Hack Attack - West Marches

Adam Koebel and Steven Lumpkin discuss hacking 5e to make it work for a West Marches campaign on this Youtube series . There might be some gems here.

Will definitely check it out when I have a chance--always good to see what others are doing and steal as appropriate.

I think you mean, "adapt" or "borrow" where appropriate because stealing is bad, mmk? ;)

To quote T.S. Eliot: One of the surest of tests is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion.

Ongoing commentary: Fostering desperation through keeping heroes poor is an interesting idea: something that I'll have to think about if/how to include. This is perhaps where 5e's emphasis on living expenses, etc. will help. It might make sense to go back to the "level up" well as mentioned and talk about including literal "leveling up" time and cost. The other interesting thing that resonates with me is the discussion of injury and negative character development--for obvious reasons, since so much of the pre-game work was devoted to the concept of how to get that done and how to get it feeling right. I think we're better there than when we started, although TH can chip in here with your thoughts of course. "haha not until you get access to regeneration" felt... like a death, hence my idea to tweak that down so that there was a concrete problem that could be concretely solved: in this case, simple time, which nonetheless remains an on-going issue for Chuck. Making the whole game about combat is an interesting discussion. Deviating from the discussed norm of "it's all about combat" is something I've attempted to foster, at least a little bit. Literally ratcheting down XP from monster kills as was mentioned is something interesting to think about too. Promoting discovery of the character in play is something I also want to foster, the idea that backgrounds *reduce* the impact is interesting, it hasn't necessarily felt that way to me in play thus far. Another 5e game I've played in a hexcrawling style the biggest "problem player" is one who wrote out a huge elaborate backstory that definitely didn't gell with the idea of the genre, but that was pretty clearly beyond anything "backgrounds" would specify. As in many things, it seems this is something that discussion between players might solve. Inspiration and how to get it is weird. The awkward demand to the DM of "hey, inspiration!" is something I've literally run across in my local group.

Rather than ratchet down monster kill XP, consider DMG pg. 261 and its notes on rewarding XP for non-combat challenges. If there is parity between the three pillars with regard to what is rewarded XP-wise, then the players can just do what they want at any given time and be rewarded regardless of approach. Discovery of the character is good fodder for transition scenes. These are scenes in between moments of action where the PCs are resting, planning, travelling, etc. It's a good time to pick on someone who hasn't had much spotlight time up to that point in the session. The DM can pose a question about that character relating to backstory or their thoughts/feelings on the events of play. Then through interaction, the players engage as their characters to figure out the answer. Once the answer is discovered, DM rewards XP and the next scene begins. One or two of these a session, session after session, builds a lot of context and encourages development. I've found for it to work well, the players need to be able to claim it for themselves. So what I do is if the players voluntarily take disadvantage on a roll the DM has asked for and justifies it with a trait, ideal, bond, or flaw, they can take Inspiration. Alternatively, if they act in a way that creates a meaningful setback or cost because of a trait, ideal, bond, or flaw, they may also take Inspiration. For example, Chuck is forced to make a hard choice between helping a friend and saving a valuable NPC. If I decide to help the friend, I can say "Chuck is loyal to his friends, not to any ideals, and everyone else can take a trip down the Styx for all I care... that's his ideal and worth Inspiration." Then the NPC dies or whatever, but I get my Inspiration. The DM just vetoes it if it's lame or a stretch. Mind you, players acting in good faith don't seek to do that.

