How motivated would an adventuring party be to clear-out a dungeon if the reward WAS the dungeon.
I wanted to establish that in setting there is an old law that says that if a group of adventurers can render a dungeon livable, (i.e. clear out any traps, haunts, and either remove or pacify any monsters residing within) and keep it that way for a full year, it's rightfully theirs.
Can this be considered an adequate reward?
>>52626996
>I wanted to establish that in setting there is an old law that says that if a group of adventurers can render a dungeon livable, (i.e. clear out any traps, haunts, and either remove or pacify any monsters residing within) and keep it that way for a full year, it's rightfully theirs.
Is that law really necessary?
If they clear out all the monsters, then who's going to contest their claim?
FUCKING YES IT WOULD BE YOU COCKGOBBLER, IF THEY WERE A BUNCH OF PANSY ASS FAGGOTS WHO WANT TO HIDE IN THEIR OWN ASSHOLE! REAL MEN DON'T NEED DUNGEONS, AS THE EMPRAH'S LIGHT CAN'T TOUCH THAT SHIT IF IT'S DARK!
I'd say yes, nothing wrong with giving them the option to make it their home base. It's a neat idea.
>>52626996
Depends on the party
Playing dungeon keeper sounds fun to me, but there are definitely people who are reactive, rather than proactive
In fact I'd say reactive players are the majority by far, considering how many players say 'yeah I am totally proactive' and then stare at the GM blankly when asked 'what do you do' if there isn't a troll actively eating their face that very second
>>52627022
>If they clear out all the monsters, then who's going to contest their claim?
you'd be surprised...
I can immediately imagine some rival adventuring group claim that THEY cleared-out the monsters and that the PCs are squatters so that they can get a free base and not have to risk their lives in the process.
Or some son of a son of a bastard-son of some long-dead lord who long ago ruled that particular area coming out of the woodwork to assert his claim over the area, he just didn't do it sooner because it was infested with monsters you see.
>>52627097
>I can immediately imagine some rival adventuring group claim that THEY cleared-out the monsters and that the PCs are squatters so that they can get a free base and not have to risk their lives in the process.
This is only a problem if you have the law though.
Otherwise, it's just a group of bandits attacking the PC settlement.
>Or some son of a son of a bastard-son of some long-dead lord who long ago ruled that particular area coming out of the woodwork to assert his claim over the area, he just didn't do it sooner because it was infested with monsters you see.
Why does he know that it's no longer monster infested?
In fact, why does he know about it to begin with?
I had a PC do this actually. Cleared out a wizard's tomb/mini-dungeon, disarmed all the traps they could, left helpful 'touching this sets you on fire' signs for the stuff they couldn't manage to beat the DCs of yet. Claimed the books of knowledge inside but kept most of the furnishings intact including his coffin. Later through some other plot-stuff my wizard managed to have a conversation with the dead one, basically got a "yeah, no problem, keep it" pass when I offered to return his belongings.
>>52627152
>Why does he know that it's no longer monster infested?
Plot hook?
>>52626996
who the fuck would need a cave
>>52626996
If it was a cold wet dark cave then nope.
If it was an abandoned mine, keep, or even some reconstructable ruins then sure.