Resources For Running A City

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey y'all,

Setting up a campaign in which my players have taken control of a small city. Does anyone have any recommendations on rulesets that:


Offer interesting choices as a result of play
Feed into adventure creation
Propel play forward with meaningful consequences
Interact with faction play


I've already seen Kingdoms and Warfare, and I was not impressed. I'm more than willing to buy something off DM's Guild, but I need a starting place.

[kazaryu]

Hey y'all,

Setting up a campaign in which my players have taken control of a small city. Does anyone have any recommendations on rulesets that:


Offer interesting choices as a result of play
Feed into adventure creation
Propel play forward with meaningful consequences
Interact with faction play


I've already seen Kingdoms and Warfare, and I was not impressed. I'm more than willing to buy something off DM's Guild, but I need a starting place.

i mean...there's the predecessor to K&W, strongholds and followers. (i say predecessor, realistically the two books are meant to cover different things).

this isn't an endorsement, its been a while since i've looked through that book, but it *is* an option. and im fairly sure that, while most of the rules are about the stronghold itself. like, the benefits its provides, how to upgrade it etc. There is some stuff in there about generating adventures, since that is largely matt colville's whole schtick.

idk, might have some ideas for you.

[MaryPoppinsYall]

Minsc and Boo's had some solid city stuff in it.

[Sparky McDibben]

i mean...there's the predecessor to K&W, strongholds and followers. (i say predecessor, realistically the two books are meant to cover different things).

this isn't an endorsement, its been a while since i've looked through that book, but it *is* an option. and im fairly sure that, while most of the rules are about the stronghold itself. like, the benefits its provides, how to upgrade it etc. There is some stuff in there about generating adventures, since that is largely matt colville's whole schtick.

idk, might have some ideas for you.

My problem with S&F was that it didn't really prompt interesting choices, it was just all adds to the character sheet. More stuff to track (which my PCs forgot about), not anything that required actual thought. I was able to bring it out, but it was a lot of work on me.


Minsc and Boo's had some solid city stuff in it.

Thanks - was that information on how to run a city environment, or how the PCs can interact with civic functions?

[Sorinth]

Not sure about supplements but the easiest way is to use the downtime rules and treat it like running a business but with extra complications that build/sour relationships with important NPCs in the city.

[zlefin]

It's not that good in terms of interesting gameplay; but you could mine pathfinder 1's kingdom building and settlement rules for things you could use. They're free online from the srd
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/kingdom-building/


If nothing else the list of events could help for suitable adventures.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/kingdom-building/events/

[Sparky McDibben]

It's not that good in terms of interesting gameplay; but you could mine pathfinder 1's kingdom building and settlement rules for things you could use. They're free online from the srd
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/kingdom-building/


If nothing else the list of events could help for suitable adventures.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/kingdom-building/events/

Thanks! This helps with consequences; does anyone have anything that helps with player choices?

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey, has anyone tried Balduran's Guide to Kingdom Building? Wanting to know before I buy if it's any good.

[Incorrect]

Strongholds and Followers are more for a single powerful building.

I can endorse the Pathfinder stuff, as the best I have seen so far. Not perfect, but pretty good.
The GM should set up the initial town, as it is already. Then go through a few seasons so the players learn the different stats. Then maybe have the city folk ask for a specific building, so the players learn how to build stuff.
Afterwards the players should have a pretty good grasp of how it works.

Always remember that the town is secondary to the story. You are not playing Households&Horses :smallwink:

[BeholderEyeDr]

Hey, has anyone tried Balduran's Guide to Kingdom Building? Wanting to know before I buy if it's any good.
Given what you initially described, I don't think it's what you want. Briefly, Balduran's lets you build a city like a character, with ability scores built up from all sorts of different buildings, which come with secondary benefits. Then it describes a way of pitting city vs. city via a mass combat system. It's good if your PCs lead a city, want to build it up over the course of a campaign, and pit it against other cities via warfare. But that didn't seem like what you were initially asking for. You might be able to hack it somehow (the specific buildings being built depending on the PC's adventures, or favor within a faction, or something), but it'd probably be easier to just build it yourself.

