D&D (2024) Dungeon Master's Guide Bastion System Lets You Build A Stronghold

The Dungeon Master's Guide's brand new Bastion System has been previewed in a new video from Wizards of the Coast.

Characters can acquire a bastion at 5th-level. Each week, the bastion takes a turn, with actions including crafting, recruiting, research, trade, and more.

A bastion also contains a number of special facilties, starting with two at 5th-level up to 6 at 17th-level. These facilities include things like armories, workshops, laboratories, stables, menageries, and more. In total there are nearly thirty such facilities to choose from.

 

[pemerton]

Except there is no in-universe reason why should the assassination, which was in no way related to the PC's actions, be moved.

Nor is there any in-universe reason why the weather should be moved. Why the encounters with other travellers that the PCs had as they trudged along should be moved.

Or suppose, as they travelled, the PCs raided a monster's lair and killed it and took its wand from its treasure horde. Now we make that happen 2 days later. But how do we know that the monster wasn't absent from its lair 2 days later? How do we know that the monster hadn't used all the charges in its wand in those two intervening days?

The King is not unique or even distinctive in this respect.

This is not a video game where events occur when players trigger a checkpoint

Except that apparently it is - the encounters happen when the players trigger a checkpoint, the weather happens when the players trigger a checkpoint, etc. Because you're happy for all of those to be moved on the calendar!

Some people would go even further and say the weather is also a dealbreaker, maybe even feel like they need to redo that whole part of campaign (or, more likely, just not let players hire the staff).

Or not . . . maybe you now agree with me that there is nothing special about the assassination compared to any other event in the fiction?

It may not be an issue to you to move the dates

Huh? I'm not the one who suggested moving dates. I think it's silly, for the reasons I already posted - the whole notion that the inn gets established, yet is unstaffed, and that this has all been measured to a degree of accuracy such that adding the staff must require an extra 2 days to the overall effort, is in my view ridiculous.

It is @Lanefan who is happy to adjust the calendar, with all the consequences for the "living, breathing" world that that entails - except for some reason the issue with the King is a bridge too far.

it implies the assassination was dependent on PCs talking to the king a day before and would not trigger if they never arrived

But it doesn't imply what you say. All it implies is that we have to make a somewhat arbitrary adjustment of the calendar, to allow for the fact that we all know that, in the fiction, the king was alive on the day the PCs talked to him. It's a change in the assignment of an event to an imaginary calendar, not a change in the process whereby the GM has decided that the King gets killed.

Exactly the same thing could come up in other ways - eg suppose that the GM is plotting out the assassination stuff in their notes, and records that the assassin travels by boat from place A to place B on such-and-such dates. And then, the next day, continues the planning and writes down information about the assassin's travel from B to the assassin point, including making notes about waystations where the assassin stayed, having an idea that the players might go to those places to collect information, so that eventually they can trace the assassin back to B and even A.

Suppose, further, that during the course of doing all this prep work the GM mucks up some dates - whether through arithmetic errors, or forgetting that February has only 28 days, or forgetting it's a leap year, or whatever. And so the GM has to make some adjustments. These adjustments might even have to be made on the fly, if the GM only discovers the error when the events of play bring it to their attention.

Making those corrections to dates wouldn't imply anything about the "living, breathing" world. It's just clerical correction. The same is true if the assassination date is altered to allow for the fact that we're clocking everything forward 2 days because of the pub-building stuff.

 

[pemerton]

But why would a player declare actions like those you suggested:

Because the Bastion rules reassure them they will never face consequences of their actions.

Does this imply that you think an important or principal reason why players don't play their characters as wanton murderers is because the GM will bring in-fiction consequences to bear?

If that is not what you think, then I don't understand why you have replied as you have done. If that is what you think, then I am glad that I play with different sorts of players from the ones you are imagining.

This seems to reiterate that you prefer an approach in which the GM provides "plot hooks" and the players have their PCs take on "quests".

Is this now also bad by your standards?

I've not said that anything is bad. But I do have my own preferences for RPGing. And GM-provided "plot hooks" and "quests" are not among them.

I've never had any trouble working with players to establish the backstory, setting, etc elements that will establish a coherent fiction that we can all enjoy.

