D&D 5E Landholds, what do you want out of it?

[Schmoe]

When I think of landholds, I think of a fantasy-based SimCity at the scope of a county or territory. There should be guidelines for improvements over time, population growth, seasonal and climate effects, etc. It would also be cool to have a diplomatic framework to allow you to get increased influence in a larger system, whether reflected in greater growth for your own hold or access to additional holds.

One thing that I also consider critical is a system of events that affect the holding. These events can be threats that must be dealt with, new opportunities, burdens based on the status of your holding, etc. The events offer various adventure hooks either to be dealt with directly by the PCs or delegated to young aspiring adventurers and bureaucrats. Over time, it should require the direct investment of time and money from the ruler to make a landhold grow. A senior administrator may be able to take a subset of actions independently to maintain a landhold, but otherwise landhold should deteriorate to a frontier state over time. That serves to represent the notion of rulership as a responsibility with real consequences.

 

[aco175]

I like the idea of a game inside the game. Something for downtime if the players want it. Optional

I always like to think that a campaign spanning 15 levels takes a long tome game-wise, but always ends up only taking like a year. The farm boy fighter setting off a 17year old kid returns a seasoned veteran by winter. I could see a downtime tracker or activity sheet being able to fill in the next 6 months between adventures.

The only problem is when modules are tied together like the arcs that Wizards are putting out. There is a timescale on the action.

 

[Miladoon]

Landholds seem to be the 4th pillar of DnD.

 

[MechaPilot]

Lots of good and interesting feedback. Thank you all for that. Let me take a moment to reply to a few posts and questions raised.

Things that come up in our games in the past and in the last year:

Taxes - how much is generated and is the fief self sustaining?
Buildings - I need a church to Tyr, how much does it cost?
Underground - how much time and money does it take to build dungeons and the like.

Can PC/NPC casters help speed up the building of stuff (buildings, dungeons, whatever), and if so, how much faster? How much game downtime?

I had planned on taxes being an essential part of the system. The landholder will probably have taxes to pay to whomever allows them to hold the land, so it's worth knowing how much they can raise. Also, knowing how much additional wealth the landhold generates is important hiring people (and for general PC wealth purposes).

Regarding the costs of buildings and dungeons, while that's a little more detailed than I was going to include in the bare bones version, I can see it being a worthwhile addition to rules that can be layered onto the bare banes version.

Control of an area resource or resources. Doesn't have to be granular but just enough to add importance and perhaps a variety of markets.

Would like to see this when complete.

Control of resources is definitely important. I'm thinking that resources + trade = wealth, so I can see a real need to know (at least in general terms) what a landhold's resources are.

And I would be more than happy to present my system here for others to use, or provide constructive criticism on, once I have something concrete to put up, that is.

What do your players want? What do they find amusing?

Only two of my players know I'm working on this. I've asked them what they would like in a basic landhold system, but they're busy people as well (one is pursuing a PHD, the other is renovating his home), and they haven't had much time to consider it and get back to me yet.

Instead of costs etc. (Which only should come into play with big projects anyway) imo knowing who owns the property, who uses it and what obligation it entails.

It is more useful and fitting for most fantasy setting if the concern is not how much stones one needs to build a new church, but if the land the church is on is still owned by the nobles or the church itself and how building it affects the influence various factions have over the area.

I absolutely agree that who owns the land, what obligations the holder has to the owner (if not the same person), and the effects of factions in the area are important. That kind of stuff is not only reasonable, but it also helps create adventure hooks.

- available natural resources, how to exploit (mine) them
- agriculture or other production (grain, ale, crafts)
Those two should be aimed at providing/answer a basic is the landhold self-sustaining, and what are typical imports and exports

I would probably aim at outlining 6-8 categories for; resources, raw goods (including agriculture/farming) and finished goods. Then a simple measurement of how much is produced vs how much is needed and the value of such.

Also may want to address something like what percentage of the population is required to produce food and required goods for survival. That would point out how much free time for crafts, soldiers and nobles would be able to be supported.

Thank you for delving into the resource aspect. That is an area where my system needs work, and I like the idea of having a few categories of resources. I'll probably use subcategories as well. I'm thinking of starting with two general categories: "natural resources" and "produced resources." Each of those categories will be broken down into more specific categories such as timber, minerals, wildlife, water, crops, craft goods, etc. I'm also thinking of a "luxury/extraordinary" tag that can be applied to resources which are extremely valuable because they're rare or magical; for example, the luxury tag would apply to minerals if they were precious metals or gemstones.