Drew K said: The other interesting thing that resonates with me is the discussion of injury and negative character development--for obvious reasons, since so much of the pre-game work was devoted to the concept of how to get that done and how to get it feeling right. I think we're better there than when we started, although TH can chip in here with your thoughts of course. "haha not until you get access to regeneration" felt... like a death, hence my idea to tweak that down so that there was a concrete problem that could be concretely solved: in this case, simple time, which nonetheless remains an on-going issue for Chuck. I've been thinking about it and I think I've decided that I'm not entirely sure the house rules for system shock or lingering injury really do anything to enhance the game experience. That may be because I don't know the goal behind it (and thus am unable to say if it hits the mark) or what. I've heard lots of reasons in the past for the inclusion of such rules in a game. Most of the time it's meant to make the campaign world seem more "gritty" or to instill a healthy sense of "fear" in the players. Other times I've heard it as a way to generate quests (such as to heal Chuck's knee) or to give someone a new angle for roleplaying. But really, all of those things are achievable through other means pretty easily without the risk of making a character undesirable to play. I think that's what Adam was driving at in that segment. You still have my buy-in though as far as those house rules go because I'm interested to see where it goes. I was fully ready to retire Chuck and bring on a bard, even if it meant losing levels. I decided to stick with him because the cost for healing was only time which, with no time pressure or trade-offs, has little to no sting at this point. Which brings up another point: If there's no true cost, why have it? I don't recall how we're handling the issue of regaining hit points and hit dice, but if we're on a slow hit point recovery track outside of safe havens, I just don't see us ever striking out into the wilds. We'll always be sticking close to cities. That's doubly so because we can't level unless within a safe haven. Bottom line question is - Are these house rules achieving the goals for which they were designed?

Yeah I've been pondering this a bit too. Since it wasn't as if I'd already run games with this stuff in place, it's all inherently experimental and subject to change if it's just not working. :) The important thing to me is from the campaign document, the stated goals: Freeform sandbox play - players can go where they want and do as they want Danger everywhere, rewards anywhere - high risk/reward, high lethality Emergent stories - no predetermined storylines, but narratives should naturally arise through play Open table - players can come and go as they please Of course the goals themselves are of debatable value but the primary concern to me is whether any and all house rules are implementing said goals or not! Everything else is just a means to end. In the case of rules about injuries, shocks, and healing, I think I was primarily trying to implement "danger everywhere...", but also in the case of Lingering Injuries, "emergent stories", the idea that narrative can arise through poor or good results of player agency. It's possible that in attempting to soften the blow of the injury tables I destroyed any ability for them to do this. Possibly having someone get their knee ravaged by a hobgoblin and retiring with what little they could scratch together as a thieving consultant is an acceptable or preferred form of emergent narrative. It's also possible that all that rules apparatus (which I also realized later I simply forgot to implement on the part of Thrush, not that it seems likely to matter...) isn't truly helping the goal of "high risk/reward/lethality." Possibly the best thing that can be done in that regard in simply how I key the hexes and dungeons themselves, neverminding all that. Interestingly, it isn't clear that rules about "safe havens" and leveling even attempt to implement any of the above goals. I realize they got sort of hacked together as we discussed some of the other stuff so perhaps it shouldn't be surprising. If anything, those two things seem aimed towards a sense of realism, which may be a laudable goal but isn't something I set out to accomplish. Going back to the idea that the danger baked into the hex-key is potentially the real problem solver, if it's dangerous enough to 8 hour rest in a dungeon or in the untamed wilds, the characters are going to head back to civilization to level up most of the time anyway, without any such enforcement. And the choice to do so or not can be seen as just another emergent narrative hook. I'd love for everybody else to chip in on this stuff by the way, it's really helpful to talk it out after having seen some of it in action.

I think we've got the "freeform sandbox play" goal tackled. "Emergent stories" is also not an issue because all RPGs have emergent stories, even those with storylines. "Open table" hasn't been an issue. I think we've dealt with continuity by just "filling in the blanks" rather than necessarily having everyone go back to town at the end of a session, which is one of the conceits of West Marches if I recall. (Which I always thought is a bit odd in a hexcrawl anyway since one would imagine this limits the ranging characters can do when starting in town every session.) "Danger everywhere, rewards anywhere" is a goal I think we can achieve in other ways. I'd say keep lingering injuries for when a character drops to 0 hit points. But otherwise increase the CR or number of enemies in a given area or skew wandering monster charts to come up with more frequent or tougher results. Drop system shock and slow healing altogether. You could probably even keep leveling up only in safe havens. That doesn't really serve one of the goals above, but it does create an incentive for the characters to periodically go to cities. Resupply should also be a reason to go to cities, but realistically players aren't too great on tracking mundane resources because it's kind of boring. The only thing to be cognizant of is that players will probably stop delving a dungeon or whatever to go back to town and level. Some DMs/players might take issue with this from a storytelling perspective, but I think it's probably okay given the freeform sandbox play goal.