So how is that different from me wanting to have elements created by player by incorproated into the setting? How is that in any way different of all the "limiting player freedom" you've been acussing people off?

I've not accused anyone of anything, and I don't think I've used the phrase "limiting player freedom".

But anyway, I talked about me as GM working with players to establish backstory etc. I didn't say anything about who has "ownership" of those elements, who may be at liberty to change them, to reveal them to be illusions or false rumours or whatever. But it is precisely the ownership aspect of bastions that you are criticising: you want this player-created element of the fiction to be fair game for the GM.

Why is it bad for DM to want to keep a number of gods limited? How would it be any different from you assigning Krynnish diety to a cult from PC's backstory, instead of just letting the player force their own new god into the setting?

I didn't say anything about me assigning a deity to a cult from a backstory. I said "Do they see their explosive-obsessed Dwarf as something like a Tinker Gnome - in which case presumably the forgotten temples are to Reorx and the Greygem?", and went on to talk about working with players to establish the backstory, setting etc elements. It would be the player doing the assigning, not me.

As to whether or not it is bad for a GM to want to keep a number of gods limited - I don't think that is bad. Nor is it bad for a player to want to introduce a new god. It's probably not possible to satisfy both those wants at once, at least if they are understood literally. Hence the need to work together.

And that's the problem. It doesn't exist in the world. It's just a mechanical bonus, not an actual bastion. It exists to remind the player they're in a crappy video game and undermine GM's effort to create a coherent world.

I, quite frankly, see zero point in building anything in a campaign if it's not going to be a part of the world and therefore both interact with it and mark the impact PC has left on the setting.

Among other things, it is colour. A lot of what happens in RPGing is colour. The funny accent the PC speaks in is colour. In most games, the cut of a characters hat or cape is colour. Most of the time whether a gemstone is a sapphire or a ruby is colour. The bastion, at a minimum, establishes some colour, and also - as I understand it - gives the player a little mini-game to engage in outside of play sessions.

It also seems to me to have the potential to be more than colour - besides the minor benefits the player might get for their PC from the productive activities that occur in the bastion, there is the possibility that the PC establishes a reputation related to their bastion, which then matters to NPCs they meet. And other stuff like that.

None of these ways the bastion might matter to a player in play is undermined by the fact that the GM can't make it into something that is at stake in play.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

There is a lot of dumb hypotheticals going around about rules we have not seen.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The standard mode of the Bastion is, that it is safe. But if you as a PC put it in danger, it will be in danger.
The same for hirelings. Hirelings will be loyal, until you as a PC give them a reason not to be loyal.

Zooming in on this. What counts?

I recently was discussing things with a DM. One of their players was a bit brusque with a shopkeep who was pressing them about a personal issue. The Shopkeep was trying to be nice, but the PC took it as a complete stranger trying to dig into their personal life, and responded a bit harshly. So the DM had the Shopkeep burst into angry tears and throw them out of the shop. If that had been a hireling, would that be enough to break their loyalty?

What if the PCs decide to defy the Evil Overlord and his Evil Plans. Clearly such a figure would retaliate against them correct? And surely since they invited such attention, they have put their home in imminent danger, right?

And that is the problem. You may have a clear idea in your mind of about what constitutes these things. What behavior would cause a loss of loyality, what makes for putting their home in danger. But the players might not agree with your assessment, They in fact have no clue what you might decide counts. Oops, turns out that creepy statue they found is actually a cursed artifact, so now their Bastion is cursed with undeath and all their servants died. Too bad they had just grabbed it and didn't bother to research it, right?

And this is why I feel like it is fine to be a player's decision what goes on in their home turf. Because it prevents miscommunication and mismatched expectations.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Example:

Original fiction has a character building a pub with the party's help; the pub is finished on Auril 2 whereupon the party immediately goes off adventuring.

Some time later (6 months in real time, 2 months in game time) the player says "Wait - I meant to hire staff for the pub before we left!" "OK," says I; "that would have added 2 days to the process, meaning you left on the 4th instead."

Trivial change, right?

