Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="PurpleHazy" data-source="post: 9476322" data-attributes="member: 7044937">My 2 cp...Bastions/strongholds/keeps/castles/estates have been around since the beginning.&nbsp; A quick review of my library found no less than 7 different systems or variants. As is often the case, and since everyone is a critic, there are always someone or something that could be better or that someone doesn't personally like.Well....Change it.&nbsp; Don't use it. Use it. Make your own.&nbsp; After reading many comments/opinions, may I humbly suggest that folks may benefit from not taking everything so literally (the RAI/RAW conundrum).&nbsp; Also, at the end of the day, if the DM/players don't agree to use this option, then it is DOA.&nbsp; For hack/slash players, this probably isn't a draw, for long-term campaign players, this is likely appealing. Read the room and adjust as needed.&nbsp; Several commentors made similar points.Alright, with that said, I like it.&nbsp; I've played campaigns with similar options. Pendragon, 2nd edition, 5th edition, Pathfinder, they have all been enjoyable.&nbsp; It is difficult to balance tactics with strategy with governance and geopolitics. Game designers have the unenviable task of trying to find the balance of those competing mechanics and then make it appealing to a broad swath of players. It is always going to be a compromise.I read the UA and liked it. From the video (which I did watch) it appears that the UA rules, as is typically the case with UA, are largely the same, but have been modified to some degree. No use sweating the details until the DMG is out and the changes can be easily identified. I am, and will continue, to use some variation of these rules with my players. They enjoy it, I enjoy it. I hope other folks enjoy it. Or don't. Whatever floats in your moat...&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="PurpleHazy, post: 9476322, member: 7044937"] My 2 cp... Bastions/strongholds/keeps/castles/estates have been around since the beginning. A quick review of my library found no less than 7 different systems or variants. As is often the case, and since everyone is a critic, there are always someone or something that could be better or that someone doesn't personally like. Well.... Change it. Don't use it. Use it. Make your own. After reading many comments/opinions, may I humbly suggest that folks may benefit from not taking everything so literally (the RAI/RAW conundrum). Also, at the end of the day, if the DM/players don't agree to use this option, then it is DOA. For hack/slash players, this probably isn't a draw, for long-term campaign players, this is likely appealing. Read the room and adjust as needed. Several commentors made similar points. Alright, with that said, I like it. I've played campaigns with similar options. Pendragon, 2nd edition, 5th edition, Pathfinder, they have all been enjoyable. It is difficult to balance tactics with strategy with governance and geopolitics. Game designers have the unenviable task of trying to find the balance of those competing mechanics and then make it appealing to a broad swath of players. It is always going to be a compromise. I read the UA and liked it. From the video (which I did watch) it appears that the UA rules, as is typically the case with UA, are largely the same, but have been modified to some degree. No use sweating the details until the DMG is out and the changes can be easily identified. I am, and will continue, to use some variation of these rules with my players. They enjoy it, I enjoy it. I hope other folks enjoy it. Or don't. Whatever floats in your moat... :) [/QUOTE]

Verification