Kings and Castles - Poll

[kitsune9]

I'm really into dominions, followers, cohorts, men-at-arms, and mercs. I'm also into running economy out of these dominions. These are great rules to have if you have campaigns in which go on for years or are generational campaigns.

However, I think they should be optional. Some DMs will hate running that stuff, some players don't want to deal with it, and so on and so forth.

 

[Sunseeker]

Blar! Why do people put "Strongly Disagree" on the top?

Anyway, there should be a framework in place to make it work, but the decision to include it in a campaign should always be the choice of the DM. Personally I don't run them simply because my campaigns are much more adventurer-focused. Castles and Keeps tend to drift more towards the "endless hours of mind-numbing bookkeeping". There should be some discussion on the subject with players, but that gets into how much of a story-centric vs sandbox game people want to run.

 

[RHGreen]

Poll Results:

Player 1 "DM, I want have some sort of real effect on the world. I want to have an investment in it and something to show for all the heroism and important decisions I have undertaken."

DM "NO. You will always be a murdering tramp."

Player 2 "I'm a hero. I go pew pew. Pwned, newb, epic fail." While hitting himself repeatedly on the head with little plastic hammer that honks.

 

[Endur]

The point that is being completely missed is that there should rarely be the DM deciding ANYTHING, except to facilitate the plot and story. Any major rules like this should be a group decision. If the DM ever says "I'm imposing this houserule and tough crap about it" I'd smack him upside the head.

I disagree. I believe that a DM has to make decisions in order to facilitate the plot and story.

For example, group agrees to play The Temple of Elemental Evil module in AD&D. The group reaches 9th level (while still in TOEE). Fighter now has access to followers if he builds a keep. The DM says no followers until TOEE is over (even if fighter is level 15 by then). Presumably the DM is saying that the fighter won't have the opportunity to build the keep until the adventure is over.

This is an example of the DM making a decision to essentially houserule away a fighter class ability (gaining followers by building a keep). Now that said, AD&D was very pro-DM making decisions like that, so this decision would be fully compatible with the AD&D rules. 3e and 4e took away from the DM some of the decision making that DMs had in AD&D.

 

[steeldragons]

I disagree. I believe that a DM has to make decisions in order to facilitate the plot and story.

For example, group agrees to play The Temple of Elemental Evil module in AD&D. The group reaches 9th level (while still in TOEE). Fighter now has access to followers if he builds a keep.

Right..."if he builds a keep"...and hes' facilitating that while within the ToEE how exactly?

The DM says no followers until TOEE is over (even if fighter is level 15 by then)

I should certainly hope so! How is he aquiring followers while in the midst of a dungeon?...Unless he story's it (AND the player RP's it!) that some creatures in the dungeon become his followers.

Presumably the DM is saying that the fighter won't have the opportunity to build the keep until the adventure is over.

This is an example of the DM making a decision to essentially houserule away a fighter class ability (gaining followers by building a keep).

Um. Noooo. This is the DM using common, obvious, sense! What? the castle just appears in some countryside when the fighter reaches 9th level? Followers just materialize, Star Trek transporter style, beside him? I am really not seeing the case you are trying to make here.

Now that said, AD&D was very pro-DM making decisions like that, so this decision would be fully compatible with the AD&D rules. 3e and 4e took away from the DM some of the decision making that DMs had in AD&D.

So, in 3 or 4e, the castle would just "appear", with the fighter's name in flashing lights over the gatehouse?...while the fighter was still in the ToEE? The followers would just materialize?

I must be too tired to see the point here.

--SD

 

[LostSoul]

Right..."if he builds a keep"...and hes' facilitating that while within the ToEE how exactly?

He could take over the moathouse and hire some guys to spruce it up.

I should certainly hope so! How is he aquiring followers while in the midst of a dungeon?

Deeds of daring-do. Don't forget that he's spending a week (at least) in town to level up. I'm sure some word of his deeds (and riches) is going to get out.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think it should be optional. Having a castle and followers is not suitable for every game.

I also believe that the DM should have a lot of say in it. He is the one who has to put it in the game and then deal with the followers.

I have seen this with the leadership feat which I also feels needs DM approval. Sometimes having a cohort adds to the game and sometimes it just a huge pain in the rear.

 

[Plane Sailing]

In their survey questions there are too many shoulds and not enough coulds.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the GM should decide but accidentally voted the wrong way, so deduct 1 "strongly disagree"

 

[howandwhy99]

Make it like 1e. Put it in the rules, but don't make it mandatory. Fighters for example, in 1e, could attract followers at 9th level if they built a castle/stronghold. Didnt have to. Could just go on adventuring as usual if they desired and not bother with clearing land, building castle, collecting revenue, etc.

Sandbox games are built upon modularity of material addressed as player/characters choose. In a game with optional supplements this could include adding modular rulesets as desired by PCs as well. "I want to use the dueling rules" could be an option prior to starting a combat. "We want to travel the desert with the highly detailed navigation rules in place" could be used as player discern that this is what they desire. The DM deciding is probably more of a campaign suggestion to players before starting.

Having a castle or stronghold at all is hardly mandatory. IMHO these are treasure. If you don't have one, then you don't play this minigame. However, if you do have one, perhaps managing it is summed in up with a few core game ability scores rolls. The larger, more detailed game could be optional as well, though when it is in place and when not could become more difficult to decide upon.