At the very least on slow healing (or our variant slow healing outside of save havens) I'm apt to agree I think. After having seen more play with the rule in action and elsewhere, it feels more like a fix for bad wandering monster design than anything else. I've got all that programmed in (and will continue to do so in the future) so it's less of an issue. In particular for wilderness wandering, there are some really nasty things that could wander by... I still like the idea of System Shock but it's just awkward to use I think. I think I'll retire the rule for rolling on it but keep the chart, and simply rule by fiat when it feels appropriate. A more narrative driven way to fix the levelup rule might just be to include some of the stuff previously discussed, requiring some level of gold expenditure for actual training, to dispense with the conceit of new abilities just kind of popping into existence. Might and Magic style. But that means some heavy logisitics potentially in crafting suitable NPCs who can offer said training. An easier mechanical fix that doesn't *literally* force characters back to cities, would just be to say that leveling up requires 8 hours of uninterrupted (for any duration) rest, effectively making it a moot point inside a dungeon where the DM is rolling every 10 minutes for an encounter. Agreed on open table and freeform, noting that the open table is exactly why I'm thinking about the oneshots idea.

A class like Warlock though does gain his power innately and not through training. If we level up only in cities and go with the 8 hours of rest/reflection it can be chalked up to meditating and reflecting on recent experiences fighting and what not. The time between levels being the "training" like veteran soldiers who learn in the field. I just always thought paying a trainer to level was a bit weird. Maybe to learn new abilities like how to use a sword though (which would also require more than just a week of training of course.)

I've always seen XP and advancement as a reward for doing the things the game encourages (being bold adventurers confronting deadly perils) and a pacing mechanic. Thus I don't give much thought to what advancement looks like in the campaign world. I rationalize it with "on-the-job training." Paying a trainer seems like a tacked on money sink. Which is fine, if it's just mean to cost money and thus drive the need to go get more gold. Here's an idea: You might consider having the players establish who their trainers are and keep much of that in the background or used as an occasional hook. Also, once the characters reach 11th level, this should mark the end of needing a trainer. However, in order to become a progress as a master, one needs an apprentice. Thus, in order to advance to 12th level and beyond, there could be a money sink to bring an apprentice up through the ranks. This might be a good way to introduce backup characters. When you level up your main character, you spend a set amount of gold on yourself plus another cost to also level up your apprentice. If a character dies before 11th level, the new character starts at 1st or 3rd level. If a character dies while 11th level or higher, they can start playing their apprentice. (This all assumes they don't care to be resurrected.)

lee F. said: If we level up only in cities and go with the 8 hours of rest/reflection it can be chalked up to meditating and reflecting on recent experiences fighting and what not. The time between levels being the "training" like veteran soldiers who learn in the field. I just always thought paying a trainer to level was a bit weird. Maybe to learn new abilities like how to use a sword though (which would also require more than just a week of training of course.) I was just thinking out loud there, but yeah as TH mentioned it would be literally just a narrative excuse to drain money. The idea about trainers and apprentices is pretty interesting... something to stick in my back pocket I think. Overall I'm not sure narrative pinning training on NPCs works too well in the Wyvern Coast, mainly due to the serious lack of high level classed NPCs, especially ones not otherwise attached to power structures that would even consider training up peers. I'll try to fix up and formalize changes to the house rules later.

By the way, I ran a game last night in which the characters faced a succubus and a pile of wights. I found that their ability to reduce maximum hit points is better game design than lingering injuries or the like. (And certainly better than level drain!) This might be something to consider if you plan on revamping any of the healing/injury rules. It definitely stings but not so bad that it makes the character ineffective and undesirable.