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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5832764" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think this is interesting stuff (and I hadn't though of the monk - it's another good example).It's a long time since I played high level AD&D, and we never had a high level monk or druid. It would be interesting to hear accounts of what was done with them, and how this was incorporated into the broader systems/techniques of play.One question - are you envisaging part of the play surrouding druid/monk progression as involving building up alliances/power bases etc? Or are you envisaging the ritual combat as framing the dynamics/flavour of play at those levels? Or all (or perhaps neither) of the above?I think the mere series of combats would be disastrous (and I think in saying that I'm agreeing with you).I think linking it to setting will marginalise it, as you say. But making it core will be controversial, too, because people complain about mixing setting with their mechanics. (As seems to often be the case, I think I'm in a minority in liking the way that 4e mixes its setting/story elements into its core mechanics for PC build.)Tell me more of the earlier freeform manner!In part because of the lack of mechanics, but also because I don't mind a bit of freeform between friends (I don't think it works as well among strangers), I use mostly freeform in my current 4e game, with the freeform heavily influenced by the PC class and (especially) paragon path. The dwarf fighter-warpriest earned a handful of dwarven followers out of the resolution of a skill challenge in which they came to him seeking succor - except they didn't know that he was the cleric that they were looking for - they remembered him still as the 100 lb weaking latrine cleaner, before he went off and remade himself as a heroic adventurer. It was the manner of his persuading them otherwise that earned the followers. Because these followers are almost entirely a story element rather than a mechanical element, they don't need to be incorporated into the PC build rules, and their effect on action resolution consists mostly of the way they change the framing of a social skill challenge (eg one of them is the herald of the PC in question, who announces his entrance to public occasions in a loud and slightly over-the-top fashion).This sort of freeforming can be done without any mechanics or rules at all. There is no need to say that at level X, the fighter gets Y followers or takes up Z social position, because that can all be handled as inherent to play. In other campaigns I've GMed, the way in which PCs come to be imperial advisors, have quarters in the imperial palace, become leading figures in the conclave of wizards, etc, has been handled in a similar freeform way with the impact on action resolution being overwhelmingly at the "frame the situation" level.But I think, in practice, WotC are not going to give us a freeform system (certainly not fully freeform). But good designers should be able to reflect on what was going on in some of that freeforming, and think about how a mechanical system (that they can write up and their company make money from publishing and selling) can capture/reflect some of that.My worry about Excel spreadsheets etc is that when I see references to domain management, Magical Medieval Society, Stronghold Builder's Guide, etc, that's what I think of. The recent 4e book Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium is mixed in this respect. It's hirelings are nicely integrated into the action resolution mechanics (eg a Valet gives you a bonus to Diplomacy because your clothes are nicely pressed) - I'm not sure about the mechanical balance of it all, but at least thought has been given to the sorts of issues I'm raising. Whereas there are rules for building castles, etc, but no attempt at all to link them into the action resolution mechanics, or relate them to appropriate paragon paths or epic destinies (like Knight Commander, Legendary Sovereign, etc). I think that way is the path to either rulership as mere colour/fluff, or instead to the Excel spreadsheets (as players want to know what they got for their money, and the accountancy approach is put forward as a solution).Here is some of the text from the Legendary Sovereign Epic Destiny (MP2, p 158):With the DM's approval, choose a realm you are destined to rule. You are regarded as a great hero in that land. You gain a +4 bonus to any Charisma-based skill checks you make within that land . You have property or estates there sufficient to provide for your ordinary needs, including the resources to maintain a household and a small force of loyal retainers.And here is some text from the Jacinth of Inestimable Beauty (MME, p 108):You gain a +2 bonus to any skill check associated with ruling, governing, or leading a realm.I think these are examples - underdeveloped, but nevertheless there in the current ruleset - of how rulership and domain management can be approached in a way that meshes with the existing action resolution systems and PC build systems for the game. I think it can also fit within your general freeform outlook, but providing some rules structure within which elements of the freeform can play out. For example, I can think of at least two ways of adjudicating a Legendary Sovereign trying to use his/her retainers to carry messages to other local nobles. One way would be to have the attempt form part of a skill challenge, and the player of the legendary sovereign can provide a success to a skill challenge (perhaps checking Nature, if the terrain the messengers have to ride through is rough, or checking Diplomacy if it is doubtful how their messages will be received) without the Legendary Sovereign him-/herself having to be doing anything (which might be useful if, as part of the situation, the player wants his/her PC to do something else). Another way would be to use more-or-less freeform resolution of the messengers' mission.And just to be clear. I'm not saying that the Excel approach is inherently flawed or undesirable. But I am certainly inclining to the view to that it would be a mistake to start with that when thinking about what it would mean to incorporate the idea of rulership and domains into the rules. I think we should start with the sort of thing we want rulership to add to an AD&D game - whether that be Golden Bough druidics, or having a herald or retainers to enhance a PC's social interactions, or something else.Does that make any sense?</blockquote>

Verification