Adventures you'd like to see

[The Heretic]

...but yes, domain play can have issues. If you get too much into the nuts and bolts of running the domain (like with the Kingmaker rules) it detracts too much from the roleplaying. I am probably going to try to tone it down a bit and use it again, but I don't know.

But yeah, this is something you could do with homebrew campaigns but not in a module, unless it was one of those dreaded, hated adventure paths.

Maybe someone could make a module that would be like the Siege of Kratys Freehold in Dungeon magazine. You come to a town, briefly take it over to prepare it for an invasion (or some other event), then take off with a reward when everything is over (unless you want to continue holding the domain). Nah. I could see the designer trying to hammer too many square pegs into round holes to get this thing to work.

 

[Malrex]

Admittedly, I've never done domain play. We always seem to restart or my character would die before that point.

But, if it was me, I'd probably set it up as a campaign setting. You start out by getting a land deed and are Level 9 or whatever...you go there and clear it out/adventure and get the lay of the land, you start building your castle--can fast forward some of it, but try to get the players involved how each character would have a special room or area in the castle. Bring back the mapping and cost estimates!

Then I would throw so much shit at them that they would have to set up proxies like you were talking about above. Basically warring humanoids, warring neighbors, political intrigue, other types of problems that things need to be fetched, or gifts found to keep the peace, etc. The proxies would have to go out and take care of stuff because there is just too much going on for the main character to do.

How I would do it though is that these proxies become new characters for the players to control--and we actually go do the adventure/event/whatever instead of just rolling for success. The characters could range from levels 1-8 with little adventures to accomplish. This would get the players to care about their proxies a little bit, since they would be their actual characters. So it would feel like regular D&D, but the NPC they are working for is actually their own character. So each player may have their main character, then like 5 other character proxies ranging in levels and classes. So one night might just be character generation with a good explanation of how the proxy is related to the castle life. Might be fun to have a wilderness group (druids, rangers, etc.) go tackle a problem that is affecting the peasants fields

A lot of control, I would leave up to the characters on how they want to handle situations/problems. They could even decide what task they wanted to complete that night and the DM would just turn the page to the right appendix holding the correct adventure/situation/scenario. During all the adventures and tasks, there may be some big battles that are going on--and I would have to learn how to do that and look at some of the material suggested above...but one battle would definitely need to be at the players keep--there would be maintenance costs and they might learn of some weaknesses to their keep and want to expand it, etc.

At the very end, I would have a HUGE war...and all the tasks and adventures that the proxies did or failed to do, would have real meaning and pull in the final conflict. I know exactly how I would set it up and organize it...but I'd have to learn the wars/leading generals/field of battle bit. Not sure if this fits exactly the domain style of play, but I think it could be sorta cool. Maybe in year 2030 I can tackle this after my To Do list.

Squeen--you forgot Ice and Terrible Sorcery used to post a bit. Sounds like we are almost ready to release our own Bryce Lynch's OSR calendar, each person gets a month....

 

[squeen]

Squeen--you forgot Ice and Terrible Sorcery used to post a bit. Sounds like we are almost ready to release our own Bryce Lynch's OSR calendar, each person gets a month....

My bad. Ran out of morning caffeine.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

DP has both too many letters and too few. He never backs down from a fight, has a morbid fear of The OSR (particularly when played by people who work in Toll Booths), and also suffers from extreme Gerontophobia. He's friendly with Ogres---but only the kind that crash your party even though they weren't invited. (Also, he's sulking right now.)

I'll have you know I was moving houses, not sulking thankyouverymuch

Also for the record, I'm not scared of the OSR - I just question its purpose and loathe its vaguely hipster-ish vibes. The rest of your statement seems true enough.

 

[squeen]

...and...he's back!

 

[Beoric]

So I picked up the AKCS rules on TO’s recommendation (I think it was a recommendation). I’m about halfway through. I think there is a lot here that I can use for inspiration. However, my sense is that as a ruleset for domain play it’s not great. I have a few concerns:

1. Holy subsystems, Batman! It ain’t exactly rules light. It like B/X ripped off feats and skills from 3e, and then instead of a core mechanic it decided to make a different subsystem for every single feat and skill, plus a different subsystem for every “domain” action. It’s like Rollmaster with the charts in paragraph form.

2. There is a ton of bookkeeping tracking revenue, expenses and assets (not sure if there are any debts) along with calculating all the variables to determine each. I feel a domain system would be more accessible, not to mention more widely applicable to different systems, if the math was a bit more abstract. An estate of “x” quality has resources to construct a maintain a castle, garrison and staff of “y” quality, and provide “z” resource units which can be spent on extras. I didn’t become a border lord so I could count peasants, that’s why I hired a steward.

3. Many, many of the rules function automatically with a die roll without any provision for creative play. For example, if you adventure once per __ and ______________ your peasant population grows, and if you don’t, it doesn’t. But what if I hire a bard to travel around talking about how much richer and better treated my peasants are?

