D&D Blog - Kings and Castles

[Khaalis]

I pretty much agree with most people it seems. The system DOES need to exist, it needs to be well written and integrated with the Core, but it needs to be a Modular Choice.

In my experience, most gamers follow a similar progression:
* Start out as newb adventurers for whatever motivation (greed, power, boredom, revenge, etc.); roughly Levels 1-2
* Grow in power until they have a reputation for being capable enough to handle the beast stealing livestock, defend the village from small bandit groups, etc.; roughly Levels 3-4
* Grow in reputation so that they gain notice with the bigger organizations of the game (the crown, wizard's guild, thieve's guild, etc.); roughly Levels 5-6
* Then they begin to reach the point where they want to start becoming a part of those organizations (joining guilds, becoming consultants for the Watch, etc.); roughly Levels 7-8
* They grow in these roles until they reach a level of renown and become movers and shakers in their roles; roughly Levels 9-12
* Then they eventually start to want to be more than just a cog in the wheel and want to start calling shots, gaining titles, etc.; roughly Levels 13-16
* Some even want to go farther, becoming kings and rulers, making their own power organizations or even nations etc.; roughly 17-20
* Then there are those who want to go the step further... basically becoming super-beings (deities); roughly Epic levels 21+

Not everyone follows this progression, but in my experience it seems to be the natural progression of characters in fantasy games. It starts out with the standard "kill things and take their stuff" but most evolve more into games with heavier sociopolitical aspects over dungeon crawling.

Thus the system really should include modular rules that encompass prior systems (as well as possible outside sources) such as these examples, using the best of the best or just using the concepts to make a new system:
* D&D Birthright
* D&D BECMI - Companion Set
* D&D Stronghold Builder's Guide
* D&D Adventurer’s Vault 2 (Location-Based Treasure)
* D&D Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium (Henchmen & Hirelings)
* d20 Pathfinder - Kingmaker AP
* d20 Fantasy Craft (Renown and Reputation systems)

 

[Danzauker]

I pretty much agree with most people it seems. The system DOES need to exist, it needs to be well written and integrated with the Core, but it needs to be a Modular Choice.

Absolutely quote.

I'd also add that it should not be limited to high level characters. After all, not all kingdoms should have 36th level rulers a la Alphathia, and conversely people would like a superpower planar high play without having a kingdom to rule.

A nice boxed set with rules for castle and kingdom building and ruling, mass warfare (both WITH and WITHOUT minis) and followers and leadership rules would be a must-buy for me.

 

[Balesir]

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.

Yeah - I'm minded to agree, but this is the sort of thing that makes me worry about the whole thing. D&D Next want to be so "light" in the Core, yet wants so many "optional modules" that need anchor points into the core that I'm afraid it will end up looking like a fishing port that's trying to be a major harbour - dozens of 'anchor points' on a ten foot long quay...

 

[Nebulous]

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.

I was thinking something more along the lines of the Stronghold Guide, how to build and maintain castles, hire troops, artisans, build defenses, coupled with really deep options for each class that describe how they might elevate themselves to a "lord" of a particular realm. How a Druid rules a grove would be different than how a Cleric would rule a church, or a Fighter would control a bastion.

Sure, some of this could and SHOULD be covered in the DMG, but i think the source material is rich enough to warrant a separate in depth supplement.

But still, it should all be optional.

 

[KesselZero]

I think what I've been trying to express is that I believe the keep 'n' minions rules shouldn't be a PC option. That is to say, the fighter shouldn't have to choose Helpful Followers at level 12 instead of Really Great Cleave; the cleric shouldn't have to take Get Made Pope at the expense of Heal Serious Wounds. Instead, I'd like the political/geographical power rules to be a ruleset that can be added on to normal character progression. Sure, running a castle can get you tons of advantages in money and resources, but it will cost quite a lot, too. The module can balance itself out.

