All true enough. Nevertheless, 4E works with a built in assumption that PCs progress from local to regional to planar "players" but doesn't really have a social system to make this part of play (while it does, obviously, do so with regard to the combat system). 1E, for all its warts (in my retrospective opinion), at least had systems in place, however minimal, for becoming a "lord" (or similar named level rank), and the game expanded accordingly.
Aside from the very tangential "equipment" of MME, etc., which at least lists prices for towers and such, there is no system in place to make this a part of play with rules that have outcomes that affect the shared fiction, etc. Everything is free form as a kind of contract between player and GM, which is so different from everything else in 4E, which gets systematized with mechanics (combat, skill challenges).
From my perspective, it's all a matter of resource type, availability, and applicability.
One of the best things about 4e is its robustness with regards to encounter building : you use X pieces, you're very likely to get Y result, with X and Y being fairly easy to predict.
Now... the thing with all these systems is how they integrate, and how they
take away from each other : if [gold] can be converted to combat power, and [gold] can be used in "societal power", you then have to
competing systems. 4e tried its darnedest to reduce "pillar competition" to a minimum. So, if we're looking for something that continues in that direction, we need to avoid creating competition between the "pillars" as much as possible.
I'm fairly confident you know all this, I'm mostly saying it for myself at this point...
I've seen a few ways to go about this that might give satisfactory results.
Complete resource segregation: You can only spend X on X things, and Y on Y things, and such.
This works very well in a very abstract system, but because it's often pretty hard to justify "in the fiction", it becomes "obviously gamist" - which is a problem for a non-negligible amount of people.
Strict resource distribution: When you acquire a resource, it can only be spent on X pillar. This may seem like the above, but it's pretty different in implementation.
Example: when you get a 2nd level feat, you must spend it from a list of feats that only includes effects such as "Linguist".
4e uses a version of this with regards to its powers :
attack power at level 1,
utility at level 2, etc. Obviously, there were more and more holes as utility powers become more and more combat useful (as is pretty inevitable with the shear
mass of choices available!)
Parallel progress: When you acquire a resource, it affects all* pillars.
Example: You buy a "super-awesome-sword"(tm). From this single acquisition you get : obviously, combat advantages, but also a bonus in social situations.
The idea here is to reduce competition by feeding both (all) beasts at the same time.
My preferred approach is the last one, coupled with fairly strict resource distribution.
For instance, building something could grant social effects AND some combat effects - and not something that is significantly less than if the combat benefit and been bought directly. The goal isn't to simulate an economy, the goal is to allow characters
real freedom of choice with regards to the direction of the
fiction they want their characters to take.
I know some love the idea of having to pay in efficacy for fluff, but I loath that. LOATH IT! (That's why a plurality of games is awesome.)
As a side note: creating a social "path of progression" a la 1e is difficult because it hinges on
many assumptions about playstyle, campaign events, political situations, etc, etc.
What I believe could be done and made to work would be something like [companion characters] - but with regards to locations and institutions : stat them up like part-monster, part-hazard, part-SC. In this manner, DMs have the tools to adjudicate situations and create environments for these institutions/buildings to "act"/"live".
Your "base" would grow with you character (or party) and then be able to interact with these other institutions. If we use the same level-based approach, then we can have "tiers" of influence built right in so that when players are Paragons, their institution(s) interact at the level of duchies or kingdoms, powerful merchant cartels and majour mage guilds, etc, etc.
... wow... I am
all over the map tonight!
, harder to show off with... LOL