I'm actually in a game now with a strong kingdom-management element, and we've used simple rules with great success. I'll spend a bit writing up the rules, informally, and get back to you. Might be helpful!

[Sparky McDibben]

I'm actually in a game now with a strong kingdom-management element, and we've used simple rules with great success. I'll spend a bit writing up the rules, informally, and get back to you. Might be helpful!

That sounds like a godsend, especially with your focus on getting the mechanics right! Thanks so much!

[BeholderEyeDr]

That sounds like a godsend, especially with your focus on getting the mechanics right! Thanks so much!
Eh, no promises on that front, this is just a little set of rules my group hacked together to do what we want. :) It's worked really well for us---maybe it'll work for you, or at least provide some food for thought!

[BeholderEyeDr]

Took a little bit to put together, but here it is!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tY82uB_tsYkC9V9MsSDiobg6ZTPdroTj/view?usp=sharing

As I said before, this is a slightly updated, polished version of the rules I'm currently using in a campaign with significant kingdom building elements. They've worked really well for us, and maybe they'll work for you! A few comments:


The original rules had only three attributes, Military, Espionage (called Subterfuge), and Lore. That simplifies things a lot, but I feel it wasn't expansive enough to cover all the actions we wanted to do without some significant stretching. I want to try six in the next version, to see if that helps. I also like the direct parallel to abilities.
In the original rules, you couldn't repeat using an attribute until you've used all of them at least once. This was to prevent only investing in one attribute and using it for everything. Having played in this kind of game now, I think context and story are enough to discourage this kind of behavior: there are just going to be some problems you can't or don't want to solve with Military. Still, it's definitely something I'm thinking about.
This doesn't mention factions explicitly, but I think they would be easy to work in. You can have factions be related to attributes, so your dominion actions are directly related to factions you try to use and how they help you (or don't). You could have factions (or faction agents) be assets, so as you earn repute with a faction, they support and aid you---but what do they want in return? Or you could just have the factions as major players in the dominion-level plot hooks and complications, something the PCs will have to engage with via dominion gameplay.
It's still a little wishy-washy on the DM side, asking the DM to do a lot of adjudicating and making stuff up. To a degree this is unavoidable, since it is a narrative system, but I think there's room to be more specific and help DMs out. If I ever do another iteration on this, that's probably the main thing I'm going to focus on.
By design, these rules are more about creating political stories and affecting wide change, and less about pitting dominions vs. other dominions. They're completely PC-facing, with NPC forces handled in an ad hoc manner by the DM. There's no notion of hit points, for example, and you can't lose any of your stuff. This is all fine and has worked well, but I feel there's room to add some mechanical bite to consequences for failure or unwise play. It also kind of just feels weird to present a system where dominions can never grow weaker or dissolve. This is also probably something I'd think about if I were to iterate further.


I'd love to hear any feedback or answer any questions you may have. And if you look at this and decide it's not for you, no worries! (Though I would love to hear why, since that itself is valuable feedback.)

[Sparky McDibben]

Took a little bit to put together, but here it is!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tY82uB_tsYkC9V9MsSDiobg6ZTPdroTj/view?usp=sharing

As I said before, this is a slightly updated, polished version of the rules I'm currently using in a campaign with significant kingdom building elements. They've worked really well for us, and maybe they'll work for you! A few comments:


