The next question becomes, what purpose does the fief serve? Why should the player undertake the process of managing land, house, hirelings, financing, accounting and more for the sake of a character who can hardly experience comfort or the sensory impact of looking out upon one's own estate?
Wealth? Characters rarely lack for plunder
Prestige? Characters tend to be lone wolves, without the compulsion to prove their value. Raising an army? There are so few rules in place for conquering campaigns that any outline of raising money and force that we're in a hole even if the method of recruitment is put in place.
Persons of the period saw title and land as a ticket to "the good life." To appreciate the experience, the character must want more than the accumulation of prowess. There must be a visceral response to watching a project grow, for its own sake. Can players be satisfied with laying out money to "build" the estate piece by piece, as nothing more than diagrams, lists of assets and liabilities, along with tiny details recording outputs, shortages and spoilage?
I have my doubts. I'd like to make the process "sexy," but without the physical manifestation of the real property, we're stuck with representations in maps,diagrams and numbers.
Just think about it. Give me some feedback.
There are many persistent nation simulators online that I'm familiar with, particular Land of Lords and NationStates. Both of these have thousands of active players (although still small in the grand scheme of things).
ReplyDeleteI only mention them to point out that these run almost entirely on lists of numbers as you describe. The players make decisions based on these numbers, and the satisfaction in playing these games is entirely derived from watching the effect your decisions have in growing your domain.
So some people want this (or at least a form of it). The question is whether that demand translates to D&D and whether it justifies the labor to make the system work smoothly.
I think, on some level, we have to accept that the player already wants something that goes along with the acquisition of followers.
ReplyDeleteThat is to say: if I'm playing a wizard and I'm interested in studying magic, making scrolls and items, and maybe traveling to other planes, what good does having followers do for me? An apprentice or three, sure; maybe even a small gathering, enough to form a school or maybe even a guild, if I'm inclined to put the means of production under my direct control. But an army? Lands that I have to tend to and care for? Please, let's just hand gold over to the local Lord, call it a donation to the church and let him sort these things out.
. . . but here's the thing.
That example ~ a wizard whose only concern is the advancement of his knowledge ~ gets a lot of benefits from having his own army. Followers should be more loyal than hirelings. Not as much as a henchman but not likely to turn traitor for a bit of gold, either.
If we think about the steps this wizard must take to acquire his knowledge and resources, it becomes apparent that having direct control of NPCs, and not having to pay or influence someone who is under the rule of someone else . . . that's extreme impactful to the game.
Take any class stereotype
~ the bard who wants to experience life and write an epic saga
~ the thief who wants to build a criminal empire
~ the assassin who wants revenge against those who wronged his family
~ the druid who wants a Homeland for her people
honestly, I'm having a hard time coming up with a goal that isn't somehow helped by having people and resources at your neck and call.
Doesn't this depend on the players?
ReplyDeleteI know the common belief is players don't care about this sort of thing, they wish to be murder-hobos with zero attachments.
This...has not been my experience. And maybe that is derived from having always played with adults and as an adult.
But I feel like having the option has value, even if the players don't want it. Because it provides rules that bind the DM, and provides options if the player's goals change.
My feeling has been that players act like murder-hobos because DMs use any attachment the players have to screw over players. As you noted previously, these rules require the DM not to abuse the trust players are placing in them.
Many DMs are not up to this.
Okay, but past the question of "should," what would we call the immediate in-game goals for the characters, as opposed to the players?
ReplyDeleteAh, are you asking "once a player's character acquires a fiefdom and has grown it to a self-sustaining level, what comes next?"
ReplyDeleteYes, what does the character use it for?
ReplyDeleteHmm. Some ideas:
ReplyDelete1. Politics - now that the player is a major landowner in a region, they have a say and bested interest in local politics. Some players may be interested in leveraging this to become major figures in a region.
2. Dynasty - You note that money is rarely an issue, but some players may want to obtain the kind of wealth that can found a noble lineage.
3. War - It would require drafting rules for mass combat, but perhaps the characters wish to use this fiefdom to defend a region or conquer another region.
4. Exploration - Traveling is expensive, especislly long distances to dangerous lands. Perhaps the fiefdom exists to generate wealth to fund excursions to the forgotten places in the world.
