D&D Blog - Kings and Castles

[Minigiant]

I don't think it ever was. I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure this has not been how it's worked in any D&D edition. The standard has been, "You are level 12. If you somehow obtain a castle and set up shop, you'll start attracting followers." A castle doesn't just plop down out of the sky.

Name level is the point where "If you build it, they will come." You do still have to build (or buy, or capture) it.

My point is that it shouldn't be a class feature. Domains and followers would count as treasure or purely level based quest rewards.

A small castle would be a 10th level appropriate reward or purchase. A band of thirty loyal goblin followers would be a common resource of a 5th level adventurer. A devilish blackguard pact is available to a 6th level evil character.


One guy gets a flaming sword, another gets a mansion, and the last guy attracts an apprentice and twenty little scaly dudes who bow a lot.

 

[Dausuul]

My point is that it shouldn't be a class feature. Domains and followers would count as treasure or purely level based quest rewards.

I agree that it should not be class-based; a wizard should be able to recruit an army and a fighter should be able to get apprentices.

I've been trying to put my finger on why I don't like the idea that domains and followers are "treasure," and finally hit it--it implies that these things will be handed out by the DM, instead of players taking the initiative to go and get them.

I like the "if you build it, they will come" approach because it puts things in the players' hands. It gives you something to go out and do (establish a stronghold), and something you gain as a result (followers). It gives the players an investment and nudges them toward a more active role in shaping the world. It also gives the DM a break, letting players provide the adventure hook for a change.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree that it should not be class-based; a wizard should be able to recruit an army and a fighter should be able to get apprentices.

I've been trying to put my finger on why I don't like the idea that domains and followers are "treasure," and finally hit it--it implies that these things will be handed out by the DM, instead of players taking the initiative to go and get them.

I like the "if you build it, they will come" approach because it puts things in the players' hands. It gives you something to go out and do (establish a stronghold), and something you gain as a result (followers). It gives the players an investment and nudges them toward a more active role in shaping the world. It also gives the DM a break, letting players provide the adventure hook for a change.

If a PC can craft and purchase weapons and armor, so says they can't purchase a plot of land, clear it of rabble, pay for a castle, and let their fame and charisma bring followers.


Treasure is treasure.

 

[Dausuul]

If a PC can craft and purchase weapons and armor, so says they can't purchase a plot of land, clear it of rabble, pay for a castle, and let their fame and charisma bring followers.

But crafting is not the typical way of obtaining magic items. "Treasure" is mainly something the DM hands out; PCs making their own is a sideline. I prefer to have the priorities on strongholds and followers be reversed. The expectation should be that you make an active decision to go out and get these things, rather than the DM giving them to you as part of the regular adventuring routine.

I realize that this is splitting hairs, and functionally our preferred systems would probably look pretty much the same.

 

[fjw70]

Surely that would depend on the amount of bookkeeping involved. There's a perfectly useable system in Pendragon to resolve a player's territory, which doesn't take more than ten minutes to cover what happened that year unless it gets unusually complicated. I see no reason to assume a system for D&D would have to be more complicated.

Sill not crazy about it. I like players to be rulers and lead armies but not crazy about them personally managing domains. If he PC is ready manage domains then it's time retire that character ( and maybe bring him outsof retirement occasionally to smack some bad guy down).

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm still not sure what we mean by "ruling a grove" or "ruling a church". Is this a completely distinct domain-management subgame, is it simply a way to reshape the background/setting, or is it something that's meant to factor into the action resolution mechanics?

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.

This seems a reasonable approach to domain management as a discrete system that is independent of action resolution.

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.

This sees a reasonable approach to domain management if it is to be a factor in action resolution. It is a resource, analogous to treasure.

 

[Alan Shutko]

I'm still not sure what we mean by "ruling a grove" or "ruling a church". Is this a completely distinct domain-management subgame, is it simply a way to reshape the background/setting, or is it something that's meant to factor into the action resolution mechanics?

I'd say A + B. I don't think the action economy is the only thing of interest in an RPG. Having a dominion should fundamentally change the types of challenges you get involved in. You're not just going and fighting the big bad in single combat... You have an entire army fighting the big bad. Your individual abilities and actions will have an effect on things, but they aren't the sole action going on.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think the action economy is the only thing of interest in an RPG. Having a dominion should fundamentally change the types of challenges you get involved in. You're not just going and fighting the big bad in single combat... You have an entire army fighting the big bad. Your individual abilities and actions will have an effect on things, but they aren't the sole action going on.

There are a lot of different ways the army can matter - from augmenting PC-oriented action resolution (eg +2 to negotiate when you have an effective army in the field) to giving benefits in combat (if the "big bad" has the power to generate minions periodically, maybe your army in the field negates this) to being a separate element in action resolution (like a "pet") to being a lot of separate elements in action resolution, maybe using a whole different resolution mechanic (which is the AD&D and B/X approach). Depeding on what sort of approach is adopted, I think it becomes easier or harder to make this an option in PC building as opposed to an autonomous supplement, and the more or less important optionality becomes.

For example, if armies give bonuses to appropriate skill checks, then having an army is something like picking a feat in 3E or 4e, or a bit like a 4e magic item. If an army is like a complicated and versatile pet, then having an army might be something like picking a paragon path in 4e. If an army is handled something like it is in AD&D, then I think it has to be optional and orthogonal, becuase it really is quite different from the default action resolution and PC-build mechanics.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm still not sure what we mean by "ruling a grove" (. . .)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Golden Bough, by Sir James George Frazer

Check out Chapter One: The King of the Wood.

 

[Hassassin]

I'm still not sure what we mean by "ruling a grove" or "ruling a church". Is this a completely distinct domain-management subgame, is it simply a way to reshape the background/setting, or is it something that's meant to factor into the action resolution mechanics?

Any or all, depending on the game.

I'd like to see a dedicated subgame for those that want it, where you get to manage what happens to the domain and make it thrive. It should also be a setting/background feature the DM can use to generate plots and rewards. Finally, it should have an effect of action resolution (outside the subgame), explicitly through wealth or henchmen as well as implicitly through e.g. lower random encounter chance or changes in NPC attitude.