In a recent play report for my AD&D 2e campaign, I wrote about how the player characters keep having random encounters with merchants and tribesmen, and how I'm struggling to keep these encounters interesting on repeat occurrences. It got me thinking more broadly about how to make all types of random encounters with men more interesting.
I use the term "men" here because I've been using the AD&D 1e wilderness encounter tables from the DMG, which use the term "men" to refer to humans, which I interpret as genderless. One could interpret the term more broadly, treating a roll of "men" instead as "people", meaning that "men" could also mean demi-humans (dwarves, elves, gnomes, and halflings), and depending on the DM's setting and sensibilities, humanoids (gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, and orcs) as well.
I won't get into the weeds as to what is and isn't a "person" here, but suffice to say that I treat all of the above as people in my games, with personalities, goals, ideals, bonds, and flaws as mutable as any human being in our real world. However, the 1e encounter tables have separate entries for demi-humans and humanoids, which I prefer to keep intact, so for now I'll say that in writing about "men", I'm simply writing about humans. The rest of fantasy people-dom will have to wait for another time.
Men for Miles
Our campaign takes place in a temperate region, so I've been using the "Temperate and Sub-Tropical Conditions: Uninhabited/Wilderness Areas" encounter table:
The chances of encountering "men" is as low as 10% is forests (perhaps because there are so many other creatures which live in the forest) and as high as 25% in deserts (perhaps because relatively few other types of creatures live in the desert).
Because they are still low-level, my players have mostly stuck to settled regions near towns so far, so I've been using the "Inhabited And/Or Patrolled Areas" table even more often:
Encounters with "men" are understandably more common in these areas. In the desert, the chance of encountering "men" is as high as 77%!
Hopefully, this is enough to communicate the importance of making these encounters interesting and varied. They will come up often over the course of a campaign.
Persons of Interest
Aside from ordinary animals, humans are perhaps the least fantastic thing to be encountered in a fantasy world, and considering the way most people in the real world live today, encountering wildlife is probably actually more fantastic than encountering other people. However, encounters with humans should be anything but boring.
Like any random encounter, every chance meeting with humans should present either an auspicious opportunity, a complication, or a threat. These encounters will usually provide an opportunity for social interaction, and occasionally will result in combat. They will sometimes offer a challenge for the players to overcome - a fight, a language barrier, or a tense negotiation, for example. Other times, they will provide information about the world - it's cultures, factions, history, locations of interest, monsters, religions, and treasures - or other valuable resources - directions, goods and services, intelligence about the players' current objective, or potential allies.
Recently, I found myself handwaving some of these encounters, and it occurred to me that I was doing this because I hadn't put enough consideration into how to make them enjoyable, which made them feel like they were not worth our playing time. Any encounter with any human can present any of the above opportunities, complications, or threats, but since I've been running into challenges with encounters with merchants and tribesmen specifically, I started thinking about what sorts of unique opportunities, complications, and threats are offered by each of the specific types of humans on 1e's "Men Subtable":
Below, I'll give my thoughts on each of the "Men Types" in the table above, what distinguishes them as a type, and what is likely to be the most "interesting" element about an encounter with them. Since I'm running a 2e game, I'll be starting by talking about each of the above "Men Types" in that edition, but supplementing that information with details from 1e (since it is more encyclopedic in nature), and occasionally referencing 5e (because it's the other variety of D&D I enjoy, although it's less thorough in its cataloging of "men").
 |
| What's this guy's deal? |
Bandits
Criminals, gangsters, marauders, murderers, outlaws, pirates, and robbers - all of the above are "bandits" by another name. Just don't call them "brigands" - that is a very specific, different thing!
Bandits typically have a high-level leader. In 2e, this will usually be an 8th-level fighter. Lip service is paid towards them also possibly being led by a rogue, wizard, or priest (although no guidelines are given as to when this is the case).
1e gives more thorough guidelines (as is usually the case) for generating bandit encounters, such as when they might be encountered with a wizard or priest, the type of lair they have (it is likely to be a camp, but might also be a cave complex with a secret entrance, or a castle), and how many "important prisoners", camp followers, and/or slaves they might have.