A lot of these blend into one another. I could probably simplify it to this: for some, a fiefdom is a means to end, a place to hold and acquire capital to acheive other goals; while others may view the fiefdom as an end in of itself.
I think individual characters would need to develop their own goals. A magic user could desure a fiefdom to feed and defend his or her experiments/research (recall your posts aboit developing new spells), a cleric may want a fiefdom to expsnd his or her religion's influence in an area, etc.
Ok, character goals . . .
ReplyDeleteTo take a look at my Dargunn campaign (https://42ducktape.blogspot.com/p/federation-of-dargunn_21.html) where we built up a nation state from scratch, and frequently switched DMs.
Our character goals at the beginning was simply survival after we were captured by a hobgoblin tribe. Even after becoming 'leaders' of that tribe we were still just trying to survive, the shaman had complete control/leverage over us. After we had conquered the 2 nearest tribes, we had garnered personal loyalty among the original tribe and our influence began to outstrip that of the shaman. At this point we were able to begin pursuing our own goals with our own personal army. We went on a campaign to conquer all the hobgoblins in the forest and we began to establish trade between the humans and hobgoblins. I guess you could say the goals of our PCs was to stop the constant warfare between hobgoblin tribes and to introduce some level of 'civilization' to them. Eventually the PCs goals shifted to maintaining the peace between all the disparate groups that made up the federation and defending it from outside threats. The Adventure logs may not reflect this very well, but we ended up devoting a significant portion of our sessions to logistics of troop movements, number crunching food shortages and trade exports and imports and population growth, effects of disease, etc. We later abandoned this style of play when we got new players who were interested in more 'traditional' adventures. So yeah, players have to want it. The PC goals though were basically to maintain the power and peace of the nation they had personally had a hand in building, and as soon as we got players who didn't have PCs who were part of that process, those players weren't interested in that type of game.
I would think that possessing land would allow access to the "halls of power", the King's Parliament, House of Lords kind of thing. I would use it as a stepping stone to achieving some power and influence in that arena. And the better run your estates are, the better your prospects are for an advantageous marriage and establishing a line.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if my last comment really answered your question.
ReplyDeleteI think the benefits of being a ruler might be self evident, power and influence and recognition by NPCs to whom the PCs were previously inconsequential. Going back to Dargunn, we ended up fighting 2 major empires, and had a major influence on their internal politics and dominated the affairs of smaller neighboring kingdoms. In short we used our our nation as way to influence the actions and behaviors of other powerful NPCs and states. A fief may not have such a large influence, but would be used in the same way.
okay, to be clear, I've thought of these myself, and the immediate responses to the question are very gratifying and indicative of the interest that exists.
ReplyDeleteIf you'll forgive me for being pedantic, some folks out there don't immediately see the benefits of "access to the halls of power." A work needs to address this element of the fiefdom ~ first and foremost to my mind, ahead the accumulation of capital and the development of resources towards direct action ~ to the common player. Given that all is make-believe, how does the DM cause this access to the halls of power to possess the same emotional impact as, say, crushing a hobgoblin's head with a mace?
Again, apologies for pedantry; but while I get a kick out of it, I'm unclear at present on how to express the point that YOU, ordinary common player and not a regular reader of my blog, should get a kick out of it too.
It is far less visceral, and that makes it thst much harder to get across.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I would say this: this kind of system (and anything similar) allows you to directly affect the world in a new way.
In most D&D games, you are Sir Galahad. You do your quest and you disappear. While you may have saved sone people, these people don't mean anything to you. You have no relationship, no investment, in anything beyond the immediate gains.
With this, there is opportunity to create relationships that have meaning and allow a player to get invested. Maybe you have an especially efficient follower you like. Sometimes, just the concept of owning something in this world gives it meaning. Hell, maybe the baker is mediocre at his job, but you keep him on anyway because you like his name or accent (in my game, my player's scribe is barely adequate, but they refuse to fire him because he has one leg and they feel responsible for his well-being; no, they had nothing to do with him losing a leg, players are weird).
And if done well, that ownership is meaningful. A player can say "that land is my land, it produces X, and if I manage it well, I can use that." It creates stability in a game that often caters to instability.
I also think if players are introduced to rules that are transparent and not subjected to DM fiat, they will respond in a good way.
