D&D Blog - Kings and Castles

[Blackwarder]

I'm not a fan of high level games, to me it seems like they boil down to doing the same old thing only with better pyrotechnics, but the idea to define high level play as something completely different is the perfect cure to that, no more will our heroes be the same rag tag group of misfits at 15th level like they were at 2nd! Now they are actual mover and shakers in the world, and it's reflected with the added mechanic.

So the ranger could have a ranger grove where he live in solitude, his only companions are the animals and his friend the fighter who started a barony near by on the raged adges of civilization leading the local tribes against the orcs onslaught with the help of their dear friend the Mage wo have taken residency in a tower at the fighter castle.

Let the PC become Edard Stark and rule winterfell, or Aharonson Blackstaff and populated an old dungeon for his amusement, they sky's are the limit.

Warder

 

[pemerton]

TAnd 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."

I don't agree with this. Unless by "kill the monster and take it's stuff" you mean "play focused on the conflicts confronted and resolved by a small group of heroic individuals".

But assuming that the phrase is used with something like its literal meaning, then it's fairly easy to describe play focused on other sorts of conflicts - social, exploration, etc. Given that this sort of stuff has been part of D&D since its inception, pretty much (even Against the Giants has social encounters, like Obmi the dwarf), it should be in the core DMG and PHB.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

I've played that kind of game, though not heavily since the early '80s. Having seen all the kludges that don't quite work when it is bolted on afterwards, I think it is one of those deals of, "Do or do not. There is no try."

So my suggestion, if it is to be seriously considered at all, is to do a fairly light, abstract version--but fully integrated with the core rules. Then have a few prototypes of more involved versions in the works to make sure that the integration points will support what they might do later. The best of those can be in a book by themselves.

Otherwise, I think the core ends up missing something that it really needs to make anything work well.

 

[Scribble]

I would prefer it to be core/optional. In that once you get to a certain point you can take the game in whichever direction you choose, there doesn't need to be a default.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I like those things, but they're not required.

Saying a high-level fighter needs a stronghold is like saying a high-level wizard should have an arcane library to his name. It's cool when it happens, but it's certainly not a given. The SBG was a decent book and I like having that stuff as options. Trying to do followers mechanically has pretty much always crashed and burned mechanically IME, but I suspect they'll at least try it. But all this stuff is definitely supplement material.

High-level play (like anything else) should be about the characters themselves, not their stuff and not how other people treat them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm into leadership and stronghold building as an option.

It's kind of related to what we were talking about with the "how levels change things" Legends & Lore discussion. One of the ways that higher levels change things in D&D is that the scope changes, and one of the mechanical ways to reinforce that is to get a stronghold and attract followers, but it's important, I think, to be able to "turn off" that scope change for groups that aren't interested.

 

[Kaodi]

When it comes to campaign preferences, you might say that I enjoy the option of being a roaming adventurer without roots, .

 

[Dausuul]

I've played that kind of game, though not heavily since the early '80s. Having seen all the kludges that don't quite work when it is bolted on afterwards, I think it is one of those deals of, "Do or do not. There is no try."

So my suggestion, if it is to be seriously considered at all, is to do a fairly light, abstract version--but fully integrated with the core rules. Then have a few prototypes of more involved versions in the works to make sure that the integration points will support what they might do later. The best of those can be in a book by themselves.

I agree with this (must spread some XP around). People shouldn't be forced into the "king by your own hand" thing, but I want the game to have the possibility built in from day one. It should be a conscious choice: You get to Name level, and hey, here's this new path you can go down! You can take that path, or not take it, or wait to maybe take it later, but I would prefer that people not have to go hunting around in the supplements box to find it. My ideal would be to put it in the level chart, so when you reach Name level and are looking to see what new stuff you get, you get pointed to the stronghold option.

Also important: You don't get penalized for waiting to build a stronghold/attract followers, so there's no pressure to grab one right away.

 

[odinfellhammer]

I would like to see a module that detailed Dominions like in the Companion Set for D&D. These were optional in BECMI. Let it be something that the group or Individual could work toward.

 

[tlantl]

One of the things I liked about the older editions was that wizards had to maintain a laboratory if they wanted to make magic items, brew potions or scribe scrolls. this was one of the ways we had to limit the stuff players could do to upset the setting and it kept the other classes from feeling out classed.

The old system of maintaining strongholds and carving out your niche in the world did a lot to fuel adventures. You are given a plot of land to clear. there are elves goblins dwarves and a slew of other things hidden in that 25 mile hex. I had players go for weeks trying to convince the local dwarves that they were now the vassals of this particular lord because the rightful government gave the land to him. of course the dwarves disagreed and things got dicy from there.

I loved it, no one rolled a die in anger for nearly a month, but some of the best role play to date came from trying to avert a war while the "lord" gained total control of the area.

Of course there were times when the group needed a break from all of that diplomacy so they used their henchmen to adventure with, and some of these followers eventually gained considerable status too.

It really doesn't matter whether these rules are labeled optional since they are by their very nature an option to be used. It would be rather obnoxious of the devs to mandate the use of such rules if only because of their complexity and detail.

Now an adventure supplement that does a lot of the work for the DM might be welcome for those who really like this idea but are pressed for time and can't really design entire frontiers and layers of intrigue for this form of play. I might even use it if it were generic enough to drop into my already established game world.