tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post238098149364074496..comments2023-10-14T03:58:59.333-06:00Comments on The Tao of D&D: A Few More Words About SettlementsAlexis Smolenskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-59999154786897682732013-08-08T07:50:42.995-06:002013-08-08T07:50:42.995-06:00Your comment about Dan and Laurie at the end of Wa...Your comment about Dan and Laurie at the end of Watchman, and the idea that some players/DMs would prefer "small scale" adventuring to "large scale" settlement building, reminded me of the <a href="http://wondermark.com/939/" rel="nofollow">Wondermark cartoon</a> where Bruce Wayne and Alfred discuss how best to use his formidable intellect and limitless wealth to battle crime -- invest in poor neighborhoods? pressure politicians to address social inequality? develop pre-education programs?<br /><br />No, he's going to put on a bat costume and go after muggers individually.<br /><br />When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...Butchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470617214750867482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-67982832059293123472013-08-08T06:22:26.148-06:002013-08-08T06:22:26.148-06:00Right. Wouldn't want to do anything hard.Right. Wouldn't want to do anything hard.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-91933547946578561522013-08-08T00:03:43.628-06:002013-08-08T00:03:43.628-06:00Hi Alexis,
I understand that D&D was original...Hi Alexis,<br /><br />I understand that D&D was originally created so wargamers could progress individual characters from weak to strong. As D&D has become its own thing the people playing it have never played any wargames. So you get this process where people try to add a wargame or country management into D&D. Then you get settler influx tables, domain events tables, etc. I wonder if it would just be best to find a wargame that does all the stuff that you want already and use that as a base, then modify D&D to suit that, rather than trying to create it from scratch. Most DMs are used to modifying D&D so that should be easy but creating a domain game from scratch would be a lot harder.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />John.jbeltmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02264520619277158883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-1655250834356735522013-08-07T06:59:42.371-06:002013-08-07T06:59:42.371-06:00(Sorry, this might get rather long...)
About &quo...(Sorry, this might get rather long...)<br /><br />About "having to start somewhere": I have been working with the Rules Cyclopedia for, say, 4 years now, regularly writing about it for maybe one year. As far as system mastery goes, I'm (maybe) starting to see the big picture by now. D&D (and especially the RC) can be pretty intimidating for a DM. I sure was. But at some point I realized two things.<br /><br />The first thing was (and maybe that's too obvious, I don't know) that D&D never intended to be a finished game. It only tried to build the framework for a DM and gave examples (like Monsters) to show how to scale it. "Official" publications muddied the water, but that comes with the territory, I guess.<br /><br />The second thing I came to realize was that a DM needs to understand the scope of the game and how the rules handle it, before he alters it to his satisfaction. With D&D that's a lot of work. But once it is done, I'm sure the players will tag along.<br /><br />My conclusions so far: the xp system is a huge advantage in the game. It's very flexible, formulates reachable goals and is easy to understand. Furthermore it is really hard-wired into the game, so any additional rules using the system are easier to implement. Same goes for character classes, HD and ability scores. With those alone, a DM can do a lot.<br /><br />I'm still experimenting with it, but so far two solutions are shaping up to give the players access to the implications of high levels and (connected to that) the domain game. The first one is to use the gold = xp ratio as an investment. As soon as the players start spending gold for xp, they have to decide what they are investing in (might be a settlement, a political campaign, a fleet of ships, a giant golem whatever). With deciding and investing the players job is more or less done. Until they reach the point where their investment comes to fruition (which is usually at name level), it is assumed that they did spend the time and gold needed to make it happen (contacts, bribes, materials, etc.). With name level it becomes a mini game within the game, either to further invest in the starting investment or to start a new one (political career changes to war campaign, etc.). The players are still free to do whatever they like, it's just one more level-relevant special ability.<br /><br />Now for the domain game. Simply put, a character going for a settlement, will have his ability scores as the basic underpinning (high CON means a healthy population, high DEX means it's good to defend). External factors influence those stats (a crime lord might drain WIS and the people get paranoid, etc.) and compete with them. Harvesting resources and defending the settlement leads to xp and a settlement, with time and under the right circumstances, might become a village or even a town. By using what is already there, the rest adapts easy. HD means the population (with 1 hp = 1d6 citizens), resources and threats translate to Monsters. It has some big implications for DM and players. Influencing their surroundings becomes measurable for both. If the players, for instance, are helping with the fortification of a settlement, it increases DEX, the town spending money to pay the heroes, gets xp for it, etc.). If a DM has the ability scores of a mayor and the "level" of the settlement, he has fast access to all kinds of information about it...<br /><br />So, yes, I agree. It can and should have a place in the game and working on achieving that is worthwhile for a DM. We may come to different solutions, though (and I don't see a problem there). <br /><br />I actually wrote two posts regarding those ideas in July (Settlement as Class, Spending Gold for a Career) and would be interested in your opinion (if you're interested enough in the main premise, that is).<br /><br />Won't spam you with links, if you don't mind.Jens D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18394303166081684904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-3135392902904711782013-08-06T20:24:14.615-06:002013-08-06T20:24:14.615-06:00Dude:
I'm not sure what to do with you. You d...Dude:<br /><br />I'm not sure what to do with you. You don't need my accolades (or would profess to not give a shit, being your own self-actualized individual), but I want to support your half-mad quest...I just don't want to seem like I'm blowing sunshine up your ass while doing it.<br /><br />Personally, I think it's an admirable line of pursuit...hell, I don't mind pursuing World Domination in game (or other notable tasks above "settler" level), but it's seldom I've encountered DMs with that scope of vision. I think part of the problem is that so many of the editions...especially the later ones...tend to scale up the nobility to ridiculous heights...like a king must be a 20th level "something" even though he's sat on his ass all his life and never had a decent adventure. It makes "kingship" something that can only be aspired to as an impossibly far-off proposition, when most campaigns burn out long before reaching double digit levels and content (within the game) is only reached by obtaining said levels. <br /><br />[of course, it happens with more than just the political scene...it's just a foregone conclusion at most gaming tables that "playing big" requires having an uber-high level]<br /><br />Personally, I think it can be done, but you have to rip down and destroy some of the fundamental rule assumptions. I know you're already an old hand at some of that (your unique way of basing hit points on mass, for example), but if you'd really shift the paradigm you probably need to look at some of the non-physics based changes that are possible to the rule set.<br /><br />Or maybe not...maybe it will just be a life's work for you, man. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try (as long as you're having fun in the process).JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08532311924539491087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-26994775972409835832013-08-06T18:26:10.697-06:002013-08-06T18:26:10.697-06:00Having played three versions of Civ at this point,...Having played three versions of Civ at this point, I find myself drawn to your metaphors. IV in particular allows/requires an absurd amount of micromanaging. At one point in obsessing over it, in "experimenting," I stopped playing anything but Pangea, precisely because I was sick of moving my small labor force to and from "finished" islands to clean up waste. It wasn't the island assaults which wore on me, it was the perfection of empire. <br /><br />Which is the thing about establishing settlements. It's on the GM to sit and do the "math" of costs and benefits, the revenue stream. Unless he has a particularly OCD sort of player nobody seems to enjoy playing Kyle Pendleton, Barbarian-Accountant. So after clearing the twenty mile circle of wilderness, most players are only interested in the equivalent of operating a turnkey business. They get a henchman to act as steward, a manager, just like the majority of nobles did. Historically, most noblemen didn't spend their time managing their estates either, they spent their time scheming at court or at war. Which is close enough to questing and courtier scenarios, that I'd say the average player is no different than the average noble. Once established, the average player is only involved in the big picture, such as when the barbarian/zombie horde rolls into town or when he needs to repopulate his manse after the barbarian horde rolled out of town.<br /><br />It's no different than a merchant scenario in D&D, something I once experimented with after establishing some simple price differences in a kingdom, with noticeable differences in how much they could could get for fencing their loot. After a trip or two, the bookkeeping of the operation was calculated and the players focused on guarding their wagon train, the "fun" part. This is equally true of a "mining" scenario, where they're bored until shaft number three penetrates too deep and...<br /><br />Which is what people want to do, especially in a fantasy scenario. Which is why war games will always be more popular than ones where you manage a burger franchise. They can go manage a burger franchise in real life.<br /><br />Which is why most people don't enjoy Civilization, over plain war games or plain economics games. They're looking for an escape.<br /><br />Or as my history professor once put it when discussing the Japanese failures in the Pacific Theater, "Logistics aren't sexy."Gort's Friendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08684913847135419951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-12403068087067116272013-08-06T17:32:30.548-06:002013-08-06T17:32:30.548-06:00Alexis, I can't say why people play this game ...Alexis, I can't say why people play this game instead of playing at life for anyone else, but, for me, it is in large part because the rules are capable of being understood, where I can't ever fully know the rules of my job, or of navigating a party. (I'll admit that others may be able to, but not me...) I LIKE knowing the rules. I LIKE there being rules to know. So anyway, you hit the nail on the head, that it is a lack of rules that prevent a satisfying game at a different level of granularity.Maximillian Boiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09712157905126165888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-25714626837392233352013-08-06T14:29:20.201-06:002013-08-06T14:29:20.201-06:00It is a terrific weakness of D&D - thinking th...It is a terrific weakness of D&D - thinking that EVERYTHING must be pounded into the experience/level gain process.<br /><br />What is it but a number, a goal post. Players have to be encouraged, by tweaking the dopamine delivery system that is in their brains, that there are other gains that will get them high. See, I don't advocate reason or argument in this case; both will fail. But provide the player with challenge (difficulty) and clear, reasonable results that their 5 senses can observe, and you've got that dopamine working for you.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-70534702881334569912013-08-06T14:03:40.197-06:002013-08-06T14:03:40.197-06:00I'm pretty excited to see this topic coming to...I'm pretty excited to see this topic coming to the fore in your blog just as your players in the online campaign get prepared to take possession of a settlement. (I'm guessing that the two are related.)<br /><br />I know you're going to expand on the topic in coming posts, but I wanted to ask one question related to the desire for leveling-up characters that you mentioned, and how it can be a drag on attempts to let the characters expand into larger responsibilities. Do you think this is something that has to be addressed at the character level in order to keep players engaged (for example, by tying an experience reward to successful law enforcement or administration of a settlement or what have you,) are you thinking of sliding in a substitution of some kind (giving settlements a level-based advancement system, maybe?) or do you think it can be overcome altogether?Jonathonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12424548045152722964noreply@blogger.com