Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5832718" data-attributes="member: 10479">I think you're hitting on some key questions, pem, and I have to say that in the structure that D&D has come to know there are no easy answers.  You could say that it isn't traditional "domain management" in your opinion but if you look back to even earlier (more freeform) renditions of "gaining a castle at higher named levels" then take the introduction of the Druid (and the monk, I suppose) as including flavor text that suggests their rise to the heights is an alternate method, then you'd have to agree the the earliest tradition in D&D isn't what you suggest (Excel spreadsheets, couting sheep, literally, etc.).  You seem to be actualy arguing that you like the most recent way it is handled because it is well-defined in a manner you like and that you don't like the well-defined manner that came between the early freeform manner and the more current well-defined manner because you don't seem to recognize the the lightly defined, freeform manner (really a more narrative based manner) worked well.  In fact, I'd daresay the Golden Bough Druid progression would work pretty well in a more freeform system and merely become a series of combats in an overly defined system.Anyway, it seems to me such information is better made for setting books but that's really if, and perhaps only if, the core rules are geared toward genre and not tied to setting.  Once you tie the core to a setting, then relegate that sort of high level play to setting specific books that aren't the core default setting, you're pretty much guaranteeing those elements won't be looked upon as core.</blockquote>

Verification