D&D (2024) Dungeon Master's Guide Bastion System Lets You Build A Stronghold

Screenshot 2024-10-04 at 10.13.53 AM.png


The Dungeon Master's Guide's brand new Bastion System has been previewed in a new video from Wizards of the Coast.

Characters can acquire a bastion at 5th-level. Each week, the bastion takes a turn, with actions including crafting, recruiting, research, trade, and more.

A bastion also contains a number of special facilties, starting with two at 5th-level up to 6 at 17th-level. These facilities include things like armories, workshops, laboratories, stables, menageries, and more. In total there are nearly thirty such facilities to choose from.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

But followers were 100% player facing in AD&D. The DM had no control over the followers, nor were the followers ever meant to be DM played NPC's. They were 100% player resources. That DM's ignored that and turned followers into yet another monkey's paw is why the follower rules disappeared. Players simply refused to have followers because it was never worth the headache.
My experience is that players don't want followers for their PCs because they have to (horrors!) pay them. :)
Then in 3e, with the Leadership feat, you got a limited number of flunkies, that again, was 100% player facing. The DM was not intended to have any input here. The player chose their cohort.
Not when I played 3e.

My character took the Leadership feat; and while I had some in-character input into what I was looking for in a cohort (ideally a full-time healer-type whose one job would be to keep me upright), when a cohort showed up, that cohort is what I got - in this case a double-class Cleric and (I forget now - Rogue?). Kind of like advertising for a new employee where you pretty much have to take the first qualified person who responds.
And, funnily enough, being able to choose didn't encourage players to have their characters turn into mass murderers.
Perhaps, but that was someone else's take.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



The game I do like shares a lot in common with NFL football, to continue your analogy. And since many more people play NFL football than play my version, and since we're all football fans, I have to consider what the NFL is doing relevant enough to discuss. So I would appreciate it if you would refrain from commenting on the strangeness that I, a 5e fan, often comment on the most popular version of 5e, even if I don't play it. I've explained my reasoning as best I can.

You don't comment on it. You tear it down at every possible opportunity. I do not think I have seen you in a single thread over the past year say one positive thing about something new coming to the game. The most positive I believe I have seen from you is "at least they didn't ruin this too".
 

They can, but can you really not see that this is easily seen as a different type of game? A lot of people don't want that in their D&D, and some of those people might still want strongholds.

So then... don't use that part of the rules. May be a shocking concept for someone who plays Level Up, but you can decide to use different rules. I myself am unlikely to use the Bastion rules, because I think they are mechanically poor. Maybe I'll be convinced that they are better than the playtest when I get the chance to read them directly, but I don't hold out much hope for that. I've also been fairly disappointed in MCDM's Strongholds and Followers, which I think is also not quite working like I think it should.

But you have to understand "I don't like this" is very different from "this is fundamentally opposed to the very nature of the game, and a sign that WoTC hates GMs and that they only want to strip GM authority and power away from them to appease the snowflake players who will rage-quit if they get a splinter when they climb out of their lavish bed in their flying super castle!"

Because, as you just said, people can play DnD the way the Bastion system is described. You may not like it, you may not agree with the potential philosophies behind why it was designed that way. But that doesn't make it inherently bad or wrong.
 

They can; unless the DM (whose NPCs they are) has already decided something else about them e.g. that Eliza the kitchen maid is a spy for the local Thieves' guild who are hoping to, maybe not rob the PCs blind, but use the PCs' info to let them know where other tasty jobs might await.

And it's highly unlikely (as in, it won't happen) that the players will ever design anything into these QPCs* that works against thei own interests.

* - QPC = Quasi-Player Character.

And this is exactly the type of thing that they are telling DMs to avoid. You have your group and your group loves your style, Lanefan, but I DESPISE this sort of crap. You know, I have lived my entire life with very very people actively betraying me? Oh, I have plenty of terrible people in my life, but they are kind of obvious.

Yet, here we are in literally the first example I've presented to you, and instead of allowing an innocuous love story between two nobody peasants that only the Player really cares about, you are immediately looking for "how can I turn them against the PCs to work against their interests"

Why? It can't be because you need conflict and drama, because I am assured you have spent the last 50 years with plenty of that in your games. Why does EVERYTHING need to be potentially used to hurt and betray the players? Why can they trust NO ONE, ANYWHERE? Do you know how utterly, mind-numbingly boring that is? When literally everything is against the PCs no matter where, what or why, it is so utterly stale and uninteresting.

That's not the issue. The issue is that all these NPCs aren't clones; they're each different and will - or should - each have different goals and reasons for becoming hirelings or recruits for the PCs...not all of which might agree with the PCs' own agenda.

Same as hiring for a small business - you'll get some employees who are above-and-beyond loyal and honest and others who will steal from you at any opportunity; with most falling somewhere between those two points.

