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

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.

 

[Umbran]

Don't be a coward, answer my hypothetical:

If you're going act like a spoiled child, why should I treat you seriously?

Mod Note:

It isn't like calling people cowards for not doing what you want is exactly mature.

In any event, by posting on this site, agree to the terms and rules.
Which means, that, seriously or not, you should treat people respectfully.

Even if, especially if, you disagree with them.

 

[Demetrios1453]

But this is largely where the pushback seems to be. From DMs who want to spend all that table time on something like this. For me? Where my pacing is so much faster than yours, I have zero interest in a more detailed system. It’s just of no use to me.

Right. But for those DMs, well, just use the whole system as a base, and build around it to customize to your campaign's tastes. I'm sure it's not going to be too hard to do something like that.

The thing is, they probably wanted a fairly simple system that will make it usable for most campaigns to adopt. If they made it too complex or in-depth, that would alienate those who just want something simple. Those wanting something more complex can just take what they want and build up their own complexity from there.

 

[Hussar]

Right. But for those DMs, well, just use the whole system as a base, and build around it to customize to your campaign's tastes. I'm sure it's not going to be too hard to do something like that.

The thing is, they probably wanted a fairly simple system that will make it usable for most campaigns to adopt. If they made it too complex or in-depth, that would alienate those who just want something simple. Those wanting something more complex can just take what they want and build up their own complexity from there.

Oh absolutely agree. And I’d expect that there will be half a dozen bastion based books on DMs guild in short order.

 

[Imaro]

But this is largely where the pushback seems to be. From DMs who want to spend all that table time on something like this. For me? Where my pacing is so much faster than yours, I have zero interest in a more detailed system. It’s just of no use to me.

Honestly, I run longer format campaigns but I think these rules strike a good balance for someone like me who wants to keep his players engaged between sessions...but doesn't want to have them use spreadsheets and do various calculations to keep up with everything. As a DM I have enough to do preparing for my camapign every week so I honestly don't mind the PC's managing the lion's share of this system.

However I also don't agree with those saying the bastion is off limits to the DM, it's not. What the DM doesn't have is carte blanche to do whatever they want to the Bastion. There are rules for how the players and DM interact with the basttion turns... The players and DM collaborate after a bastion turn maybe in a side trek adventure featuring some of the hirelings, a cut scene or perhaps just a conversation where they collaboratively decide the outcome and reprecussions of the event.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

And the problem with disloyal npcs is the same as the problem with traps.

The players have to treat every situation like the npc is disloyal even if 9 out of 10 aren’t. So IME the players simply bypass the issue by never having npcs around unless it’s forced on them by the dm.

In which case the chances of the npc being disloyal becomes nearly 100%, this reinforcing the player’s determination to never allow such a vulnerability into the game.

It’s a vicious cycle.

What kind of lack of logic is this?Do you realize how silly it is to take a single incident and make it the default? It's called paranoia. If anything, I would argue a single treacherous NPC ensures we won't see another one in this campaign as no good DM just repeat their tricks. Have you considered trusting the DM sometimes?

So you trust the players to play out the combat portion and utility portion of an NPC, basically all the mechanics as well as actions in life or death situations... but not to give them an actual personality?

It's not the matter of trust, it's a matter of how our table divides responsibilities. They handle the teamwork, problem solving and combat and I handle making the world seem to be believable place, populated by people.

Have you let your players play an NPC before? Better yet do they play their PC's as more than mindless automatons? If yes... why do you believe they couldn't do the same for NPC's under their control?

How do you know your players will only play them as mindless automatons? Also I think the DM's job entails alot more than running bastion npc's.

In both of those paragraphs you are trying to take an issue I have with game rules overall and try to reduce it to personal problem with my players. It's reductionist and, once again, demands some incomprehensible to me level of selfishness. How we do things at my table doesn't change whenever or not the rule in the book is bad or not, I have changed several rules to fit our table but the rules still remain an issue I can criticise the game for.

Also, I would not let the players roleplay the NPCs not because I do not trust them, but because, unless the player on their own volition asks me to let them do it, I believe this would be off-loading MY JOB onto them, an incredibly lazy prick move and a sign of lack of respect towards them, in my opinion.

It doesn't seem like it from your statements.

Geen, maybe you should not make a judgement about the group I am running for since 2020 from few very specific out-of-context questions? Wanna know how I run? Sit at my table and play with me, then you can judge.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Then make a real argument and not one based on hypothetical, made up fictions created by you solely to support your own criticism.

You're trying to reduce my argument to personal problem with my group and get mad when I ask you to stop insulting my players. You contrived for yourself a perfect way to not actually engage with an argument. If the opposition uses personal examples, this is clearly their individual prblem and system works. If the opposition uses arguments based on general principles and wider view of the situation, it's just "hypotheticals and made up fictions". You could as well shove fingers in your ears and begin yelling "LA LA LA LA I CANNOT HEAR YOU!".

No. You have invented a problem based on nothing more than your own preferences. You refuse to entertain the idea that other people are not having this problem all, apparently tied to your insistence that this is all about making AI DMs. Another fiction of your own creation.