A potential pitfall of owning/controlling land like this is that the PCs can "outgrow" the land and its resources and challenges. A level 5 party defending a small barony are doing a lot of work. A level 15 party defending a small barony are essentially retired.

I agree. However, part of the reason I'm designing this landhold system is for use with campaigns centered more around political and social intrigue than combat.

Can I improve the assets over time?
For instance, if I start with a forest, can I deliberately plant maple trees in it (to make syrup)?

A small business in a village - what happens when the village becomes a town? Does the business automatically grow with it?
How do I handle 'company hiring employees' vs 'family-run shop'?

I may be getting too detailed for what you want to achieve. Sorry.

You might want to find 3e Power of Faerun and look over the chapter 'Go Into Business'. It has done some of the work for you.

Some of that is a little more detailed than I want for the bare bones version, yes. However, I absolutely plan to allow the assets to be improved, and the settlements to grow larger. My assumption for the bare bones version would generally be that as a settlement gets larger, the businesses either grow with it, or more of them spring up to contribute to the wealth being generated by the landhold.

I would enjoy a system like this if there was a system for random events to come up. Large noble party settles in for a few months straining your resources, drought, nearby war and you are obligated to send troops, monster incursion, con man fleecing your villagers, etc. Of course, there would be good events as well, such as finding stash of valuables, surplus of crops, rise in prestige, land grants, etc.

Oh, I absolutely have random tables. So far I have events tables that include invasion by a neighboring landhold, bandits hampering trade, natural disasters, monsters becoming a problem, the rise of new religious orders or political groups, NPC adventurers taking up residence in one of the landhold's settlements, discovery of new resources, etc.

 

[MechaPilot]

I would like to see something like you are trying to put out here. I think I would like to have some record keeping but simple enough that it is not a chore. A bonus is that it generates adventure ideas.

Maybe have a 2d6 roll to make less percentage on the ends. Roll a 2 and bad things happen. Roll a 12 and good things happen. Vary the degrees of good and bad as you work to the center where there is another boring month.

Is there a way to give landtypes and other resources a means to grow and gain value. Say my town or keep sits on the coastline, farmland, and forest. Can I invest in building in building a dock or planting an orchid. Does it need to be specific, or can I just throw 1,000gp at my coastline and that be good enough? Also bringing in NPCs that boost your standing. A priest that can raise dead, a druid that can bless crops, a master ship captain that can increase trade and traffic.

I agree. I am looking to create something that does entail some recordkeeping, but isn't a huge chore, at least for the bare bones version. Adding more complexity should be simple if I choose to do so later.

I haven't figured out the exact mechanic yet, but I do plan for resources to be improvable. While my system is taking some influences from Civ V, I don't want to keep lists of buildings/improvements, their construction and upkeep costs, and the benefits of each. I like some of the ideas Civ V brings to the table, but I don't want this system to just be Civ V played out on paper.

Regarding important NPCs, since this is supposed to run alongside a political/courtly intrigue style of game, I would probably want those to be things handled during play instead of as part of the landhold system.

Thinking about this, I think a system like this needs a general dial/scale or such taht the GM can set.

For instance, a global number +5 or such so that the self-sustainability or profitability or troubleness can be set.

For instance, If I want a holding to generally (statistically) just break even, then I have some set value I can add/use etc (or table to roll on). Then if I want it to be very profitable, I can just add +10 to the base monthly events table.

Also a way to track how troublesome or how much risk is involved. Maybe if I want it to always have interesting things happen, I roll 4d20 on the monthly events table, but if I just want it to be boring and low-risk I roll a 1d6...

So, at least two dials; one for profit, the other for risk/reward.

There definitely needs to be a complexity dial. I want the bare bones version to be fairly simple and unobtrusive. I want players and DMs to be able to use the bare bones version for downtime during more traditional action-adventure style campaigns, without feeling like they're pausing to play a boardgame for an evening instead of playing D&D.

I can definitely see the appeal of more complexity, but I want that to be an add-on, not a prerequisite.

