D&D Blog - Kings and Castles

[KidSnide]

Followers and stronghold are one of the defining characteristics of high level play. (Other hallmarks of high level play include: availability of higher level magical solutions, easy transportation, mass combat and planar travel.)

I'm not sure what the default should be, but followers and strongholds definitely need support from the system. I would add mass combat and domain management to that list.

The rules design for these sorts of elements is tricky because different groups want different levels of abstraction. It's much more important to have a functional system if you're running a Kingmaker-style game, while a more abstract system works better if the domain management is supposed to be more in the background.

-KS

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm not so sure how many regular RPGers have been exposed to a good system that includes that sort of high-level play (mass combat, kingdoms, strongholds, followers, etc.) so it's difficult for me to gauge whether people think it should be merely optional because they have played that way and don't want it to be mainstream or if they have never tried it and so assume making it more optional is the safer bet.

Personally, I think if it isn't written by people with much experience with that type of play, it might be better to make it optional. On the other hand, making it more integrated to the core experience might show a commitment that engenders more traction throughout the community. However, even if it is optional but turns out to be a great system innovation, even as an option it might see a lot of play. I'm torn on what to think.

 

[Nebulous]

im sort of torn too. I haven't actually PLAYED that kind of game before, but i think it sounds fun. I guess i'm leaning toward....it should have a whole book devoted to it as an option.

 

[Mattachine]

I don't like the idea that personal martial skill = right to rule. It just doesn't fit my campaigns. That sort of thing goes more with backgrounds and the specifics of a campaign, not the attainment of multiple attacks per round, or having 9 or 10 hit dice.


As a rules module, sure.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I haven't really been on the complaining-about-the-polls bandwagon, but that last poll was very badly worded. I couldn't even figure out what it was really asking.

I'm not a really a fan of the tone taken by the article. It is hard to feel included in a talk about "remember when X?" when X comes from a time before I got into D&D. Also, the Stronghold Builder's Guide was a terrible supplement, for the record.

Still, poor blog post aside, I'm really happy to see WotC talking about castles, kingdoms, and companions at this early stage of the game. That kind of gameplay is something I really want to see in D&D, and I hope they work hard to make it a good and fun option from very early on.

 

[marleykat]

I definitely want to see some kind of treatment done on it. But I don't want it as something that replaces a character's core power set but an add on or a natural horizontal extension of their existing power set.

I want to see it in core so that it's seen front and center so it's not sidelined like the newer versions of the game but not just a mandatory endgame thing.

 

[Mark CMG]

I haven't really been on the complaining-about-the-polls bandwagon, but that last poll was very badly worded. I couldn't even figure out what it was really asking.

I barely glance at the polls anymore, which might not be good for their usage as feedback since I doubt I am alone, but would the polls even be that much help if everyone tried to answer them? I'm not sure they're structured in such a way as to be useful for anything.

 

[El Mahdi]

I started playing after this had faded a bit and wasn't as common a result of the game (mid 90's), or at least the groups I played with never really endeavored towards this sort of thing. It's honestly not something I feel I really missed. But I guess I'd have fun with it in the right game or group, just not all the time. So, I see this as more appropriate for a modular add-on also.

 

[Nebulous]

I definitely want to see some kind of treatment done on it. But I don't want it as something that replaces a character's core power set but an add on or a natural horizontal extension of their existing power set.

I want to see it in core so that it's seen front and center so it's not sidelined like the newer versions of the game but not just a mandatory endgame thing.

That would be good. Mention it in the core rules to set the precedent, but leave the full write-up and elaboration for a whole book dedicated to it. And i do think it would take a whole book to describe an entirely "different" style of D&D playstyle that is not "kill the monster and take it's stuff."

 

[pemerton]

I'm not so sure how many regular RPGers have been exposed to a good system that includes that sort of high-level play (mass combat, kingdoms, strongholds, followers, etc.) so it's difficult for me to gauge whether people think it should be merely optional because they have played that way and don't want it to be mainstream or if they have never tried it and so assume making it more optional is the safer bet.

I've played with the AD&D system for this - I don't know whether or not you count this as a good system!

I voted that it should be optional, and that it should not define high level play but rather be part of background/context. In my previous (Rolemaster) campaign, the PC samurais becames lords of a small village at mid level, and of a port city at high level. In both cases, this was mechanically resolved as a series of social encounters (in the first case, being granted the village by their daimyo; in the second case, successfully politicing after saving the city (Freeport, under another name - Yoemura, I think) from cultists).

In my current game, the party "leader" is a warpriest of Moradin who carries himself as an equal of the baron of a frontier city, and who has a minion herald (Gutboy Barrelhouse). Again, though, this is a result of, and part of the ongoing context for, social encounters.

I'm not that interested in an AD&D-style approach where I have to cost the building of castles, the hiring of retainers, the collection of taxes, etc. I would like an approach that linked stronghold-style resources into the treasure and existing resolution systems.

If others do want an AD&D-style system that's no skin off my nose, but I would like it to be optional so that I don't have to deal with it, and so that taking the sort of approach I've described above won't create balance issues in my game.