So in preparing for an Expedition conflict from the Vagrants Guide, the GM sets out threats in the territories you move through. These have danger levels to help estimate the relative difficulty of threats.
I was wondering if about ideas for using danger levels to build adventure locations in the territories.
My thinking is that an ecosystem of a territory will normalise over time. So an adventure location might have roughly the same danger level as the threats in surrounding area, particularly monster and folk threats and the presence of a Stronghold.
Challenge ratings are contentious, but Iāve always held that itās better for the GM to be informed than surprised. Problems arise when the GM is over-reliant (and therefore uninformed again) or the players develop a sense of entitlement. Letās presume we can avoid both of those.
Thereās a general challenge metric discussed on Mordite Monday: the Monstrous Obstacle. It basically ranks monsters by their average expected successes in a given conflict.
The trouble I see with using Danger level from the expedition is that it only measures danger to the expedition. There are many instances where something has a higher or lower danger than would be reflected by its menace in the adventure phase. The dragons are a great example. They have a high danger, sure, but theyāre basically unbeatable in the adventure phase.
But taking your idea at face value, Iād say a territoryās average Danger level somehow correlates to an appropriate Drive Off āMonstacleā from the Masterās Manual articles.
So are you suggesting something to the effect of using an average of Danger Levels in a territory to set a monstacle? Itās interesting in an ecological sense.
Your points are good, particularly how Danger level and Monstacle are in used in very different contexts.
I guess Iām thinking about ways to reflect the presence of territorial threats when developing adventure locations in a territory. Like gnoll slavers (Danger 2), an orc patrol (Danger 4) or a white dragon (Danger 3) will all have different effects on travel through that territory. They will also probably affect what survives and thrives there, how they hide or defend themselves, what was there before but gone now, whatās been plundered and what lies undisturbed.
I mean, Danger level may not be the right way to that. Iām pretty open to ideas.
Yeah, I think I understand what youāre getting at. Iām interested in what problem this idea solves for you. Do you feel a disconnect between the territory an the adventure sites in it?
World building was an explicit goal of the whole expedition/territory/threat system, so Iām glad it is raising these kinds of questions for you.
I guess help answering āWhatās in the territory?ā, beyond a few folk and bad weather.
Iām not thinking about balancing challenges or smoothing our gradients of danger. Iām not really thinking about mechanical play at all. And besides, surprises and spikes of danger are probably better for game play and stories anyway.
No I just want to maximise the use of the pieces already in play.
Sure! Itās worth noting that the threats we gave were as much examples as anything. Iād really love to see some threats tailored to someoneās unique game world at some point. Thatās why we included those threat writing guidelines!