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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grydan" data-source="post: 5832832" data-attributes="member: 79401">Unless I'm misinterpreting you, this is very much counter to what I want.I don't want leadership to be something that's automatically thrust upon any character, at any level of play.There are many high-level character concepts (and players who enjoy high-level play), that simply do not want to be leaders of anything.While one can certainly derive some fun out of taking a character who doesn't want to be a leader and putting them in a leadership position, it's not every player's idea of fun, and it shouldn't be an expectation of the system.I don't want my only options when I reach high level to be "Leader of Men" or "Villain". Those are both interesting and viable options, but they're far from the only ones.I want leadership to be something that any character who wants it can pursue, or even start with, at any level, if it works for the campaign.I think that "Leader of a gang of street urchins" is an entirely viable 1st level character concept, that should have followers.I think that "Young heir to a noble title inherits earlier than expected, and must seek vengeance" is an entirely viable first level character concept, and it's not unreasonable to allow them to have a keep, retainers, and people who owe her fealty.Support for leadership, keeps, domains, organizations, and so on and so forth can provide wonderful tools. Tying them unnecessarily to a tier of play, or a specific class, takes the tools and strips them of some of their value.Tools that don't have these restrictions built in can easily be restricted on a campaign-by-campaign, or character-by-character basis.</blockquote>

Verification