D&D General should we have domains back if so how?
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
What is the broader topic? I may have missed it.
Edit: I have already given my thoughts on supplements for domain rules. I’m for them; however, I will clarify that I prefer if they don’t come from WotC.
Edit: I have already given my thoughts on supplements for domain rules. I’m for them; however, I will clarify that I prefer if they don’t come from WotC.
Last edited:
Reign, by Greg Stolz, has a system for organizations. The organization has a bunch of (somewhat abstract) features and attributes.
These organizations can come into conflict or try to do things.
PCs in this game adventure and act as spoilers. Their actions can add bonuses to what the organization tries to do, and the game is designed that these relatively small bonuses (an extra die or whatever) can swing the results.
The idea is that instead of modelling an economy or whatever, you abstractly describe the organization and attach a story or plot generator to it, together with mechanics on how individual adventures can impact the story or plot it generates.
The engine it uses - the One Roll Engine - is cute, and from what I can recall it should be pretty easy to use ORE for domains while using traditional D&D for the individual characters. The two are mostly separable.
As a benefit, it means you don't have to add up the gp cost of all of the retainers in a castle or settlement and determine if the castle is a functioning economic entity. The problem with that model is often you want an economic entity that is either functioning or disfunctioning in a specific way, and simulation level detail means you have to do a PILE of work to get it to function or not function in the way you are aiming for, let alone confirm that the simulation level detail actually simulates what you think it does. A better model would be one that takes what you are aiming for (a keep guarding a settlement) and describes what it needed to make it function, modelling someone in-game having the expertise to know how many cartwrights it needs, instead of telling you the price of cartwrights and the impact carts have on transportation capabilities and cart wear and repair systems.
These organizations can come into conflict or try to do things.
PCs in this game adventure and act as spoilers. Their actions can add bonuses to what the organization tries to do, and the game is designed that these relatively small bonuses (an extra die or whatever) can swing the results.
The idea is that instead of modelling an economy or whatever, you abstractly describe the organization and attach a story or plot generator to it, together with mechanics on how individual adventures can impact the story or plot it generates.
The engine it uses - the One Roll Engine - is cute, and from what I can recall it should be pretty easy to use ORE for domains while using traditional D&D for the individual characters. The two are mostly separable.
As a benefit, it means you don't have to add up the gp cost of all of the retainers in a castle or settlement and determine if the castle is a functioning economic entity. The problem with that model is often you want an economic entity that is either functioning or disfunctioning in a specific way, and simulation level detail means you have to do a PILE of work to get it to function or not function in the way you are aiming for, let alone confirm that the simulation level detail actually simulates what you think it does. A better model would be one that takes what you are aiming for (a keep guarding a settlement) and describes what it needed to make it function, modelling someone in-game having the expertise to know how many cartwrights it needs, instead of telling you the price of cartwrights and the impact carts have on transportation capabilities and cart wear and repair systems.
I think the gold standard for base building is Mutant Year Zero, though it would take some effort to adapt it to D&D.
In MYZ, the PCs are residents of "The Ark", a settlement of maybe 150 mutants. This settlement has its capabilities measured with four different values: defense, technology, culture, and food. At the start of the campaign, all four stats are pretty low.
Every session, the PCs decide on what, if any, improvement to work on. These are usually, but not always, physical in-game things but can also be social advances. In-world, it's probably a decision made by the Ark's various bosses, and the GM can override the PCs because "No, you just got hit by raiders, the people want something that increases defense", but it's basically left to the players. Building an improvement requires a certain number of successful skill checks on behalf of the PCs – much like the decision-making, while the actual construction is a collective effort it's based on the success of the PCs. Most improvements increase one or more of the settlement's stats which in turn provides distinct benefits – building a pig farm increases the settlement's food stat, and when it becomes high enough food and water becomes cheaper. Building a statue increases culture, which makes the Ark more harmonious.
Something similar could be done in D&D. Building/improving a smithy might unlock the ability to buy masterwork weapons. A temple provides a place for healing. An inn gives you a never-ending source of mysterious robed figures selling treasure maps of questionable provenance. And so on. This kind of thing sounds more interesting to me than building a castle and raising an army (even though the settlement's defenses are definitely things that could be improved).
In MYZ, the PCs are residents of "The Ark", a settlement of maybe 150 mutants. This settlement has its capabilities measured with four different values: defense, technology, culture, and food. At the start of the campaign, all four stats are pretty low.
Every session, the PCs decide on what, if any, improvement to work on. These are usually, but not always, physical in-game things but can also be social advances. In-world, it's probably a decision made by the Ark's various bosses, and the GM can override the PCs because "No, you just got hit by raiders, the people want something that increases defense", but it's basically left to the players. Building an improvement requires a certain number of successful skill checks on behalf of the PCs – much like the decision-making, while the actual construction is a collective effort it's based on the success of the PCs. Most improvements increase one or more of the settlement's stats which in turn provides distinct benefits – building a pig farm increases the settlement's food stat, and when it becomes high enough food and water becomes cheaper. Building a statue increases culture, which makes the Ark more harmonious.
Something similar could be done in D&D. Building/improving a smithy might unlock the ability to buy masterwork weapons. A temple provides a place for healing. An inn gives you a never-ending source of mysterious robed figures selling treasure maps of questionable provenance. And so on. This kind of thing sounds more interesting to me than building a castle and raising an army (even though the settlement's defenses are definitely things that could be improved).