In 2e, bandits are strictly Chaotic Evil. In 1e, they are Neutral by default. In 5e, they are any non-Lawful alignment. I like that in 5e, bandits are characterized by their non-Lawfulness - this allows for Chaotic Good Robinhood-inspired bands at best to murderous cutthroat psychopaths as worst.
However, since I'm running 2e, my 2e bandits are always the latter type - they're characterized by their individualism and self-serving nature. They are the "So I kicked him in the head until he was dead, nyah-ha!" dirtbags of Baldur's Gate, whose gruesome scalps the player characters can gleefully turn over to the fascist Flaming Fist Officer Vai at the Jovial Juggler inn at Beregost - the Fist's bandit scalp budget is seemingly limitless.
This is important for me to consider, because I modify reaction rolls based on alignment. This means that my bandits have a -3 to their initial reaction rolls, meaning they will never be outright helpful, but might be friendly (2.78%) or indifferent (25%). They are far more likely to be unfriendly (30.56%) or outright hostile (41.67%). Your mileage may vary - it is undeniably more "interesting" to have bandits of variable alignment, but I've decided to work within the constraints of my chosen system, for now.
Hostile bandits will attack on sight. The party might be able to make a desperate effort to reason with some (33.33%), but others will persist regardless of the party's overtures (8.34%). Unfriendly bandits will likely attempt to extort, rob, or otherwise hinder the party. Indifferent bandits are most likely not the type to prey on well-armed adventurers, and will make efforts to conceal their true nature so as not to be meddled with by a bunch of do-gooders. Friendly bandits might recognize the party of dirty murderhobos as kindred spirits, or else they're simply putting on a front in order to gain an upper hand on the party at a later time.
So what's interesting about bandits? What sets one group apart from another, aside from their initial disposition? Based on the above information, I would say their leader, their lair, and their prisoners.
A group of bandits led by a fighter, a wizard, a cleric, or a thief should all be slightly different. Fighter-bandits are likely better armed and more disciplined in their tactics. They fight for fighting's sake. They're probably unemployed soldiers. Wizard-bandits will use spells and may be disgraced scholars or forbidden knowledge-seekers. Thief-bandits are in it for the gold and favor especially underhanded tactics. The party will have to watch out for backstabs.
Cleric-bandits - which are maybe the most interesting to me - will also use spells (of a different kind) and have a religious motivation of some kind. They are probably excommunicated or heretical in some way. Determining their deity of choice will be important to discerning their motivations. Looking at the generic Chaotic Evil Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk deities (which I tend to use in my games, since I'm somewhat lazy in this regard and because they feel very "D&D"), we have Beshaba, Goddess of Misfortune, Cyric, God of Lies, Iuz, God of Pain and Oppression, Malar, God of the Hunt, Talona, Goddess of Poison and Disease, Talos, God of Storms, Tharizdun, God of Madness and Eternal Darkness, and Umberlee, Goddess of the Sea.
The cleric-bandits' choice of deity may further inform their tactics, personalities, goals, ideals, bonds, and flaws. Depending on their deity, they may be more likely to deceive, drown, enslave, inconvenience, poison, stalk, or torture their victims. None of this is fun stuff, but it is potentially more interesting than just "they want to kill and/or rob people".
I would quickly give the bandits' leader a name and some personality traits, goals, ideals, bonds, and flaws - regardless of the edition I'm playing, I would probably use the tables from 5e's Criminal background (PHB, page 129), or another appropriate background depending on the leader type, and/or the tables from that edition's DMG's chapter on creating NPCs (page 88).
The bandits' lair is also a key piece of information - it's type says something about them. In settled regions, a camp or fortress overrun with bandits is likely widely known - the kind of thing the DM should place ahead of time and make the players aware of. It will be a problem for nearby settlements, and the bandits will likely be in conflict - or cahoots - with the nearest settlement's rulers.
