D&D 5E Player characters as heirs and eventually rulers

[Kristivas]

It can largely depend on how intricate you want it to be, but letting the PCs control the taxes/resources and see to the basic needs of their kingdoms can be fun. It can also open up a lot of story options.

"The north road is being attacked by brigands, and to the south are undead. We have enough funds to place one outpost. The other will need to be defended however your majesty sees fit."
"Your Grace, might I might offer my family's services? We can loan the crown the funds needed to place another outpost on your lands. In fact, if you can aid me with a personal matter, my Father might even agree to waive the interest."
"Your majesty, rather than be forced to get into debt with those silvertongued nobles, we could afford to place a small guard tower on the north and south roads. They will hardly perform as an outpost, but it can buy your grace time to devise a better plan."

There are the citizens to keep pacified. Disasters to avert that can't be solved with a quick adventure, like plague or drought. Unless, they can be solved with an adventure.

"Sire, there is legend of a gem that unleashes a torrent of water when commanded. This could fill our wells to the brim. Unfortunately, there's a beast of great power guarding it.."

It's a lot easier if this is a good-guy campaign, and not some "there is no black and white, but only shades of gray" Game of Thrones type intrigue. Cooperative Monarchs grouping together to lead by example is no problem. They're the Kings/Queens. They can write in laws that they're more than able to adventure for their lands. Unless, as the DM, you want to make this difficult for some or all of them.

Inevitably, someone should be betrayed by a younger sibling while on a mission, preferably assumed dead. Like, if they spill their evil plan while thinking the PCs are dead, and then bounces like a James Bond villain before the deed is actually done. This will make crashing the coronation a smashingly good time.

Have a drought in one land. Sabotage of something like a bridge in another. A peasant revolt in one of the other lands.

Would be a nice little twist if one of the kingdoms only suffered very minor problems while the others were just getting completely screwed by attacks and disasters. Then, in the third act, their powerful and great nation gets the hardest hit by all of the bad things at once. Depending on how they acted while they were doing well and everyone else was neck deep in horridity, the other group members will either rush to help or get to smugly gloat while that guy's country is ablaze.

 

[Kristivas]

Double Post.

 

[X_Mythic]

It's a lot easier if this is a good-guy campaign, and not some "there is no black and white, but only shades of gray" Game of Thrones type intrigue

the rule was no evil characters, not that they have to be good so who knows how itll turn out

 

[77IM]

I've been thinking about this style of game too. I think most of the published domain - management rules (Birthright, Kingmaker, Reign, a couple others I don't recall) focus too much on the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of the domain itself, when most players really want to go on adventures.

I think you could devise a simple system with a focus on adventure and a 3-part feedback loop:

1. Plot hooks. This is stuff like "Trolls are menacing the eastern farmsteads!" or "People have started disappearing from the market square after nightfall!" or the classic "A plague has broken out!!!"

The point is for the domain to create problems for the PCs to solve using their PC skills so that the domain drives adventure.

2. Benefits. This is the classic "Let's raid the treasury for magic items" but includes more subtle benefits like access to healing, sages, information networks, transportation, hospitality, delivery, craftspeople, and of course armed hirelings.

This helps the PCs on their adventures (something every PC wants) plus it will make them feel really powerful.

3. Decisions. These are problems and opportunities that can't be solved by adventuring, the PCs as rulers just have to decide. Things like, "Settle a dispute between two farmers" or "Should we use the funds for the spring festival to repair the bridge" or "How should we deploy the troops on the north border." This may include some social-interaction scenes.

This is the feedback-loop: decisions made in part 3 should inform what plots happen in part 1 and what benefits are available in part 2.



On a final note, if your PCs are from different kingdoms, be aware that adjacent kingdoms are usually enemies or at least rivals since they compete for resources on their shared borders.

 

[weldon]

Another idea is to NOT make all of them heirs to a kingdom, but still children in a noble house. They have all been sent off as wards to another noble. Some perhaps voluntarily, some perhaps as hostage wards, some perhaps as betrothed to other children of the lord, or other reasons. While they are wards they are expected to learn some useful skills before they come back and take their place in the kingdom. Maybe as a captain of the house guard, scholar in the academy, cleric in the temple, ranger in the border guard, etc. They become a group because they are all in the court when their lord needs them to perform some service. They prove themselves in their first adventure and continue to work together under the guidance of their lord.

As they grow in maturity, they strike out on their own. Events develop that place some or all of them in line to become the heir in their house, perhaps even to a kingdom. Eventually some great evil threatens all the kingdoms. Now as rulers or very important persons, they are in a position to marshal the resources of their respective houses or kingdoms to work together with their good friends whom they have known for ages.

