Need Advice on Implementing a Campaign Premise

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey brain-trust!

I recently pitched a campaign premise that I realize now I have no idea how to implement. The basic pitch is that this region, a border march, is tearing itself apart as decentralized nobility squabble and fight amongst themselves for control of the marchland. This leads to famine, disease, high death rates among the peasantry, and lots of monsters being drawn to the region. Specifically, I suggested this could be played as the heroes welding a kingdom out of this disparate mess.

I have two pieces I need help with here:


How do I handle disputes between the nobles?
How the hell do I let the players run a kingdom without devolving the game into an RTS?


Anyone who has suggestions on systems or implementations, I'd love to hear them, even if they're outside the box. Please let me know why you're suggesting them. I need something to simulate conflicts between armed powers that may not be visible to the players, but will certainly have an impact on the game world. And I need to know how to run a kingdom easily.

Anybody else who has suggestions on this pitch, I'd love to hear those, too. Anything from the number of minor nobles, to handling a dragon as a faction, to potential campaign-changing events that could occur... hit me with whatever you've got!

[Corsair14]

I think looking up Birthright may be helpful to you.

As for whats going on, have events happen that dont seem right between nobles. Kidnapping a noble child in revenge for some slight that the victims family could not possibly have done. Have a 3rd party working behind the scenes to cause the massive disruption. Even better have the 3rd party be a friendly "stabilizing" force who is deceiving everyone.

[loki_ragnarock]

I have two pieces I need help with here:


How do I handle disputes between the nobles?
How the hell do I let the players run a kingdom without devolving the game into an RTS?


1. Well, it depends on the noble, right? Or the standing of the noble in question. Or what kind of system existed before war broke out.

So, are things decided in honorable trial by combat? Between champions? Probably not, because why are people sacking each other's villages? But maybe that kind of appeal to honor will work for some nobles. Others might have no romantic ideals of honor at all.
So... I guess look at Game of Thrones. You've got Tywin Lannister - a hardass with no romantic notions of nobility - will crush everyone in his path methodically and without mercy. But then you've got Renly Baratheon, surrounded by pageantry, steeping himself and his court in those exact notions.

In a winner take all sort of situation of backbiting nobility, some of them will at least care about the appearances of these sorts of things. Because even if the true lords aren't, the nobility of knights and men at arms that follow them *might* be true believers in that kind of thing. The ones that pay some heed to those appearances will attract those true believers like Brienne of Tarth, the ones that don't will attract monsters like The Mountain.

Some nobles are going to be people looking to survive the madness around them, hitching themselves to the person they think will win in the hopes that they'll be able to keep the things they have. Some will be of the opinion that Chaos is a ladder, seeking to advance themselves in a mercenary fashion. Some will be spiteful $%^&s that will put themselves with whoever lets them kill, inconvenience, or disgrace *that* guy, because $%^& that guy. Some will be pious (or blasphemous (or worse, weird)) and align themselves with a higher calling and the advancement that higher calling.

I'd say make a bunch of characters and find the answer that you think is right for them. Tywin will only call a peace summit if 1) He's in a position where victory is assured, 2) he's in a position where defeat is assured, 3) he's pretty sure he can pull of a Longshanks and... well, longshank the leadership of his enemies. And then think about what kind of characters would serve under a guy with exactly zero romantic notions about nobility who would operate that way.

To resolve conflicts, there generally has to be an appeal to a higher authority of some kind. That can come in the form of tradition, or religion, or military rank, what have you. Figure out what these character consider a higher authority; little kids run to mommy when they really need something settled, and just beat each other up otherwise.

And even with direct conflict... if you've ever played vanilla Mount and Blade you've got a ton of nobility that will fall to your sword time and again. Except, no matter how annoying they are, no matter how many times you crush those thorns in your side, you can only capture them and ransom them. You can't murder them. Is that how social mores manifest in your setting? Or can they just off with his head, snickersnack?

And if so, who is the one running about violating those mores?
Lots of questions to a question type stuff.

For point 2:
Just embrace the RTS aspects.

[Amnestic]

How do I handle disputes between the nobles?

Depends on the dispute, depends on the nobles. Ideally you'll have a brief descriptor of each major player (even if it's just a personality trait or two) to lean on. Maybe if you're really unsure draw up a table of possible resolutions (eg. Party A wins decisively, Party A wins slightly, Neither Win, Both Give up, Party B wins slightly, Party B wins decisively) and roll against it when the players aren't directly involved. Fudge if it doesn't feel like the 'right' solution, because really you're telling a story, you don't only need to listen to the dice for that aspect.



How the hell do I let the players run a kingdom without devolving the game into an RTS?


Pathfinder: Kingmaker has some kingdom running stuff but I'd have a sit down with your players and find out how invested they would be in the minutiae of running a kingdom. You don't need to have them setting tax codes and determining zoning regulations if they don't want to. Foist that off screen to NPC majordomos while the party sets "major" policy/kingdom direction. Give them choices to make - have the NPCs ask for advice or guidance - and have them deal with important situations or diplomats, but they don't need to be involved with the majority of the actual kingdom running.

D&D is a game about going on adventures. If they stop doing that to just play Mayor all day it's probably not the best game for it, and the characters should consider retiring and rolling up new ones, but you can balance running a kingdom with also going on adventures if you want to.

[Iku Rex]

There are some 5e 3rd party supplements for this sort of thing.

Strongholds & Followers: https://shop.mcdmproductions.com/products/strongholds-followers-pdf

Ultimate Kingdoms: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/303697/Ultimate-Kingdoms-5E

(I haven't looked too closely at either.)

[Chugger]

None of the players can be "big league" enough nobles to be accepted as a ruler in this place - you have to have been born into a major noble family to rule here, to get everyone to accept you as a king. A player w/ a noble background is noble but not high-standing enough to be this king. Further limit it by saying they really need to pick among several contenders - maybe make it kind of obvious that the one to pick is Princess Gertrude over here in the east - she's less psychotic than any other noble in this area and has qualities of good leadership, might make a really good queen - but her fief is on the weak side. The party will be the "power behind the throne" - she'll give them titles if they get her the throne - she'll make them barons or something, and they can hire a manager to run the bean counting, boring part of that and have small castles - or perhaps that's the end of the campaign, when she is crowned and then weathers the final attacks that happen after she's crowned.

Party should be her commandos - for the most part - taking out monsters that are devastating a potential ally - if party can kill these hobgoblins or ogres or w/e or drive them away, the Duke of Pansy will back Princess Gertrude. Maybe the party has to steal money from really bad noble who murders his own people without getting caught, so Gertrude can upgrade her army and/or hire mercenaries. You get the idea.