Well, hang on now. If they left 2 days later that bumps everything they did after that ahead by 2 days, meaning that instead of meeting the King on their return on Auril 23 they now would meet him on the 25th...except he dies on the 24th and this death on that date has already had material effects elsewhere not just for this party but for other characters and parties as well.

And suddenly something that initially seemed trivial has become very messy indeed. And so, having seen this sort of thing before, my-as-DM initial response to the player's attempted retcon would be quite different than what I put in the example.

Or they could have interviewed and hired people DURING the construction, thus not changing when they left. As that is fairly common practice for someone building a pub.

Tada! A retcon that doesn't change anything. Just they happened to be a bit more busy as they interviewed people AND hammered nails at the same time.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Oh? How so? (assuming it's being enforced properly)

I don't know what you mean by "enforced properly" but just off the top of my head
1) Nothing forces you to answer a question
2) Giving an NPC a quirk such as referring to themselves in the 3rd person can be utilized with a false identity. "The Great Flannegan would never betray his fellow man!" Sounds like it is open and shut truth... but what Zsarl says about the Great Flannegan doesn't apply to Zsarl
3) Most people aren't trained interrogators and it is trivially easy to answer questions in a way that sounds honest, but is deceptive. Player's might not catch someone answering "What is your name" with "You may call me Timothy my lords, unless you prefer a different name?" Which doesn't actually confirm the kid's name is Timothy. Or a question of "Do you mean us harm." could be answered with "Not right now, but if you lay a hand on me I'll gut you." Which again, is a true answer, but could obfuscate the actual intent.
4) Magic items that block it, but that's cheap
5) "Well, you never asked" type situations. You could ask "do you mean us any harm in the future" and the person can honestly answer no, but you didn't ask if the demon hiding in their shadow means you harm, so you can't uncover that with a Zone of Truth

I mean, seriously, FEY and FIEND archetypes are built around the idea of misleading with the truth. If you put the effort into it, it isn't hard to do. Especially if player's have to do this vetting with every. single. character.

Now, I'm sure your party of 45 years who have seen every trick in the book could never be decieved by anything like this.... but not everyone is at that level.

More hostile does not necessarily equate to less fun.

Not necessarily, but it often does. That's why "hostile workplaces" aren't something everyone clamors to be in.

Traps are nearly always the right thing to do, but then again I'm in the unpopular minority who actually endorse gotcha DMing from both sides of the screen if the players aren't cautious (and if they are, that caution should be rewarded with a considerably lower frequency of gotchas).

I know. I still fervently believe you are wrong, and the fact that you are in an unpopular minority supports that observation

Information is power. To gather power one must gather information. Result: spies are a common thing.

Also, people are people; and money sometimes speaks rather loudly and persuasively to those who otherwise would be loyal.

And if you murder your inn guests, you make more money. Therefore every 10th inn should belong to a serial killer right? Come on. Half the time the PCs aren't even worth spying on.

As a powerful adventurer I have made a lot of enemies in a lot of places (including, in this character's case, an entire nation). The moment I stop respecting that fact - and taking precautions because of it - is the moment I'm in big deep trouble.

Or we could not equate doing good deeds, helping people, and growing in personal power as an inevitable slide into assassins interrupting your breakfast every third sunday. Because that's kind of boring. And ridiculous.

If I'd got my throat slit I'd be even more careful on my due diligence in the future, you can be assured of that.

Exactly. You wouldn't trust. So the next NPC passes by, and then the next, and it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle where you are constantly on watch for spies and trust no one, so you never actually get the chance to encounter good people or relax. Because relaxation is a knife to the back. No thanks.

If the player bothers to even mention that the PC is somehow vetting the hirelings, odds are very high there'll be no problem and the hirelings will be decent. Fail to take that little step, however, and the door's wide open for me to mess with stuff.

So, even if I bothered, I'd just hand you a pamphlet with the SOP for anything I ever do. And you wonder why I think it is a good thing NOT to do that? Because a single day of being exhausted from work, frustrated because my family issues are bubbling up again, and I forget to mention "oh yeah, I look for spies" and BAM! my one escape from how terrible life is gets turned into a mess of drama on top of all the OTHER dramatic messes.