For me, I think the single most important quality a new subsystem can have is that it minimizes the number of new mechanics. As much as possible, it should work with existing game concepts: d20 rolls; ability scores; characteristics and inspiration; hit dice; money in gp; the magic item rarity scale; monster stat blocks; rolls on random tables using 1d20, 1d100, or 1d12+1d8. (Just throwing out some examples of mechanics that I could see potentially relating to land management.)

Any new mechanics would need to be so simple and intuitive as to be barely recognizable as an actual mechanic. Ideally, they'd come down to something like a binary "you do or do not have this thing", or an obvious "your town's population is 600."

I don't mind new mechanics; my attack and defense part of this system uses mechanics inspired by Risk and Axis & Allies, so it's a little different than regular D&D combat (attacker and defender roll pools of D6s, with 5 or 6 being a success. There are three opposed rolls. Whoever has the most successes at the end is the victor). That said, I think new mechanics need to be kept simple. And, I plan to use existing mechanics wherever doing so is both possible and stays simple.

I'd be most interested in what the AIM / GOAL of this landhold management system is.

For example, in Risk the aim is to win by destroying your enemies, and to do so you typically don't just play your own game you also form alliances to help weed out one or more players, then break your alliances when you feel you can screw over the remaining players best. If that's the kind of landhold game you're looking for, you may or may not want some rules for helping out with alliances, given the players will likely be working with various NPCs, factions etc. Or, as DM you run the bulk of the 'players' in the game, but that risks one person monopolising play time. Or do you put the players against each other, and you are mostly just referee?

So, what do you want to achieve in your D&D landhold management system - give the players something for their PC's to do in "downtime", a mini-game to play in between adventures where success can give some kind of material rewards they can use in later adventures, or is the landhold game actually the main focus of the game and adventuring is a side-line activity? Are the players expecting to "win" the landhold game e.g. rule a kingdom / empire, or is it just a pleasant diversion?

The goal of the system, if I had to create a mission statement for it, is this:
"To provide a simple, non-time-intensive framework that introduces as few new mechanics and as little record-keeping as possible while allowing players and DMs to represent the troubles and benefits of owning and operating a landhold in parallel with the DM's planned campaign."

Personally, I plan to run the system alongside a political/courtly intrigue campaign where each PC has their own minor landhold and owes fealty either directly to the same noble, or to the same king through various minor nobles.

 

[MechaPilot]

When I think of landholds, I think of a fantasy-based SimCity at the scope of a county or territory. There should be guidelines for improvements over time, population growth, seasonal and climate effects, etc. It would also be cool to have a diplomatic framework to allow you to get increased influence in a larger system, whether reflected in greater growth for your own hold or access to additional holds.

One thing that I also consider critical is a system of events that affect the holding. These events can be threats that must be dealt with, new opportunities, burdens based on the status of your holding, etc. The events offer various adventure hooks either to be dealt with directly by the PCs or delegated to young aspiring adventurers and bureaucrats. Over time, it should require the direct investment of time and money from the ruler to make a landhold grow. A senior administrator may be able to take a subset of actions independently to maintain a landhold, but otherwise landhold should deteriorate to a frontier state over time. That serves to represent the notion of rulership as a responsibility with real consequences.

I like the Sim City comparison, and I think you have a lot of good stuff packed in your response. I absolutely plan for improvements over time, and I have tables of events that pose challenges and present opportunities to the landholder.

I do plan for the PC landholder to be required to invest a certain amount of time in managing the landhold. I figure, assuming the landholder has responsible subordinates who can manage things properly when given adequate directions, a PC should spend 2-4 weeks per season in the direct management of her landhold (meeting with important people, making decisions that can't be delegated, dealing with emergency situations, etc). If the PC doesn't spend at least that much time participating in ruling over the landhold, there is the potential for an underling to try to usurp her (just recall the situation in Robin Hood while King Richard was away at war). I may also institute some kind of benefit for spending more time managing the landhold, but I'm not certain of what that should be.

I like the idea of a game inside the game. Something for downtime if the players want it. Optional

I always like to think that a campaign spanning 15 levels takes a long tome game-wise, but always ends up only taking like a year. The farm boy fighter setting off a 17year old kid returns a seasoned veteran by winter. I could see a downtime tracker or activity sheet being able to fill in the next 6 months between adventures.

The only problem is when modules are tied together like the arcs that Wizards are putting out. There is a timescale on the action.