You get to the same result, but the path there has more opportunities to be influenced by player actions and choices, including not wanting to be the heir.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Interested in this topic since this is the hook I have started my new 5e campaign around. I always get tired of low level being "Going around and doing stuff for other people and saving some random town" so I figured it might work better if one of the PCs was actually in charge of that random town the monsters were threatening.

So, in my campaign the Duke of Austric ends up dead and his will divides his Duchy into thirds, one third (the one with the city proper in it) goes to the new Duke, the PCs eldest brother. The second third (with the working mans keep in it) goes to the second son. The third third, which is also total wilderness ready to be explored, tamed, and settled, goes to the PC (a human paladin) to explore, tame, and settle.

Along with the title of Baron, the PC was given a chest of 20,000gp to settle the city. He and his closest companions (the other PCs) went about exploring the wilderness trying to decide on the best place to found a settlement. They decided on the thousand year old ruin of a past civiliation, as it had a semi intact keep that only needed repair and moderate rebuilding.

Along the way I am setting up all kinds of difficult decisions for the PCs to make, as well as many issues where one PC doesn't necessarily agree in principle to what another is proposing forcing political compromise to get things done. It's fun....

Decisions like...
1. Cost overrun! We can get the keep repaired for the original 15k agreed upon price, but we are going to have to "go to town" on the neighboring forest that has the powerful druid you already promised you would be cool with. Otherwise we gotta import a bunch of supplies from far away, which is going to be another 6k.
2. Military Discontent! Those highly trained war veteran hobgoblins who signed up to avoid a POW situation are refusing to "go help those guys build a stables" as they say it isn't their job. Do you want to force them?
3. The teamsters you arranged to carry your settlers to the new lands are needed up north to prop up the war effort with the orcs. Do you let the army have the teamsters and delay establishing your city by a month, possibly missing the window to get the farms ready and the crops planted in time?

 

[Piratecat]

Sabathius, that's flat-out superb.

I'm reminded of the risk of centering a campaign around just one or two PCs, and then their retainers. You run the risk of (a) paying too much attention to only one player, (b) running into problems if that player leaves the game, and (c) being tempted not to let them die in combat. Worth watching out for.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I'm reminded of the risk of centering a campaign around just one or two PCs, and then their retainers. You run the risk of (a) paying too much attention to only one player, (b) running into problems if that player leaves the game, and (c) being tempted not to let them die in combat. Worth watching out for.

Good points for running a "PCs run the show" campaign. I think we have addressed a few of these ahead of time but maybe not totally indepth....

Too much attention: This was my biggest worry. I am planning on the kingdom creation being the lowest tier focus of the campaign, after which they move on to exploring the world as a whole. Also I have a subplot for each race in the book, as well as for each individual class. So, I have so many irons in the fire and subplots to pursue (that hopefully start connecting if I play my cards right) that everyone has something to pursue on their own.

Player leaving the game: The paladin is also the guy who hosts the game! The other players subplots are tied in together so one person leaving will leave other avenues for them to be wrapped up.

Important PC death: This is the hardest thing about having super-in-depth roleplaying going on versus adventures-of-the-week. While I hate as a player losing a character i've invested tons of writeup and backstory on, I hate plot immunity more. I don't have a good answer to this other than as a GM I generally will not kill off your character unless its either dramatic or you did something obviously stupid. In lieu of killing him off (like when a 3e PC walked into a super powerful disintegration trap) I may take away a prized heirloom or a hand, or both.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Important PC death: This is the hardest thing about having super-in-depth roleplaying going on versus adventures-of-the-week.

I think that's the biggest advantage of this format. Make the KINGDOM the PC, not the individual characters. When (not if) that Paladin dies, advance the timeline by X years and keep going.

That's what I was getting at in my initial post in this thread. Make the game about more than individual glory & wealth. Make it about advancing the needs and goals of something larger than the self. Don't make it about Spock and Kirk. Make it about the Enterprise; that allows for cool moments like Spock sacrificing himself to save the ship.

You take away the shield of plot immunity, because character death is actually good for the plot. It sets up vendettas, quests to recover lost armor and weapons, rivalries. Also noble sacrifices, legends--that dead PC might be canonized and eventually revered as a saint, with statues in village squares and holidays named after him or her.

The player of that Paladin will enjoy being a Baron, sure. But he'll really enjoy later playing a cleric who's an officer in the order of knights named after that Baron, charged with a quest to recover his sword from the hated orcs who slew him.

 

[The M'hael]

Someone Said that they were running a campaign like this one where the Players played as nobles, but the PCs were adventurers hired by the nobles. But I really like [MENTION=1457]Zaruthustran[/MENTION]'s idea. Reminds me sort of like the Heirs of Saint Camber books. It would be so cool to play in that world.