The Keep Rule

[Alan Shutko]

So, when DMing I should stop the story at level 9 and give players a stronghold?

Nope, you just work it in as a subplot, or you can work it in as the main plot, or maybe your players don't want it and you skip it.

It doesn't work if you're running a campaign where the plot has players running constantly on the main story. It does work if they have any downtime.

One of the reasons I like strongholds, and the general adventurer lifecycle in BECMI is that it assumes the passage of time. A campaign isn't like a season of 24: the adventurers start the season at level 1, and then in a very short amount of in-game time they're level 30 and have finally saved the world and killed the big bad.

Instead, there may be one or more main plots, but there can also be downtime, lulls in the main plot where the characters do unrelated things. Maybe they want to go resolve some things in their background, or achieve a personal goal, or go build a stronghold.

We've had a lot of accelerator-to-the-floor focus in recent editions, so I'd love to go back to a more steady pace.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I agree, GSHampster. I think these rules are actually pretty important for the game. I was mortified when they were removed from 3e, and I think their lack contributed to the relatively boring "just going into the dungeon which scales all the time".

Having those most basic of stronghold rules in d&d encourages. DMs to think about giving pcs a stake in the wider campaign world.

In the vein of becmi, it s a reminder that adventures can (not have to, but can) start taking a different tack at certain specific levels. It is the kind of thing that the 4e paragon levels could have tied into nicely - a dropped ball there in my mind.

This doesn't prevent dm's providing it as part of a story, or handling things different in alternative campaigns of course. But for the people who are new to the game as we were in the 70's, it could be a godsend.

Cheers

 

[avin]

Nope, you just work it in as a subplot, or you can work it in as the main plot, or maybe your players don't want it and you skip it.

I don't want to work it as a main plot or subplot just because the book says so.

And if the book says so and I decide to skip, in the name of story, some players will be bugging me about.

This is the kind of thing should never be tied to a level. The less metagame, the more I like it. There's a lot of other ways to mark time passage.

There should be rules for players to have keeps, taverns, secret societies, etc... but, IMO, never chained to levels.

 

[Nagol]

I like the thought that there is a theoretical maximum capability that can drive aspiration. I'm not a fan of "Let's keep doing what we've been doing with bigger numbers!" like the 3.X Epic rules seemed to imply.

I like the idea of alternate growth paths that kick in upon some level of attainment and bring with them new aspirations for the characters. The territory grant in 1e is certainly one direction.

 

[Rechan]

"We can also have other options, like building a castle, having followers and vassals. We can build that into what high level characters get." - Monte Cook.

 

[hanez]

I started playing with 2E. One of the rules I loved, and would like to see brought back in some form is the Keep Rule. In 2E, at 9th level characters got a keep and/or followers.

I always felt that this gave the players something to look forward to, to anchor them in the world, and to give them additional responsibilities. It really felt like the characters were "growing up" in a way that just increasing personal power didn't.

I think the rule also helped the fighter class the most. The other classes have a lot of non-combat mechanical hooks, like non-combat spells, the church structure, skills. But the fighter, especially in 3E and 4E doesn't really have any of that. I think the keep rule helped the fighter the most, implying that the fighter's destiny was to become a leader of men.

Now, you obviously don't need a formal rule to do stuff like this. But I thought having the formal rule gave it weight, it made responsibility for others to be an expected part of levelling up. Some of my group's best adventures came when establishing their keeps.

I would like to see this rule or idea brought back in 5E.

I completely agree. I love non combat rules and hooks like this. I also liked the druid having to defeat an arch Druid at level 13. I think stuff like this makes classes feel more connected to the world and less generic. Every edition it gets easier to pick a class based on mechanics and worry less about the fluff. I miss fluff as mechanics.

 

[Ichneumon]

This aspect of the game clearly belongs in an optional module. I hope there's no rigid mapping between level/class and stronghold, but rather that a stronghold becomes useful once PCs get to 9th-10th level. It should also be possible for a fighter to choose, say, a temple if desired.

I like the idea that it might be possible to improve the efficacy of a stronghold via the PC's adventuring activities. A fighter who defeats a marauding ogre band could attract grateful vassals. A rogue who roots out a spy from a rival guild might gain new business opportunities. There may also be a rating for how resilient a stronghold is to threats, say, Strong, Middling or Weak. PCs who neglect their strongholds will see their rating degrade to Weak, making them vulnerable to threats, both external and internal.

 

[SKyOdin]

I just hope that if 5E does give players keeps, the rules for them aren't as overly complex and illogical as the 3E stronghold builder's guide rules. Why couldn't 3E have given rules for more general, well-rounded strongholds? Why build things room-by-room using mechanics that are supposedly designed to make any kind of structure, but in practice only make sense within a few narrow contexts?

Any kind of keep mechanics needs to give general guidelines for the size and design of keeps while giving players plenty of leeway to fill in the gaps without excessive rules-consulting.

 

[Nivenus]

I think rules for managing things like keeps and estates would be all well and good, but they shouldn't be an expected reward for higher levels IMO. Some characters are going to want to acquire an estate. For others it's not a meaningful goal. The rules should be there (probably in some optional supplement) but they shouldn't be standard, run-of-the-mill play.

Besides, managing an estate would be bloody hard work, so I doubt many characters would even really want one if they gave it more than a second's thought. Say goodbye adventuring, say hello SimCastle.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I rather like the idea of strongholds as a campaign quality - some campaigns get them, others don't.

Kingmaker starts the PCs off early in regards to building their domain, the players know from the beginning that strongholds and war are going to be part of the campaign, and can build their characters to fit.

Classic Play: Book of Dynasties & Strongholds added elements of this concept, but did not have much for structuring a campaign to fit.

I would like to see something like that implemented as a plug 'n' play element for the game - something that can either be added if it comes up, or have a campaign built around. Or, conversely, to ignore, as the case might be.

The Auld Grump