Yeah. At it's heart, the bare bones version is intended to be a downtime activity any DM can use regardless of campaign style.

I agree that the pacing of D&D modules often leaves very little room for downtime. The only time my players have opted to take any downtime was when one of them had to wait a month to receive a magic item from a Dao he beat in an arm-wrestling contest.

 

[LordEntrails]

...
There definitely needs to be a complexity dial. ...

Might be a misunderstanding. I don't mean a complexity dial in terms of rules difficulty, but something to regulate the growth/profitability and/or risk involved.

For instance, maybe I envision a kingdom being very profitable, or maybe it just scrapes by or might even be a money pit/sink.

Anyway, I think you're getting pretty good suggestions and hope you see this through and it matures like you hope it will.

 

[MechaPilot]

Might be a misunderstanding. I don't mean a complexity dial in terms of rules difficulty, but something to regulate the growth/profitability and/or risk involved.

For instance, maybe I envision a kingdom being very profitable, or maybe it just scrapes by or might even be a money pit/sink.

Anyway, I think you're getting pretty good suggestions and hope you see this through and it matures like you hope it will.

Yeah, I think there was a small miscommunication. Sorry about that.

For the very bare bones version I was thinking it would be assumed that the landhold is self-sufficient. The only reasons I feel like I need wealth in the bare bones version are:

1) If PCs have a potential source of wealth available to them, we all know they're going to try to exploit it as hard as they can.
2) I can see wealth tying very heavily into improving the landhold's resources, or augmenting offense and defense by hiring mercenaries and such.

 

[Ancalagon]

A *tremendeous* help for calculating numbers here will be the "daily expense" table.

You can basically assume that the average peasant is poor and makes 2sp/day. A portion of townsfolk are laborers (also 2 sp/day) but others are wealthier and make more. The daily expense is an excellent guide to get "realistic within D&D" values for daily income. You can figure out what % of the population is in each income bracket, then figure out the total daily income of the entire region. From this you can then figure out taxes.

I had a huge thread about this to calculate the GDP of an area, and then from that calculate the reward the rulers of such an area (town, village, city state, kingdom etc etc) could possibly give you. It makes no bloody sense that a 200 people village gives a 3-4 times their GDP as a reward (as is suggested in some published adventures) they just don't have the funds!

I don't know if the thread still exist, let me look...

 

[Li Shenron]

Assuming you wanted a simple landhold system, aside from conquest and defense (which I already have worked out), what aspects of managing a landhold would you consider essential enough to warrant inclusion in a very bare-bones management system?

It's easier for me to say what I would not want from such a system. Do not end up with a system that is focused on generating money. If it generates a little money, it won't be worth the player's effort. If it generates significant money, and you allow that money to be turned into magical equipment, it'll break the adventuring game in favor of the player who exploits the system better. You have to assume that not all your players will be interested, unless you are inviting people to play a landhold management game of its own... but if your plan is to use this system alongside while actually playing D&D, be prepared to have at least some players who would not be interested at all, but will be seriously annoyed if the players who decided to use this system will be advantaged in their adventuring activities.

In short, try to make a system that rewards itself but doesn't boost the player characters' capabilities in regular adventures.

As a matter of fact, it's not difficult to keep the system separate in such a way. In my games, when the PCs get into the mid-levels I stop bothering them with mundane equipment economy. I just give them enough treasure so that buying any non-magical equipment isn't an issue anymore. But OTOH magic items are always special in my adventures, and they are almost never for sale, so no amount of money will help. In a campaign like that, you could totally drop a landhold management module without changing balance between the PCs of players who use or don't use such module, so the choice is not dictated by convenience ("I have to get a landhold so that it will give me more money to spend on equipment") but by genuine interest into the system itself. But if you run a more traditional campaign where magic items are for sale, your system will break the game unless everybody uses it, which is normally not what everyone wants to do in a game of D&D.

So in that case, I would de-emphasize the financial side of the module, and eschew the accounting of taxes, expenses, revenues etc. I would instead keep visible only the nature of such things, for example: what and who are you going to tax? Into what "projects" are you investing? What resources of your land are you going to exploit and to what purpose?`

You can still decide that the player can set the general amount of investment, but you could also skip it and just assume that the balance will be roughly zero, and only ask how they intend to fund an initiative. Instead of gp, you could use more abstract "resource points", and establish a table of RP generated or expended by specific activities.