Having a ton of subsystems and bookkeeping is fine if that’s your jam. But having rules that don’t support creative play is a big fail in my books. These rules are great for NPCs, but they shouldn’t apply to PCs. A PC shouldn’t research a new spell by buying a library and rolling a skill check. A PC should research a spell by following rumours of the last known location of Lothar the Pyromancer’s treatise on spell components. Also, there are no rules for what happens if an opposing party is trying to oppose the actions of you or your proxy. Now, you cam probably mitigate this if you are experienced enough as a DM to know when you can ignore a rule, or make up one on the spot. But as a rule system it is a failure.

4. So far in my reading it seems very focused on acquiring land and building up your estate. I am hoping there will be something in here on political intrigue, mercantile ventures, etc. I’m not very encouraged though, because it looks like the default when you succeed in a given activity is to receive a monetary benefit. For instance, a successful spying check results in income from exploiting the secret information.

My distaste for this inspired me to treat the default result of spying to be the generation of rumors. Which in turn made me realize that one way to drive play is to ensure that your adventure has a robust system for generating hooks. Rumors for arbitrage trading by your merchant fleet, books and components relating to spell research and magic item creation, actions by NPCs that the players need to respond to, or guess at the NPC’s intentions.

Perhaps you should make a rumor and/or events table for each major area of play – magic, adventuring, economics, politics, agriculture. All of which either promise rewards or hint at obstacles to achieving the players’ goals. Too many rumors for the PCs to chase on their own, thus relying on their proxies. Then the proxies’ successes and failures come from the subsystem mill, whereas the PC’s successes and failure arise through play. And then a simple mechanic to resolve the actions of proxies, particularly if another NPC is actively opposing them.

@Malrex, I think you are talking about playing your proxies. If so, I think it is okay to play some of your proxies – “followers” are supposed to be fanatically loyal – but I also think the game is more interesting if you have to rely on at least some NPCs that are not under the player’s control. The PC should have to worry about betrayal, and how to keep his people loyal. Otherwise a pretty much agree with your ideas for setting this up, although for a published adventure I would ensure a number of concrete hooks that appeal to players who won’t default to activities other than adventuring.

 

[squeen]

Agree that some of thye nitty-gritty is too nitty-gritty and needs to be adapted for your (non-ACKS) system---but there is a wealth of info in there and a very systemic way of looking at things I don't think I could have invented myself.

Also, I am hoping the field-combat mechanic works well. We'll see!

Which in turn made me realize that one way to drive play is to ensure that your adventure has a robust system for generating hooks.

I think you are on to something with this!

 

[Malrex]

@Malrex, I think you are talking about playing your proxies. If so, I think it is okay to play some of your proxies – “followers” are supposed to be fanatically loyal – but I also think the game is more interesting if you have to rely on at least some NPCs that are not under the player’s control. The PC should have to worry about betrayal, and how to keep his people loyal. Otherwise a pretty much agree with your ideas for setting this up, although for a published adventure I would ensure a number of concrete hooks that appeal to players who won’t default to activities other than adventuring.

Yeah, I think if you do it right and there is so much going on, there would still need to be NPC followers to be trusted to do tasks. But you could delve even deeper....instead of the PC worrying about betrayal, they may also have their Proxie PC's worried about betrayal....The main PC goes on a quest and leaves X NPC in charge? And X NPC then sends the PC proxie on a quest because they don't like that proxie and hope they die, etc. Becomes like Game of Thrones. But you would have to have the right type of players--the ones that won't just immediately gang up on a NPC because their other character knows something...

For publishing, I think there would need to be hooks and what I call Situations (I know..not the best name). Situations are more like fleshed out hooks. Instead of 1-2 lines for a hook, it may be a paragraph or 2 that gives more meat for the DM to run with. So some political intrigue or special type problems. And also a simplified rule table for things mentioned above (peasant organization, general happiness of the populace, random events (damaged fields, ruined crops, great harvest, etc.) that might appeal to more of a domain style play--which I would probably need some consultants on since I've never really played that style but seems interesting.

 

[squeen]

We had a few nice situation at home where the players "took control" of NPCs. One was a case in which they needed to explore (looking for stolen items) with each player taking control of a long-time henchmen. This was necessary because most of their main PCs where engaged in "affairs of state" and one was "kidnapped"---and time was of the essence for item recovery. The henchmen were all fighters and the players kept saying things like, "Man, we could really use the thief here!".

The other instance occurred when I let them role-play the palace guards who were sent (at the main PCs request) to arrest a suspected witch/evil-doer. That way, they couldn't say I rigged the situation to let her go (which I what I had predetermined would happen). Sure enough, they (as "the guards") did manage to capture her---even recruiting some of their own henchmen/thugs from the local tavern.