No one said they were clones. Players CAN make NPCs who are different from each other, and may have unique goals and reasons for joining the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to steal from the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to spy on the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to unlock the gate and allow in the enemy assassins to kill the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to poison the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to be secret devil worshipers who are slaughtering the local village women and hiding their bodies in the PCs garden.

It can literally be as simple as they joined the PCs stronghold to make enough money to take care of their sickly mother. And no evil groups or eldritch demons end up pressuring them into evil acts, or anything of the sorts. They can just be a person that the PCs help by being good employers who they have a good relationship with, and occasionally talk to to check on the status of their sick mother.

And you don't need a stranglehold over every single NPC ever conceived, for that story to be told by your player.
 

- I want a couple of harengons as sentinels of my bastion, they are so cute!!

- In the next full moon they are eaten alive by a horde of wererats from the swamp.

- NOOOOOOO!

---

- The blacksmith suffers a tragic love story, her loved women is married with his best friend, the carpenter.

- The carpenter dies in an accident, she is widow and free to marry again, and even she looks for desperately a new husband.

---

(the artificer gnome)- If you give me enough wood I could build a ship.

(the bard gnome)- And if you lend me your sister I could create the crew.


---

What if a player loves to write fanfiction about the hirelings of the bastion, but these suffer a low rate of survival by fault of DM?

What if any players wanted hirelings in the bastion worked as demiPCs or secondary PCs?

What if a player created a shop-keeping + deck-building mini-game style "Bargain Quest" (board game) and the reward for the hirelings is XPs to leveling up?
 

And this is exactly the type of thing that they are telling DMs to avoid. You have your group and your group loves your style, Lanefan, but I DESPISE this sort of crap. You know, I have lived my entire life with very very people actively betraying me? Oh, I have plenty of terrible people in my life, but they are kind of obvious.

Yet, here we are in literally the first example I've presented to you, and instead of allowing an innocuous love story between two nobody peasants that only the Player really cares about, you are immediately looking for "how can I turn them against the PCs to work against their interests"

Why? It can't be because you need conflict and drama, because I am assured you have spent the last 50 years with plenty of that in your games. Why does EVERYTHING need to be potentially used to hurt and betray the players? Why can they trust NO ONE, ANYWHERE? Do you know how utterly, mind-numbingly boring that is? When literally everything is against the PCs no matter where, what or why, it is so utterly stale and uninteresting.



No one said they were clones. Players CAN make NPCs who are different from each other, and may have unique goals and reasons for joining the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to steal from the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to spy on the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to unlock the gate and allow in the enemy assassins to kill the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to poison the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to be secret devil worshipers who are slaughtering the local village women and hiding their bodies in the PCs garden.

It can literally be as simple as they joined the PCs stronghold to make enough money to take care of their sickly mother. And no evil groups or eldritch demons end up pressuring them into evil acts, or anything of the sorts. They can just be a person that the PCs help by being good employers who they have a good relationship with, and occasionally talk to to check on the status of their sick mother.

And you don't need a stranglehold over every single NPC ever conceived, for that story to be told by your player.
You don't need those things, sure, but making it impossible for them to happen (because the player decides everything about people who aren't their PC) is simply too unrealistic for my preferences. It's stops being part of the world and becomes a game mechanic extension of the PC's personal power, which just doesn't match what it's supposed to represent.

You clearly feel the principle behind these rules is valuable in D&D, but I just don't agree, not as I understand them. Hopefully when we actually see them there'll be something I can incorporate into my own game. It's all 5e.
 

I get this, and at the same time don't get it.

I often play two characters at the same time when I can; I'm more than used to it.

But playing all the bastion characters somehow seems different. I didn't get to roll them up, didn't get to determine their quirks and personalities and backgrounds, didn't get to choose their class or species...they just appear, fully formed and with little if any guidance as to what makes them tick.

I mean, don't get me wrong - as a player I'm happy to do the bookkeeping as to their numbers, their pay, their comings and goings, and so forth. But in doing so I feel more like I'm acting as an assistant DM helping track the NPCs rather than as a player.
I will create bastion characters with various degrees of resolution. When I get a character concept for one, I will create a statblock including determining their abilities, background and species, and equivalent level. Some of them will have a full character sheet.

They are more like player character ideas in development, rather than nonplayer characters.
 

But followers were 100% player facing in AD&D. The DM had no control over the followers, nor were the followers ever meant to be DM played NPC's. They were 100% player resources. That DM's ignored that and turned followers into yet another monkey's paw is why the follower rules disappeared. Players simply refused to have followers because it was never worth the headache.
This is not actually true. Here's a quote from the 1e DMG:
2024-10-09_001236.jpg

The following section discusses how the DM roleplays and controls the NPC's, including hirelings and henchman. Plus in the section specifically about henchman, there are various points where it talks about information the players might not know about the henchman. Further, there is an extensive loyalty system for said NPC's, and the DM decided how they would react to the actions of the PC's, and could even turn on or abandon them!

Now in my experience, my DM usually allowed me to control my henchman in combat, but they were capable of independent action (and frequently did things based on the DM's decisions).
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top