That's very well put, James. I couldn't do it.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, no campaign where this has been successful did we as players decide we wanted to become rulers, it was always something that just happened. There was a snowball effect, one thing led to another. Anytime a specific PC wanted to become a ruler or set up a stronghold of some sort, it conflicted with the goals of the rest of the party. In my experience, it has to naturally evolve that the PCs get more authority/responsibilities until they are no longer playing the 'adventure' game and are instead focusing on domain management.
ReplyDeleteMaybe so, Lance, but I can hardly base rules for estate management on that pretense. Obviously, I have to begin with the assumption that the player want, or have somehow gained, property, and are now interested in deliberately developing it.
ReplyDeleteFrom your comment, it sounds to me like the "snowball effect" was more, the DM put you through a series of hoops that rewarded you with the DM's agenda. That is not the goal here. We should expect that players will have to do the heavy lifting themselves, and not expect to suddenly, without intent, find themselves in charge of everything.
I think safety/security is a big goal for both characters and players. A permanent place to keep their things, to rest, to resupply without the risk that comes from having antagonized powerful people (something that often happens in my games). Running a fief gives the players some agency in choosing blocks they want to have permanent access to, enhancing their resting, giving them a place to view art, etc.
ReplyDeleteI mean that neither the DM nor the player start the game with this as a goal. These types of campaigns have worked best when the campaign begins as normal, but the desire to gain control of piece of land may arise among the PCs and the party works towards that goal, or when an opportunity presents itself unexpectedly and the pcs seize the initiative. The majority of the players, including the DM, were always interested in moving the game in this direction. When a single player/PC had this goal it never materialized, or the rest of the party resented them for it if that pc did gain some land. My point is that it was always an organic process and the group as whole has to want it.
ReplyDeleteI think this is what Matt Coleville was trying to do with his recent supplement. He was providing reasons for the pcs to want to control a fief, and gave the opportunity for the whole party to participate, while avoiding the number crunching that is most associated with estate management.
I think your rules for henchman are a start for moving PCs in the direction of rulership maybe. Each PC gradually gains more loyal henchman until they are in charge of a sizable network. If this can be applied to gaining a fief, there could be a series of incremental steps to gaining your own land, starting with gaining a loyal following and ending with becoming a vassal.
But AGAIN, Lance (and I don't know why you're being obtuse about this), I can't write the actual rules from the perspective of the player's motivations. You get that, right?
ReplyDeleteAs far as Colville is concerned, no surprise there. This is a man who condones and even promotes fudging, thinks the game is about a story, waffles on about the privileges of role-playing riding rough-shod over the rules and has yet to show an iota of discipline. He's everything that 5e likes about a DM, and is thus a vomitous mess.
The emotional impact of crushing a hobgoblin's head comes from a few things.
ReplyDeleteFirst, there's the game element. I have a challenge before me ~ kill the gob before he kills me ~ and I have the process and limits of the game, within which to accomplish that goal. There's certainty in my character's skills, powers and assets; there's uncertainty in how the DM will play my enemy and how the dice will roll. When I eventually land that killing blow, especially if there's a Nat 20 involved, the emotional experience is built upon the relationship between my plan (the known) and the dice (the unknown).
But there's more to it than just the mechanics. There's a story. No, I'm not changing my position on the matter, I'm acknowledging that, when fighting the hobgoblin, there's a context to the situation; a story inside my head that tells me why I'm there and what I'm trying to accomplish by killing this creature. When I succeed (or if I fail), the event carries emotional weight.
The former ~ looking at mechanics ~ requires a system that involves risk. It's not enough to say that my fief produces X bushels of grain each season. There should be a risk involved with it. Where I see an issue is that combat is naturally risky, in real life. Plowing fields is not. Or rather, there is risk but it's the sort that occurs over a much longer period of time.
The latter ~ context driven impact ~ well, that will always depend on the circumstances of the game, what has happened before, who the players know, how their goals conflict, and so on. And that's not so much a matter of game rules as it is presentation technique.
Or am I completely off the reservation?
Any meaningful management of an estate will require a sacrifice of real time. A conscious decision to say, "We wait six months, doing this, that and the other thing," followed by a compendium of effects and events, causing the players to decide, "Then we should move this here, that there and stop this other thing, or double it," etcetera.
ReplyDeleteI'm working on the risk element, but I don't have a definitive amount of content yet.