirelings yet, and I don’t feel they would have gone for paying for small assistance. But, I have an interesting idea that will probably have its own article in the future.

I’ve realized recently that I can have my own solo play totally be canon in this world. I’ve rolled up 3 interesting PCs and I’ll be sending them on an expedition soon. Which will give all of my other players Downtime Points and help flesh out parts of the world other groups haven’t looked into yet (as well as game mechanics that need some interacting with). But, since I have these characters hanging around the Cup and Crystal anyway… why can’t one of them go on an expedition that needs an extra body?

Now, there’s all sorts of guidance on DMNPCs, and I’ve thought about it a bit. Separating what I know as a DM and what this character knows is crucial. Also, I have no problem with the character dying. Being fair is rather important to me with this sort of thing. The important thing is that my PC is NOT an important character for the session, and will be in the background, as the players I have at the table make decisions and investigate. But if they feel they need an extra sword or spellcaster, or someone with different skills available, well it’s an option. An option for tables with just one or two players, who need that extra character around to let the session actually fire.

Problem 4: Random Encounters

As the campaign has progressed, I feel a disconnect between my game and a particular line from the original Western Marches text. “Players never saw these wandering monster tables, but they got to know the land very, very well.” With how people have been interfacing with my world, that’s not been happening, and my Fast Travel system is not going to make the party stop and smell the roses.

So, I’ve butchered my random encounter tables. Instead of having 8 options for each region, with a spread of CR, I’m going to have the standard be 1 main creature, and 1 apex creature. As an example, the grassland around Ravonn’s Tower has Lions as the base creature and Ankhegs as the current apex. There’s a 1 in 8 chance of encountering the apex, which is a much stronger creature than the main creature. Strong enough that the first time or two it comes up, it gets foreshadowed to let me not feel guilty.

This has a lot of benefits. First, it makes hunting simpler. You’re probably going to be able to hunt lions, no problem, but there’s still that chance of the apex. But I don’t have to have a complicated system for determining what you encounter when hunting. Second, generting new biomes is MUCH easier. I was dragging my feet on trying to figure out what was in all the places. How was I going to make all these places feel unique? Well, now the lions are there, and the next grassland they find can have, idk, bull elephants or something.

This doens’t stop me from doing special things as needed. Places near a landmark are going to have special monsters nearby, most likely. But as a general rule for the setting, much simpler.

I also have an idea I’m turning over in my head, about adding a mechanic similar to my dungeon restock mechanics to the wild. a 1 in 6 chance of an encounter has resulted in wilderness travel being peaceful, and that’s not what I want. So I’m thinking that each biome slowly builds up in danger, so that if you’re going to a place that hasn’t been patrolled in ages, there’s actually a 6 in 6 chance of an encounter, but each encounter drops that by 1, until it returns to 1 in 6 (assuming the party kills the creatures). The restock is probably 1 week per CR of the main creature? Apex do things different, as they sort of advance like a Dungeon World front whenever they get rolled. Main creatures are native to that biome, apex can get replaced by new monsters that don’t play nice with natural orders.

Getting an outpost built and staffed in an area reduces the maximum chance of encounter by 1, minimum 1 in 6? Yeah, I could see that. Do labor camps count as outposts? Probably not, but they might be upgradable? hmm.

Sorry, thinking of other, tangential mechanics. I like the idea that on the farthest edge of explored territory, the party would have to fight several encounters as they push into new territory. I like that a lot. (From my theory crafting, conceptual armchair.)

Fast travel needs to have a change, I’m realizing. The DC might need to take biome pressure into account. And, as another change, I think you can only fast travel to landmarks. having it be free form is neat, but if I want to encourage people to spend time clearing spiders out of the west pines, i need to make it harder to travel past it. So like in a video game, you can unlock waypoints. Not quite the idea behind the system as whichever creator was pitching it, but i think it’s going to work for me.

Problem 5: The World Map

The original text of the West marches pitched the idea of the communal map, where people can fill it in as they explore. That’s not worked for me at all yet. Maybe that’s because I gave a bit too much area for them at the start, that they’ve not felt like they were clearing away the fog of war. Maybe they’ve been finding what they’ve run into thus far too tantalizing, that they’re not looking at the border of the map and thinking “What’s over there?” And they might also be assuming “This is the world” in the way that players unconsciously do some time.

So, as a potential fix for this, I have intentions of making an Outdoor Survival style board, that I can unfold and let players actively move the party pawn over. Areas of it will be obscured… somehow… Look, my idea for this is in very early stages. But putting landmarks on the hexmap would be important as well, as players can literally discover them. I’ve enjoyed this mix of hexcrawl and pointcrawl I’ve been doing with my players, but maybe, the hexes may be better. Especially if I’ve removed getting lost. So why not give them a bird’s eye view of the world map?

Oh, yes, all the effort of preparation. Right.

Problem 6: An empty world

One of the things that I was struggling with was the idea that this world was basically empty. Normally, D&D has a lot of people who have been places before. Not just the ruins, but also, adventurers and bandits fill the world and have a presence. Ravonn’s Tower was missing that.

However! At my GM round table this month, one of the ideas that I picked up from it was the fact that adventurers have ventured into the world before. The party is special in that they’ve been surviving their expeditions. That means there should absolutely be dead adventurers out there. Useful corpses to loot, victims to rescue, clues to be discovered, all sorts of things.

Also pitched was the idea of a shipwreck. And with the empty world, I’m all like “How?” but when a player pitched that he was walking in the shoes of clans past who left the Old Kingdom for new lands, the idea of a dwarven nation across the sea appeals to me. Time has done odd things, and they probably aren’t friends, but the world is less empty. It’s just empty where the new settlement is, and that’s enough for me.

Enough for now

That’ll do for today, I feel. I love all these small problems that I encounter as I turn my theory into practice. I feel my game refining, and my systems becoming more robust. It’s exciting. And I have some good players who are excited to engage with the things I’ve dangled in front of them.

Livin’ the dream.