Randomly encountered bandits could be from a known encampment nearby - if one exists - otherwise, it's probably safe to assume that the lair is in some out of the way or secret place (a cave, for example, could be a hidden bandit lair inside otherwise inhabited lands). Bandits who maintain a known lair in settled lands are likely more formidable, compared to those who hide in hidden caves or in the wilderness.
In wilderness areas, camps and caves will be in secret locations. Fortresses are unlikely to be secret, unless its an ancient place, the location of which has been lost to time. Hidden bandit lairs of all kinds will be a closely guarded secret which player characters can potentially learn from talkative, friendly, or captive bandits.
Cave lairs and fortress dungeons might have monsters dwelling deep within them, and ancient fortresses will usually have histories baked into them, which player characters can also learn about from their denizens. These two locations could serve as proper adventure sites even after the inhabiting bandits are driven off or killed, or perhaps the bandits are so friendly because there's a problem at the lair which the player characters could help resolve - again, a monster inhabiting the lair's depths, or a heavily guarded treasure in the fortress's vault. Of course, if the bandits are Chaotic Evil, they'll probably double-cross the characters as soon as the dirty work is done.
Lastly, the bandits' "important prisoners" and slaves are worth consideration. What constitutes an important prisoner? I would hazard to guess that they're mostly merchants and nobles - namely, people that can be ransomed - but this can also be determined by the bandit type: fighter-bandits might have prisoners of war, wizard-bandits might have sages and scholars, cleric-bandits might have rival prophets and missionaries, and thief-bandits might have rival assassins, bandits, thieves, and masters of Thieves' Guilds.
Knowledge of prisoners like these can also generate impromptu quest hooks - a chance encounter with some friendly bandits reveals that they recently captured a wandering missionary; now, the player characters have to convince the bandits to divulge the location of their hideout, go there, and find a way to rescue the prisoner so that the local church owes them a favor or a reward.
 |
| Would you look at that foot... |
Berserkers
In 2e, the berserker's main distinguishing feature is that they drive themselves into a frenzy in battle. When frenzied, they attack twice per round, or once at +2 to hit, and they never make morale checks.
This is true in 1e as well, and in that edition they are also led by high-level fighters, and maybe a cleric.
There is no mention of a lair, though in 1e there is a 10% chance of encountering them there, so presumably they exist. I imagine that they're fortified encampments.
In both editions, berserkers are Neutral. In 5e, their alignment is any Chaotic alignment. As with bandits, I'll be using the berserker's 2e alignment of Neutral. This means that the full spectrum of dispositions is possible, with indifferent being the most likely (44.45%), outright helpful or hostile being least likely (8.34% each), and friendly or unfriendly in between (19.44% each).
Hostile berserkers attack in a frenzy. An encounter with unfriendly berserkers might mean dealing with berserkers on the brink of a frenzied attack. Helpful berserkers may join the party on whatever their current quest is, while friendly berserkers may share information or hospitality, or want to engage in an amicable skirmish with the party's strongest warriors. Indifferent berserkers likely want nothing to do with the party, but could be convinced to do something or be plied for information. I use 5e's Outlander background (PHB, page 136) to flesh out their leaders.
If the berserkers are accompanied or led by a cleric, their religion could color the interaction, as with bandits. Looking at our Neutral Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk deities, we have Gond, the God of Craft, Ioun, Goddess of Knowledge, Oghma, also God of Knowledge, Waukeen, Goddess of Trade - none of which I feel work particularly well for berserkers - as well as Kossuth, God of Fire, Silvanus, God of Wild Nature, and Tempus, God of War.
Given their Neutral alignment, I would also argue that it would be just as appropriate for berserkers to be led by a druid, given druids' required Neutral alignment in 2e. In that case, the berserkers would likely worship natural spirits of animals or the land, rather than following an organized religion.
Berserker's in our own world's history are typically grouped into either the cult of the bear, boar, or wolf - 5e's Totem Warrior barbarian subclass can provide some inspiration as to what traits a berserker cult of a given animal might embody. Or, maybe D&D's berserkers instead worship a gorgon, griffon, roc, or other Neutral or unaligned animal-adjacent monster, and assume the mannerisms of that creature.
