Really though I think all of that boils down to this: We never expected things in the game to be “fair” (i.e. “level appropriate”) – we expected them to make sense and fit into the game world. It was our job as players to make sure the encounters were level appropriate.

Yep, that’s it.

Thinking about what made me not get upset with Ben when I died and accuse him of unfairness or somesuch:

1) It made sense and was reasonable in the circumstances; even if there was crucial info that we didn’t know when we rushed into the cave.
That is, it didn’t really seem likely that there was a second Hydra hiding in the cave nearby during the fight with the first one, but as we entered the cave it was pretty obvious there was something more going on, even before the other Hydra appeared. When the hydra did appear that made it very clear what was going on and _it made sense_ even if there was no way I would have guessed that that would be what was going on before that. And anyway I should have been much more paranoid about going into any cave like that.

2) Lots of little things reinforcing the feeling that Ben was an impartial/passive arbiter, e.g. the GM rolling all the dice out in the open. All of the “West Marches” style of play helps reinforce this (players deciding where to go on their own and so forth), but there’s also things the GM can do during the game to emphasize their impartiality.

3) Lots of precedence for things being potentially very dangerous, often surprising, and not tuned for your current level .
For example a very early bit in a game involved a 1st level character crawling into a barrow mound that the group had come across on their way to somewhere else, to do a little grave robbing. Sure enough there were a couple of Barrow Wights – definitely not a 1st level encounter. It was pretty obvious what was happening and the PCs fled immediately. That sort of thing (with the players & PCs retelling it to others) made sure that we all knew very well that there were scary things in that dark hole or on the other side of the door (heck folks were even scared of the doors themselves). I remember most of us veterans making sure to explain to new players that this was a very different play style so that they would get that from the beginning. I think with everyone feeling that the world was generally a very dangerous place that was not tuned for their level at all, we were all generally very aware of the risks we were taking. Of course despite that we would still frequently do “a little light exploring” just before camping for the night or heading home; because that’s where the fun was.

I’m not even sure that clues or signs that dangerous things are up ahead is important for this. If things make sense and are consistent then that should usually provide the clues the players need, and as the GM you should make sure to think about those things (“given that there’s a hydra in this area what would that mean…”). But they should also know that sometimes there are surprises.

Really though I think all of that boils down to this: We never expected things in the game to be “fair” (i.e. “level appropriate”) – we expected them to make sense and fit into the game world. It was our job as players to make sure the encounters were level appropriate.

The short answer is no. Not that I can remember anyway. The hydra is probably the closest (by which I mean the second hydra) but in hindsight the players were smacking themselves in the heads and wishing they’d put up defensive spells before walking into the scary cave lair.

A very valuable skill (possibly the most valuable skill) is knowing when it’s time to run away. Very, very fast. Including creatures that pursue is actually a far more dangerous design decision than simply making dangerous creatures that players could flee. In West Marches the goblins of Cradle Wood were generally recognized as being far more dangerous than their stats indicated because they did mob-up and chase intruders, often for days on end. The other epic example would be the Brood of the Standing Stones. They led to one of the most nailbiting sessions in the entire campaign because killing one put a blood curse on the slayer that drew vengeful Brood from miles around. Nightmare.

I think it’s also very useful to mentally review your own GMing. When you look back on things from the players’ point of view clues that seemed obvious to you might have other interpretations. When you get into the zone of thinking “oh clearly they should have seen the signs!” you are in danger of potentially punishing what you perceive as bad tactical decisions. I’ve caught myself doing that.

If a particular player is repeatedly grousing about the injustice of the world a West Marches game might not be for them.

But yeah, sometimes you step into more than you bargained for. Sometimes there’s no way you could have known to avoid it. That’s life. Run.

During my time running West Marches (~70 games over the course of ~10 months sometime last year or so) I caught flak a few times from players who believed I had created something unfair – commonly that it was too powerful. Of course these were baseless claims – the things I had made were basically by-the-book level appropriate and the fact that the PCs had died was their own fault for ignoring obvious foreshadowing of the dangers ahead (like being basically out of HP and literally announcing aloud that they were going to press on to find the big bad ghost in charge of all the less-bad little ghosts… yeah… not a smart move, that).

This got me wondering, though, if appearing passive didn’t really help me in avoiding the blame for players being stupid and getting themselves killed, how did it go on your end? Was there ever a time where somebody called shenanigans on something you had created that they had unwittingly stumbled into? Did you ever take the blame instead of the world because, ultimately, you were the creator of the world? Why do you think this kind of thing might happen?

Encumbrance etc were straight by the book (D&D 3e). There was a ton of overland travel and forced marching so it mattered a lot. People were constantly taking subdual damage. It was great to have other attrition meters instead of just HP (same with ability score damage).

Did you generate characters with point buy or with dice rolls? Or both? I could see it working either way with the theme of the campaign (point buy is more gamist, dice rolls are more simulationist, and WM mostly supports both per the articles), but I was curious about the way you did it.

Bonus question: how did you manage encumbrance and equipment? Was it very by the book D&D or was there any sort of unique approach to reduce time spent managing your inventory?