Just because not everyone are having or will have a problem does not mean the general principle isn't still worth criticism and still doesn't have potential to cause problems or set up a bad precedence in the design.

No but at a certain point (You know like the DMG coming out in a few weeks) your complaints aren't going to change anything. So why not move forward to how you can change it for utilization in your game... for you that seems relatively simple, assert control over the bastion with the possible exception of the PC's choosing what's built.

For me I will just keep using Strongholds & Followers and ignore bastion rules. But if this is the kind of stuff they are giving us, then I consider the new DMG to be a borderline scam and I beleive I have right to express my concerns with it and with the direction I see the game is heading.

 

[Lanefan]

Also, I would not let the players roleplay the NPCs not because I do not trust them, but because, unless the player on their own volition asks me to let them do it, I believe this would be off-loading MY JOB onto them, an incredibly lazy prick move and a sign of lack of respect towards them, in my opinion.

For some, in all fairness, I think the bolded is in fact the point: to offload some DM-side work on to the players.

For DMs who have limited time and-or who have players willing to take on that work, I get it; and I certainly don't see it as a "prick move" in any case. I mean hell, the players can always decline to do said work, which puts it right back in the DM's lap if it's to get done at all.

From my own viewpoint, however, I see that DM-side work - even the tedious stuff - as more or less being what I signed up for when deciding to become a DM.

 

[S'mon]

You're trying to reduce my argument to personal problem with my group and get mad when I ask you to stop insulting my players. You contrived for yourself a perfect way to not actually engage with an argument. If the opposition uses personal examples, this is clearly their individual prblem and system works. If the opposition uses arguments based on general principles and wider view of the situation, it's just "hypotheticals and made up fictions". You could as well shove fingers in your ears and begin yelling "LA LA LA LA I CANNOT HEAR YOU!".

I have no idea who on my IL you're arguing with, but this is pretty funny

 

[S'mon]

So, my early AD&D campaigns didn't have stable "adventuring parties"- everyone had their own characters, and they decided who they were playing, and they all sort of just ended up on the adventure du jour, lol. People could get solo time and even solo adventures, if the DM had time for them, but because I had to go where the adventure was, by the time I had a home base to call my own, the adventure was rarely anywhere near it.

As time went on, there was a shift in the way people ran games. Suddenly you had stable adventuring parties that went on adventures with one another, and it was always one adventure to the next. Downtime was a rarity, because there was always something to do.

When we did have downtime, it was usually the dreaded "city session" where the party suddenly splinters and goes shopping, and you basically had to sit around and twiddle your thumbs until the DM got back to you, lol.

Most DM's never really knew what to do with downtime, and when the WotC era suddenly introduced cool things spellcasters could do with downtime (like creating magic items), a new problem erupted.

Wizzo the Wondrous decides "hey, we got some money, I can make us a few magic items."

Party: "Huzzah!"

Wizzo rents his space and details his plans. The rest of the party, having nothing to do with this process, start asking the DM what they can do during this time. This resulted in either a lot of nothing, since the DM had no real plans (inevitably, the warriors would find some pit fight or whatever to try and earn a few coins or just end up getting arrested lol), or worse, they manage to convince the DM in giving them a solo adventure, which makes Wizzo's player very annoyed that he's basically giving up play time to crank out some magic swag for the party members!

The last Pathfinder 1e game I was involved with, the party up and decided to take a mission to sail to another town, ditching the spellcaster while he was enchanting things for them! Upon learning this, that player left the game, and the magic items (and the party's loot) were never seen or heard from again!

I was absent for this session, so I lost treasure over this through no fault of my own so I had pretty mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the other players deserved their fate, but on the other hand, I don't think the GM should have allowed the scenario to play out- from an in-universe stance, characters can do what they will, sure, but the reality is, one person was excluded from the game because they dared to invest personal resources (feats, skill points, etc.) to support the party.

Anyways, for my current campaign, I'm putting a lot more effort into giving every player something interesting to do during downtime, and presenting interesting downtime activities, though even with that, I've noticed that unless the benefit is really good, they still would rather adventure than sit around for a few weeks, lol.

In the previous 5e game, the only character who really seemed to want or need downtime was the Wizard, and even that was simply to scribe spells. The other players mostly screwed around until it was time to get back to the adventure.

That's why I'm thinking maybe a fun base building minigame will make the players more invested in this sort of thing.

Downtime really needs to be handled between play sessions, not during sessions, IMO. So no such thing as "Downtime adventures" unless maybe they're little 1-1 vignettes handled away from the scheduled session time.

I use 1-1 time between sessions in my games, so there is plenty of downtime. The 5e rules are pretty good IME, especially those in XGTE. Also good stuff in Cyberpunk Red, plus I add stuff the players want - one PC was working hard at becoming the biggest Pimp in Night City before his unfortunate encounter with a Colombian Drug Lord's bodyguard.

 

[S'mon]

They’re assuming a comment in a video about the rules is the same as a rule.

I've often seen claims that a post by Jeremy Crawford on Twitter trumps the written text.