In addition to the usual information that human NPCs will have about the region or world, berserkers will have specific knowledge - namely, the knowledge of how to enter a frenzy. Some theories about real-life berserkers suggest that they achieved this state by consuming alcohol or hallucinogenic drugs. This secret is something the berserkers might share if the party convinces them, helps them, or agrees to be initiated into the tribe or warband.
Brigands
Who am I kidding - these are just bandits! Well, not exactly. In 2e, they are "better equipped and will have higher morale". In 1e, they are specifically Chaotic Evil bandits (remember that regular bandits in 1e are Neutral), they are more likely to lair in caves and fortresses, they have half as many important prisoners, something like three times as many camp followers and/or slaves, and they have +1 morale.
Otherwise, they're just bandits. Go reread what I wrote about bandits, but mentally replace the word "bandits" with "brigands". Or don't.
Characters
Otherwise known as "Adventurers", they will have classes and levels and can be as varied as any group of player characters. 1e and 2e both have their own guidelines for generating parties of adventurers, including hirelings and henchmen, which I won't get into here. What I will say is that both procedures are thorough, so my recommendation is to generate some adventuring parties ahead of time and have them ready in the event that the player characters encounter them.
My preference is to generate one party of each "tier" - low-level, medium-level, high-level, and very high-level. Maybe a "Good" party and an "Evil" party of each tier, for variety. Give them a cheeky name - something that will get a laugh and make the players seriously consider giving their own party a silly name.
These are some of my favorite encounters to roleplay. Good adventurers might lend their aid to the party, going so far as to join them on their current quest or otherwise collaborate, or oppose them if the player character party happens to be evil. My players recently encountered a party of very high-level adventurers purely by chance. We all had a lovely time riffing on the situation, with the NPC party offering helpful tips and encouragement, and resolving to clean up a potentially region-altering mess the player characters had made.
Doing that once is fine - if the players make friendly contact with a higher-level party of Good adventurers and want to lean on them all the time to resolve problems they're incapable of facing themselves, shut it down immediately. Even Good adventurers are as capricious, distractible, and fickle as actual player characters. Whenever the players go looking for them, say, to remove the Evil wizard lording over the nearby town, tell them that the high-level party is off doing high-level adventurer stuff - they're plane shifted to Hades, battling the Bone Lord in the Bone Castle, or something. The players have to overcome (most) challenges themselves!
Evil adventurers should be the worst of the worst dirtbags the DM can imagine - draw on any experiences with problem players and adolescent gaming to make them absolutely detestable. Taunt the player characters or lay a diabolical ambush. Use the most OP, social contract-shattering spells available - the ones Redditors complain about. The players will hate these guys more than any xenophobic beholder, pyromaniac dragon, or megalomaniacal lich. My last 5e campaign was derailed for months by the player characters relentlessly pursuing a treacherous NPC party, and I wouldn't have it any other way. The catharsis the players will experience when they finally get their hands on these people is unlike anything else in the game.
Even Good NPC parties can be unlikeable. Have everyone everywhere talk about how great they are all the time. Have them buy all the good magic items at the Bazaar of the Bizarre. Have them rule all of the sweet castles the player characters wish they had, or recruit all of the men-at-arms the fighter needs to man their stronghold. When the player characters show up in town after completing a quest, no one notices because the Big Damn Heroes just saved the multiverse or whatever. Nobody likes Mr. Perfect.
It's not difficult to make these encounters interesting, if the characters are fleshed out ahead of time. I never get to play in a game - at least not for long - so I treat this as my opportunity to create bespoke characters with detailed backstories and motivations. They are all my OCs, and the NPCs in the setting are as obsessed with them as I am, and it is as annoying and obnoxious as players who create characters like that (only kidding - kinda).