No thanks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Personally, I find that Strongholds and Followers is more geared towards campaign that are political and diplomatic in tier 2 and 3. but otherwise not generally useful.
I think that this game could use more optional rules from WoTC. In principle I really like the idea of bastions, I did not care for the specific implementation in the UA but I will wait and see before I judge these rules and at the end of the day my players may not find any value in them.

My issues with strongholds and followers are a bit two-fold, eh, let's go three-fold.

1) They are not balanced between player options. A Bard's Demense effects are all things like "the natural world is musical", "Thunder booms dramatically when dramatic things happen" and "people speak in rhyme". Meanwhile, a paladin gets "the weather is always nice and sunny", "Evil creatures that are in the sun have disadvantage on every attack, save, and ability check", "You are instantly aware of the location of any powerful evil or chaotic creature within 120 to 480 miles of your stronghold"
2) They are RIGID in their thematics. Warlocks are always evil, Paladins are always lawful good, clerics are always lawful good, thieves are always criminals, Fighters always want soldiers and war. Even if you find one or two cool ideas, if you aren't playing a highly traditional archetype for your class, you aren't going to be served by the rules as written.
3) The mechanics are not balanced for gameplay. One of the Cleric Domain Action abilities is, as a lair action, to cast 5e 2014 Contagion with Slimy Doom on every single enemy within 30 ft. It is a con save, so they are unlikely to fail, but if they do... congrats you won. It is an epic moment, but it is so powerful as to be too much. And that is one of a mutlitude of abilities you would get.

I love the concept, and it has good bones, but it needs homebrewed every time I use it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think it's great to have these rules, and as both a DM and player I think it's fantastic they are being clear about who is in charge of the narrative of the Bastions.

As a DM, I want players to have narrative stakes in the games. I love the idea of players deciding who lives and works at their Bastion, and giving little updates about what's going on there. I also know that if I told a player "Hey a big war is about to be fought in the territory where your Bastion is built, how do you want to play this out?" most of my players would have a bunch of ideas. It would literally be a non-issue. I feel like the kinds of players who would try to take advantage of the Bastion system by, say, killing a king and then hiding in their Bastion are also the types who think a commoner rail gun should work. They're just playing a different game than I'm interested in playing.

As a player, I love the fact that they're telling DMs to keep their hands off of Bastions. I played a character in a 5e game whose whole thing was making museums to share the amazing things he discovered in dungeons. I communicated this very clearly to the DM. The first time I tried to set up a small museum, the DM had all the NPCs react as if I was crazy. "Don't you know how dangerous that is???" Then our discoveries attracted the attention of a powerful dwarf patriarch who sent assassins after us. Then we had to travel halfway across the world and take on disguises.

At one point I finally started a single museum and hired a gnome to run it. Guess who immediately got kidnapped by bandits???

Finally towards the end of the game the DM introduced a secret organization that used my museums as bases. I thought, "What museums???"

And I wouldn't say this was a nightmare DM at all, in fact I'd say she was a very good DM. But having an explicit Bastion system would have helped me have a more fun time playing a character whose whole motive wasn't just killing things.

Yeah, I agree. Most players are excited to have things happen, and to have a hand in it. I feel like the rules just make it clear that the player gets the veto power when it comes to their house. Which is what I'd do anyways.

Sorry about the musuem thing. That has to suck.

 

[Demetrios1453]

There is a lot of dumb hypotheticals going around about rules we have not seen.

That seem to involve utterly tyrannical DMs clashing with players with violently nihilistic characters, which would be something that would never happen anyway (or if it did, said group would collapse quite spectacularly within minutes). The "what ifs" being bandied about by some posters strain any semblance of a potential game in the real world.

 

[Stormonu]

If people really want in-depth bastion rules, I'd point them to Birthright personally.

This is meant to be something players can do without the DM having to take the time to RP or adjudicate it for each player, so it has to be self-resolving. Though, if the DM wants to dig into it, there's nothing stopping that.

I'm hoping a few months down the line they do a boxed set that expands Bastions to the point you could do it as a game by itself, or with the expanded options it presents can use it as a more detailed system in D&D.