In both cases, it was a refreshing change of pace that moved the world along in a nice way.

Later, it tickled me when I read this is the 1e DMG**:

As characters acquire henchmen, the better players will express a desire to operate some of theirs independently while they, or their liege lord, are away. This is a perfectly acceptable device, for it tends to even out characters and the game. Henchmen tend to become associates - or rivals - this way, although a few will remain as colorless servitors.

I took it as a small affirmation that our campaign was "getting it right" since this stuff evolved naturally without me having to force it.

(**I have grown rather fond of that silly 'ol book.)

 

[squeen]

I should add one more thing. Truth be told, my players like to interact with NPCs first-hand, and don't seem too interested on abstracted play.
We'll see if that changes after the Domains at War battle.

 

[Beoric]

For publishing, I think there would need to be hooks and what I call Situations (I know..not the best name). Situations are more like fleshed out hooks.

The problem with that word is Justin Alexander has done a pretty good job of applying it to something else, and his use of the word appears to have a certain amount of acceptance. Your use of the word is just similar enough to cause confusion.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The problem with that word is Justin Alexander has done a pretty good job of applying it to something else, and his use of the word appears to have a certain amount of acceptance. Your use of the word is just similar enough to cause confusion.

"Scenario"

or you can class up your document by referring to situations in an artsy way:

"The Mercantile Affair"
"Dalliance & Death"
"The Curious Case of the Broken Orcs"

 

[Malrex]

"A situation, on the other hand, is merely a set of circumstances. The events that happen as a result of that situation will depend on the actions the PCs take."--Justin Alexander

Cool article, and this line sums up what I was thinking too. Especially the "...situation will depend on the actions the PC's take" part (or NOT take).
The Situations can also tie into the Timeline and change with or without the characters.

Perhaps I'll call them instead--Potential Shitshows

 

[squeen]

Very catchy.

 

[Beoric]

Perhaps I'll call them instead--Potential Shitshows

Lets try that out:

For publishing, I think there would need to be hooks and what I call [Potential Shitshows]. [Potential Shitshows] are more like fleshed out hooks. Instead of 1-2 lines for a hook, it may be a paragraph or 2 that gives more meat for the DM to run with.

Yeah, that works nicely.

 

[The Heretic]

So I picked up the AKCS rules on TO’s recommendation (I think it was a recommendation).
2. There is a ton of bookkeeping tracking revenue, expenses and assets (not sure if there are any debts) along with calculating all the variables to determine each. I feel a domain system would be more accessible, not to mention more widely applicable to different systems, if the math was a bit more abstract. An estate of “x” quality has resources to construct a maintain a castle, garrison and staff of “y” quality, and provide “z” resource units which can be spent on extras. I didn’t become a border lord so I could count peasants, that’s why I hired a steward.

Ugh that's awful. Pathfinder has a domain system (Kingmaker, which I mentioned above when I confused you with Belrzi, or was it Grorzi, I forget). It's a little bit simplified, with 'build points' instead of getting down to the copper piece.

 

[Evard's Small Tentacle]

Ugh that's awful. Pathfinder has a domain system (Kingmaker, which I mentioned above when I confused you with Belrzi, or was it Grorzi, I forget). It's a little bit simplified, with 'build points' instead of getting down to the copper piece.

I find most of these systems to be too abstract and mechanical with points and building rather than focusing on role playing and interaction. The core of D&D is "interaction" and most of the domain play makes it way too mechanical (perhaps there is no better way?).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

most of the domain play makes it way too mechanical (perhaps there is no better way?).

How does a group of people who are literally here to design, write, and publish game products have such a hard time homebrewing some domain rules?

Too mechanical? Use less rules. Doesn't capture the spirit of rulership? Change it so it does. Are we not all homebrew masters at this point?

 

[The Heretic]

I find most of these systems to be too abstract and mechanical with points and building rather than focusing on role playing and interaction. The core of D&D is "interaction" and most of the domain play makes it way too mechanical (perhaps there is no better way?).

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel. I tried the system and gave up on it. Too much time wasted number crunching in game.

The build point mechanic was a good one for Pathfinder, since it's not a gold=XP game. Too much gold is bad since magic items are readily for sale, so having this mechanic was a godsend.

Another thing I didn't like about it was the concentration on control and development of hexes. I'd rather have provinces that the PCs could manage, instead of getting into the nitty gritty of "you have this town in this hex and you'll need X amount of hexes of farmland to adequately provide for it". Blech.

 

[The Heretic]

How does a group of people who are literally here to design, write, and publish game products have such a hard time homebrewing some domain rules?
Too mechanical? Use less rules. Doesn't capture the spirit of rulership? Change it so it does. Are we not all homebrew masters at this point?

Yay for the Dangerous Puhson cheer squad.

So, what have you got for us, ideawise?

Also, is this going to be part of the Worst EVAR design project?