Returning to Baldur's Gate, I think about every fight with adventurers in those games. In the second game, right at the beginning, on the second floor of an inn is a party of adventurers who pick a fight with the player character. They're obnoxious and they have good loot, and the fight is pretty challenging because the NPCs have all the same tricks as the player character party. That's the purpose of NPC parties in D&D. That's what I want these encounters to feel like.
Dervishes
The dervish is a Arab-coded religious nomad. In real-world history, they were Muslim mendicants. In D&D, they're roaming desert warriors of a non-specific religious persuasion. They're Lawful Good and led by clerics, with high-level fighters and wizards among them as well. They live in walled fortresses are are fanatics, adding 1 to their attack and damage, and never checking morale. I use 5e's Acolyte background (PHB, page 127) to give their leaders personality traits and the like.
As far as making them interesting goes, it mostly boils down to religion, to a much greater extent than those other "Men Types" discussed up to this point. Again referring to our generic D&D deities, Lawful Good options include Ilmater, God of Endurance, Torm, God of Courage and Self-Sacrifice, and Tyr, God of Justice. Dervishes might be martyrs, valorous warriors, or good-doers and wrong-righters. They can serve as a means to deliver information to the players about the world's religious practices.
Because of their alignment, they will never be outright hostile, and have a small chance of being unfriendly (2.78%). They might be indifferent (25%), but will likely be friendly (30.56%), and especially helpful (41.67%).
Dervishes are also characterized by the terrain they inhabit. There is an especially good chance of encountering dervishes in the desert. In desert wilderness regions, they are the most common type of men. They might join the party to escort them across an otherwise inhospitable wasteland, or invite them back to their desert fortress to rest in safety and restock on provisions.
Like bandits with their lairs in settled lands, these fortresses should probably already be on the map somewhere, and be known to the player characters - I'm thinking about where to put mine right now! They should be destinations for player characters that need to venture across long stretches of desert. I imagine that these fortresses are like the kasbahs of Morocco and Spain.
Merchants
Merchants are the main reason I started writing this post. They are the most common type of men encountered in all inhabited terrain types, as well as in wilderness plains, scrubs, rough terrain, and hills, so it's especially important to consider how they can be interesting.
In 2e, merchants travel in heavily-armed caravans. Only 10% of those encountered are actual merchants. 10% are drovers, and the rest are armed guards, led by a 6th- to 11th-level fighter, with lower-level fighters thrown in as well. There is also a chance of medium- to high-level wizards, priests, and thieves in the caravan. The caravan has pack animals and wagons carrying trade goods, with 5,000 gp of goods per wagon, although there is no method for determining the total value of goods carried.
1e, again, is more specific - the caravan will carry a hidden pay chest containing gold, platinum, and gems, and the caravan will carry between 10,000 and 60,000 gold worth of merchandise. This information, combined with the huge number of armed guards and the fact that merchants "will always be mounted on very swift, light horses", has made me realize what's interesting about the wandering merchant encounter - the players are supposed to decide whether or not to rob them.
The player characters, coming upon a caravan of merchants, can take stock of the number of pack animals and wagons, estimate the value of trade goods carried, measure this against the threat posed by the armed guards and "special" characters in the party, and choose whether to knock over the caravan for a huge payout. Can they stop the merchants on their swift horses before they escape and notify the local authorities?
Personally, I love this idea, but I love ruthless, mercenary adventurers - my players are usually goody-goodies, and I can't see them ever actually doing this. So then what purpose does the wandering merchant serve?
Well, they can buy and sell things. It's an opportunity for the player characters to unload any weighty treasure and restock on supplies. In wilderness areas, this might be an auspicious encounter indeed, but in settled regions, it doesn't make much sense. The characters are likely traveling from town to town - if they need to buy or sell something, they can simply do it in the next town, which likely isn't far, or, they already did it on their last stop.
So, the wandering merchant has to present some opportunity or threat that isn't present in the normal course of in-town shopping expeditions. I immediately think about magic items. I go back and forth on whether or not they should be available to purchase. If magic items aren't widely available to purchase in settlements, perhaps an auspicious encounter with a wandering merchant presents a rare opportunity to buy them.
