Leadership feat or roleplaying

[Larcen]

We have few combats in our campaign, and few "classic adventures". The campaign centers on social standing, politics, personal goals and relationships, so followers in our campaign are the result of roleplaying, not a feat.

Fascinating. Almost hard to imagine in our gaming circle.

I would very much like to be fly on the wall at one of your games, just for what I am sure would be the sheer "alieness" of it.

 

[the Jester]

Many, many pcs imc have had followers, hirelings, etc without Leadership. The difference is that, with Leadership, they are loyal followers and cohorts.

 

[Li Shenron]

If a player wants to take the Leadership feat in my campaign, I have no problems with it, but I think I'm playing it in a very different way than most of the DMs. I don't feel like I'm house-ruling the feat, because the DMG doesn't explain these 2 issues, I'm just interpreting it differently.

1) Cohort control: I don't let the player control the cohort as she was playing a second PC. The cohort is played by the DM. Obviously the nature of the cohort is not the same as any other NPC (see point 2) in regards of his master. The player is still using RPing to handle the cohort. If you want, you can say the cohort behaves more like charmed than dominated.

For example, if the PC sends the cohort scouting, I don't tell her what the cohort sees and hear. I have the cohort come back and tell in his own words what he has seen and heard.

2) Cohort freedom: I make it very easy for the player to get the cohort do what she wants (as long as is asked in character). In this way, having a cohort is very different from having an NPC friend. The main difference is that a cohort will NOT betray the master. An evil master may completely mistreat her cohort and the cohort will still not leave (exceptions are possible, but they are well within the rules of leadership score!). This is the very benefit of the feat: you are guaranteed that the cohort isn't going away (which is never guaranteed with a NPC) as long as you qualify for it, just as you are guaranteed that any other feat you have isn't going to vanish depending on your actions (except weird non-core stuff like Vows).

Don't misunderstand me, the cohort is still an individual with his own will and personality. As any other NPC which you can befriend or hire without the feat. By spending the feat, you buy the guarantee that you were able to choose a friend whose will is not to betray or abandon you. Otherwise anyone without any requirements can befriend someone "for free", she just doesn't get the benefit of safety...

 

[Li Shenron]

Many, many pcs imc have had followers, hirelings, etc without Leadership. The difference is that, with Leadership, they are loyal followers and cohorts.

Aah... maybe I wasn't alone

One more thing comes to my mind: for the ones who have played Neverwinter Nights, the mercenary character is quite like Leadership should work IMO (except that it costs money and not a feat there...). It's a a separate person who follows your order at her best and won't let you down.

 

[fusangite]

I'm notorious for ignoring charisma-based skills when I should be paying attention to them and playing out PC-NPC interactions as dialogues. However, if I wanted the party to be routinely assisted by a stable group of NPCs, I would absolutely require the leadership feat. I think, though, that there are pros and cons to having such an arrangement. And, in my case, the cons always seem to outweigh the pros.

 

[Fenes]

Fascinating. Almost hard to imagine in our gaming circle.

I would very much like to be fly on the wall at one of your games, just for what I am sure would be the sheer "alieness" of it.

We do have a continuing campaign history, but it is in german. In another, earlier campaign I wrote it in english, but that one was not as social based as the current one.

But I am pretty sure that our house rules are alien to most people here:
- No pc death unless the player decides to die, or at least risk it, after a clear ooc warning
- No exp, all party members are the same level, no matter playtime, all party members level up when we agree upon it
- No detailed gold treasure, characters just are "rich enough to afford this" (or not), and aquire living standards and "income levels" through the campaign.

(There are more, but those seem to be the most radical).

 

[Li Shenron]

But I am pretty sure that our house rules are alien to most people here:
- No pc death unless the player decides to die, or at least risk it, after a clear ooc warning
- No exp, all party members are the same level, no matter playtime, all party members level up when we agree upon it
- No detailed gold treasure, characters just are "rich enough to afford this" (or not), and aquire living standards and "income levels" through the campaign.

(There are more, but those seem to be the most radical).

Radical but not alien!

I've played with a couple of players before who explicitly requested the first rule to the DM.

I've been trying to use the second rule myself (tho the players later wanted xp back), and intend to use it more extensively in the future, as well as trying out the third.

 

[Campbell]

House Rule Tangeant

Resource Points: While I still keep a running tally of resources, I've abstracted it quite a deal and reward my players with resource points rather than gold. This allows me to deal with the trade of magical items while respecting versimilitude, and also eases my concerns about the amount of gold the Core Books assume is available. Resource Points represent the sum total of available resources including income generated through holdings or businesses, important favors, the value of any rank within society or even available credit. I tend to keep my players at about where characters of their level should be at. This idea was liberally stolen from Sepulchrave II.

Death: I use the Death and Dying variant in Arcana Unearthed which is far more surviveable, and I have made it impossible for a Save or Die spell to kill anyone on its own accord. Additionally, fights to the death are extremely rare. The threat of death still plays a very important role in my games, though. I just try to keep its actual occurance down.

 

[Larcen]

We do have a continuing campaign history, but it is in german. In another, earlier campaign I wrote it in english, but that one was not as social based as the current one.

But I am pretty sure that our house rules are alien to most people here:
- No pc death unless the player decides to die, or at least risk it, after a clear ooc warning
- No exp, all party members are the same level, no matter playtime, all party members level up when we agree upon it
- No detailed gold treasure, characters just are "rich enough to afford this" (or not), and aquire living standards and "income levels" through the campaign.

(There are more, but those seem to be the most radical).

You know, when I read all that my first thought was "this is not D&D anymore". But after thinking about it I now say "Why NOT"? As a DM, and even as a player, I like how your house rules completely remove the most tedious aspect of the game, the math and number crunching. In the long run, does it really matter exactly how many XPs a character has and exactly how much money? Probably not.

Question: If you don't keep track of XPs, how do you handle magic item creation?

 

[Larcen]

... This idea was liberally stolen from Sepulchrave II...

Forgive my ignorance, but I keep reading about all these people stealing this and that idea from this "Sepulchrave" person. Pray tell, where can I find this fountain of original thinking who seems to be single-handedly rewriting the game, or at least how the game is expressed?