Ultimately, this is because I think D&D will always be a game about cool PCs kicking butt. It's not meant to handle a campaign that's 100% about running a kingdom. I would love to play in a campaign where I take on the reigns of power and am responsible for a barony, satrapy, thieves' guild, church, whatever, but I would expect that game to still involve me punching things and taking their stuff. I'm just doing it because demons are threatening my town, or a rival thieves' guild is doing what rival thieves' guilds do, or demigods are trying to steal my castle.

 

[Mokona]

What if holdings (and maybe followers) were a 4th pillar added to the triumvirate of Social/Interaction/Roleplay, Combat, and Exploration.

All character classes are built, Epic Level Handbook style, with a specific way in which that class participates in the Fourth Pillar (let's call it Dominion). Wizards build towers. Clerics build temples. Fighters build castles. Rangers build outposts.

The Dominion pillar is an optional, modular pillar. You can choose to have it in your game or not have it. If you have it, each class gets their dominion options or can customize their dominion aspect with feats, gold, or time?

For a birthright style game use the Dominion pillar starting at 1st level. For a game where you want high-level play to differ from low-level play: only bring in the Dominion pillar starting when the characters reach Level 15. That creates a different playstyle that changes the character's world. Or, if you hate this kind of setting/campaign implied rules just never use the Dominion pillar for any characters at all.

References for the "Three Pillars" concept:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/318318-danger-three-pillars-d-d.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...n-d-d/318757-three-pillars-class-balance.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...n-d-d/318193-what-meant-exploration-play.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho.../318607-what-rules-supported-exploration.html

 

[Crazy Jerome]

What if holdings (and maybe followers) were a 4th pillar added to the triumvirate of Social/Interaction/Roleplay, Combat, and Exploration.

My main issue with that approach is that a lot of the richness of domains is solidly in the middle of the interaction pillar. Plus, if you have to carve the domain out of the wilderness, that is classic exploration--no doubt mixed with some combat.

Domains are an alternate expression of the three pillars, not a separate pillar.

 

[Khaalis]

My main issue with that approach is that a lot of the richness of domains is solidly in the middle of the interaction pillar. Plus, if you have to carve the domain out of the wilderness, that is classic exploration--no doubt mixed with some combat.

Domains are an alternate expression of the three pillars, not a separate pillar.

Eh... not necessarily. The more I think on this, I think he might be on to something here. Think back to the old versions. In those days there were still the core pillars, but the whole "stronghold/followers" thing was still a part of class leveling. If this was done correctly, the 4th "Pillar" COULD be built in such a way as not to be a true focal pillar, but an augmentation pillar, much the way the core 3 already are augmentations, not individuals.

For instance, a ranger spreads pretty evenly over Combat and Exploration, with some Social in the right circumstance. What would prevent them from also being able to have some play into the "Dominion" pillar as well?

Being a "modular" pillar allows the individual game to decide if that system will be a part of the game or not, which is great for those who do or don't want it. Additionally, it can be easily tacked onto the existing class builds without any need to actually tamper with the class. The abilities that would be acquired through turning on this 4th pillar would purely be for the building blocks of using that part of the game - basically the actual Stronghold and Followers rules. It would then set forth HOW the other 3 pillars fit in.

For instance... rules on how the Social skills interact at the "Dominion" level, such as how to persuade factions, haggle treaties, etc. In the same way, Combat would overlay into warfare and protection of the dominion. That doesn't also mean you still can't go out and say personally slay that dragon that decided your home was a nice hunting ground, so it doesn't step on the Combat pillar. As for the Exploration.... again - thats a key part of building your Stronghold in the first place. There could easily be rules on how your skills in this Pillar affect how easy/difficult your stronghold building skills are etc.

So yeah, I think Monoka might be onto a pretty solid starting idea here.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing I prefer to see when dealing with Domains and followers.

Domains and followers should be treated as rewards like gold and magic items, not as class features like spellcasting and weapon proficiencies.

This way it can be moved into any pillar of adventuring and fit into any campaign style.

 

[fjw70]

I like to have PCs aspire to be rulers and have keeps and such, but I am not a fan of the bookkeeping required to actively manage a domain. I would rather keep it at the RP/story level than have mechanics for it.