The original rules had only three attributes, Military, Espionage (called Subterfuge), and Lore. That simplifies things a lot, but I feel it wasn't expansive enough to cover all the actions we wanted to do without some significant stretching. I want to try six in the next version, to see if that helps. I also like the direct parallel to abilities.
In the original rules, you couldn't repeat using an attribute until you've used all of them at least once. This was to prevent only investing in one attribute and using it for everything. Having played in this kind of game now, I think context and story are enough to discourage this kind of behavior: there are just going to be some problems you can't or don't want to solve with Military. Still, it's definitely something I'm thinking about.
This doesn't mention factions explicitly, but I think they would be easy to work in. You can have factions be related to attributes, so your dominion actions are directly related to factions you try to use and how they help you (or don't). You could have factions (or faction agents) be assets, so as you earn repute with a faction, they support and aid you---but what do they want in return? Or you could just have the factions as major players in the dominion-level plot hooks and complications, something the PCs will have to engage with via dominion gameplay.
It's still a little wishy-washy on the DM side, asking the DM to do a lot of adjudicating and making stuff up. To a degree this is unavoidable, since it is a narrative system, but I think there's room to be more specific and help DMs out. If I ever do another iteration on this, that's probably the main thing I'm going to focus on.
By design, these rules are more about creating political stories and affecting wide change, and less about pitting dominions vs. other dominions. They're completely PC-facing, with NPC forces handled in an ad hoc manner by the DM. There's no notion of hit points, for example, and you can't lose any of your stuff. This is all fine and has worked well, but I feel there's room to add some mechanical bite to consequences for failure or unwise play. It also kind of just feels weird to present a system where dominions can never grow weaker or dissolve. This is also probably something I'd think about if I were to iterate further.


I'd love to hear any feedback or answer any questions you may have. And if you look at this and decide it's not for you, no worries! (Though I would love to hear why, since that itself is valuable feedback.)

Summary of feedback:
This is probably what I'm going to use; the basic system is terse, well-written, and easy to hold in your head, which allows for adjudication at the table. There's a couple of things I'd tweak and a BUNCH of ways you could expand this, but the foundation itself is heckin' durable.

Actual feedback:
Hey Doc, this is decent stuff. It's really nice to have something that's easily explained to the players in 10 minutes. I like how the six attributes mimic those of the PC game, although mirroring Constitution with Commerce is a smidge...Ayn-Rand-esque? :smallbiggrin:

Layout is good and communicates what you're going for easily and quickly. Keeping the whole thing to four pages (including variant rules) is honestly impressive.

I saw your callout about how wishy-washy it was for the DM. I'm OK with that; rules for monsters (or opposing realms) have never been the same as the rules for PCs in 5e, so I can fill in the blanks. Besides, I get to come up with some awesome opponent abilities, like the dwarves getting access to the Deep Roads, which give them an advantage to their Commerce checks.

I also like your callout on factions - I think I'd just stat them up using dominion rules. This especially goes in an intrigue game, where you might have a thieves' guild, a local church, and the city government all vying for advantage. I like Stars Without Number-style faction turn nonsense in the abstract, but I've literally never had time to use those rules in a game. With these rules, I don't have to! It's just an opposed check between two factions, decide which assets they're employing, and then drop the PCs in the middle. Fucl<ing cool, dude!

One thing I noted that I'd want to change, though. That's assets. This is waaay better than Balduran's Guide to Kingdom Building (which I purchased before you offered your feedback on that idea, because I am constitutionally incapable of chill). That supplement has a bizarre "tech-tree" approach that they never put in an actual chart, and it drives me bananas. Great idea, mediocre execution. Your implementation is just much easier to hold in my head - do they have a relevant asset that could do a thing here? Then apply the power bonus.

However, this sacrifices the choices the PCs have to make in terms of what they want to improve. For example, the PCs have acquired some cash, and now want to improve their aggressive options. Right now, they can sink gold into Military, up to a maximum of 9,000 gp. That's a pretty flat choice - just pick one attribute and pay the gold cost. I'm guessing this is because you were trying to keep it simple, which I appreciate!

What I'll probably do is give each asset a die-size (d4 to d12) instead of the power bonus. When they use that asset, they add the asset's die roll to the total. Improving the asset's die size involves a player decision (how are they improving the asset) and (at minimum) some kind of interaction, and up to 10,000 gp (though clever play can reduce the costs).

So if you want to improve the Stone Legion, the dwarven outcasts serving as your expeditionary force, you can get all their axes enchanted by the local mage guild. That's going to require some negotiation, potentially some bribery, and maybe even a trip to the Evergreen Woods to rescue some of the mages' brethren from the fey nobility.