I lean towards allowing my players to purchase magic items in major towns and cities, because that's what my players want, and I'm somewhat indifferent towards the idea. So in my case, wandering merchants need to present some unique opportunity to purchase these items, or else, again, why wouldn't the players wait until they reach the next town to do so?
My inclination is to say that wandering magic item merchants offer items at a discount. Let's say merchants encountered carry 1d4 (65%), 2d4 (20%), 3d4 (10%), or 4d4 items (5%). They might be specialty merchants carrying a specific type of item, or hodgepodge collectors with a varied trove of trinkets and curios. In either case, I'd roll on the magic item tables to see what exactly they've got. Like with NPC adventuring parties, I'd prep a merchant of each type in advance to save time at the table, using 5e's Charlatan or Merchant background (PHB, pages 128 and 133, respectively) to detail their personalities. Whenever the PCs encounter a given merchant, I'd go into my notes after the session and refresh their list of items.
I'm not sure how I'd like to determine the exact discount on offer. A reaction roll is a good way to do it, but what should be the spread? 5% for a hostile encounter, up to 25% for a helpful one? I'm more inclined to roleplay this encounter than a typical shopping expedition - which, as a rule, we never play out. So, whatever the exact rate is, it should be negotiable, based on the merchant's disposition.
Merchants in 2e can be any alignment. In 1e, they're always Neutral. Either way, the full spectrum of reactions is possible. 2e's variable alignment allows me to more easily add color to the merchants. Chaotic Evil and Neutral Evil merchants probably deal in cursed items exclusively, pawning them off as the real thing and then absconding with their ill-gotten gains. Lawful Evil merchants are probably the real deal, but are sticklers when it comes to prices. Good-aligned merchants will only sell to do-gooders. Neutral merchants will sell to anyone.
This approach ensures that wandering merchants always present both opportunities and threats in equal measure, which is important to me in thinking about these encounters. I would keep intact the wagons laden with trade goods as well, in case the players do decide to turn to banditry.
Nomads
In 2e, nomads are looped in with barbarians, and in 1e, they're filed under dervishes. Go figure.
The defining characteristic of nomads is that they're travelers, which makes them perfect for random encounters. For some reason, in 1e there is a 10% chance that their lair is a walled city (how nomadic!), but otherwise, they lair in temporary encampments. They are led by high-level fighters and occasionally have clerics and wizards among them. Like with berserkers, I'd detail their leaders' personalities using 5e's Outlander background.
Nomads keep herd animals and slaves, which is a problem, because in 2e they can be of any alignment (in 1e, they're Neutral). I would rule that Good nomads don't have slaves, because slavery is Evil.
If nomads attack the party, they have a good chance of surprising them (a 4-in-6 chance in 1e, or -5 to the party's surprise check in 2e, with a 1, 2, or 3 on 1d10 indicating surprise). That and the special characters with them is what makes a combat encounter with nomads interesting.
If combat isn't inevitable, the nomads pose a secondary threat of imprisoning the party (1e specifies that they have a 75% chance of capturing weaker groups). If the nomads are indifferent, friendly, or helpful, they present the opportunity to obtain information.
Nomads get around, so they should have a wealth of knowledge about the surrounding area in which they're encountered- they're probably more knowledgeable about the environs than anyone else. They know where the monsters and locations of interest are, where to find food and water, and how to get places. A nomad guide, if one can be recruited, is the best guide there is.
Pilgrims
Pilgrims are on a pilgrimage - that is, they are going somewhere (or maybe returning from somewhere). They're religious. What's interesting about them is their religion, and where they're going (or returning from). They are an opportunity for player characters to learn about a local religion as well as a religious location of interest.
There is a specific table provided to determine the alignment of pilgrims (oddly, because no such table is provided for any other type of men with variable alignment):
d100 Alignment
01-35 Lawful good
36-55 Chaotic good
56-65 Neutral
66-85 Lawful evil
86-00 Chaotic evil
No comments:
Post a Comment