I think this makes it more of a choice - you're trading flexibility for specialization. If you just upgrade Military, sure, you get a +1 bonus to all Military checks. But upgrading your asset makes you better at a single specialized kind of Military option, albeit with highly variable results.

Finally, you're completely correct that dominions should be able to degrade as well as upgrade, but I think you've already hit upon the solution. Instead of using hit points, just have hostile action damage attribute scores. So a lost battle loses the PCs 1d4 Military, for example. You could actually take that a step further, and let the PCs decide how much of an ability score they want to invest in a given venture. That's all v3 or v4 feedback, though.

If you want to, you have the bones of a viable DMsGuild product here. If you want to go that route, of course, you'd want to include (at minimum) a dominion character sheet, DM guidance (including how PCs can go about recruiting assets, Complications generators, and 4 - 6 sample dominions). I'd be willing to pay at least $6 US for that product, and up to $15 if you do something awesome like sample cartography of strongholds, or an included adventure.

If you don't want to go this route, of course, that's totally fine. I just figured I'd mention it, because these rules are really solving some issues for me.

Suggestions / Things I'm Going To Do To Your System:

A Dominion character sheet
Standardizing gp input to 10k gp; that buys you either 1 ability score improvement (as standard for 5e), 1 "dominion feat" or upgrades 1 existing asset
Add "feats" to the realms, like Unshakeable Faith: This dominion's Piety score increases by 1. In addition, their Piety score cannot be reduced by a foreign power's Piety check, and this realm can add 1d4 to the result of any dominion action check result once per dominion turn.


Oh, man. Now my head's just buzzing with character options for dominions - like could I do something like a warlock pact with the PCs liege lord as the patron? Or give a particularly religious dominion something like a paladin oath?

Doc, you're a mensch. Thanks!

[BeholderEyeDr]

This is all really great feedback, thanks so much! I'm glad you like what's here, and I'm glad you've been inspired to take it and make it your own. I'd love to hear about both your final edits, and how it does for you!

Passing comment #1: There was a different version of assets where, instead of standing in for skill proficiency, they were standing in for magic items. (They still kind of function this way, with you being able to freely collect them.) So you could have an asset that gave +1 Military when used, +2 Commerce when used, etc. That's pretty similar to what you've described. I eventually didn't go this way because I didn't want asset management to be too much of its own minigame, but there's definitely something to be said for adding an element of wanting to either recruit more potent assets over time, or improve existing assets. Might be good for another variant rule...

Passing comment #2: I actually would recommend against a flat gold cost to improve an attribute, at least if you're letting PCs spend their own actual gold. If you go by the expected treasure curve, it's not flat over time. So dominion improvement would be very slow initially, probably hit a sweet spot, but then become extremely rapid at some point. You need some kind of mitigating or limiting factor. This isn't an issue if you have the dominion's resource pool more or less completely separate from the PCs ("build points" or something), in which case sure, a flat cost would work fine. Of course, since it's your game and you're the DM, you can always just be careful give out exactly the gold rewards you need to get the dominion advancement you want.

Again, thanks so much, and I hope it works for you! If I ever do decide to develop this as a DMsguild supplement, I'll be sure to hit you up for more feedback and brainstorming. :)

EDIT: One other thing that just occurred to me: I've accidentally left out dominion size completely. In our current game, power is actually size, which determines number of actions, the magnitude of certain bonuses, etc. Our game is very focused around empire-building so this makes sense, and has led to some really interesting conversations about where we expand, how we expand, etc. I don't want to lose this, but I'm not sure it should be the only or default option. I'm thinking about removing the "dominions level with PCs" option, making improving with gold (or build points or something) the only way of improving attributes, removing the attribute caps based on power, and making power dependent on either (a) your attribute sum (as it currently is), OR (b) your "size," with some discussion on what that means. I'd love to hear your thoughts about size and expansion, if that's something you intended to be part of your game or not.