Strongholds, followers and PCs

[RossN]

I started playing in the late AD&D 2nd edition and even though I've played much more 3.5 I've got a lot of fondness for the older systems. I've even been strongly tempted to run a PbP game using a retroclone. Anyway one part I always got interested in was the idea that around level 9 or 10 the PCs would build strongholds, get titles and their own set of followers and turn into local ruler types.

I've never actually played in a campaign that reached that level but I'd love to hear any stories from those whose games got there and how they worked in practice. Did you (or your players if you were the DM) carve a domain out of the wilderness or get granted land by some king? What sort of adventures happened?

[SowZ]

I started playing in the late AD&D 2nd edition and even though I've played much more 3.5 I've got a lot of fondness for the older systems. I've even been strongly tempted to run a PbP game using a retroclone. Anyway one part I always got interested in was the idea that around level 9 or 10 the PCs would build strongholds, get titles and their own set of followers and turn into local ruler types.

I've never actually played in a campaign that reached that level but I'd love to hear any stories from those whose games got there and how they worked in practice. Did you (or your players if you were the DM) carve a domain out of the wilderness or get granted land by some king? What sort of adventures happened?

In my experience, that's usually epilogue type stuff. After a good campaign, everyone talks about what they did afterwards and the DM/player agree on what is reasonable and what isn't. Maybe a post resolution session where there is some dice light, time accelerated gaming determining everyone's fate. The DM may take into account the players resources, allies, standing, and actions leading up to the end of the campaign to determine what happens OR he may let the player determine it all himself almost like backstory and hope he/she isn't too crazy with it. Either way, there is usually some collaboration. As a DM, I prefer to account for variables post-campaign but at least satisfy most of what a player wants.

Maybe other people play these out in detail but I haven't encountered them.

[Yora]

I prefer to keep these things entirely to events in the campaign and places and NPCs the PCs have encountered so far. Pinning it to an arbitrary XP count doesn't really provide any benefit.

The one time I was in a game with rotating GMs (which is BAD!), the previous adventure ended with the party clearing out a keep of orcs on the frontier, so I started the next adventure with people from a nearby village showing up at the gate pleading for help offering their loyalty and the payment of tribute. That was the only thing that came to mind that would motivate a gang of self centered hooligans who are in the business for the Evulz. And it did work reasonably well.

[Malrone]

As it stands, I've never reached a "settling down" point in a campaign, myself. Started a story as a would-be king once before being exiled from the land I built with my own hands and fortune, and the current 3.5 setting is DM ruled to have no player Leadership.

My stepdad has some stories though. Waxed nostalgic about his AD&D 2nd fighter Dragonslayer (named thusly as before the title he was just a number) who was of a party that bought out a small fishing port. They slowly upgraded it up to a full merchant docks and a town grew up that they were the de facto rulers of. Settled into a castle they built set into a box canyon (and embedded into the mountain) half a day out. Oh how he boasted of the impenetrable nature of that hold.

[Roland St. Jude]

We did this quite often with the BECMI set. I continue to recommend this set (and play it) because it offers elegant scaling from being little different from an average peasant up through rulership and (in a less elegant manner) cosmic scale adventures.

We'd spend a long time working our way through Basic and Expert levels with a staggering mortality rate but some amazing adventures. We were quite excited to have a character reach Name level and begin conquering, carving out, or being awarded land. Our characters still adventured, now on a national or continental scale, but we also got to play the built in stronghold building, domain managing, and war waging mini-games in the Companion and Masters sets. Our adventures funded our domestic efforts, but it was difficult to leave such a massive investment behind to go adventuring.

I remember throwing festivals, managing tournament lists, fending off raiding armies, and getting mad over the deaths of my subjects. The idea of keeping peasant (and nobility) loyalty and morale itself was a bit of a mini-game, as was army-level combat. I also recall designing castles and outposts with particular attention to defensibility but also livability and magnificence.

At earlier levels, our characters cleared out and captured little caves or outposts that we tried to lay claim to in hopes that they could later become trap-laden hideouts for Name level thieves or safehouses to stash individuals or secrets.

[Clistenes]

An idea I had some time ago but I never developed: Couldn't all the characters have the option to pick non-combat bonus social/profession/crafting/background feats?

That way every character could be optimiced for combat AND developed as a character with other skills and ambitions beyond the field of Murderology.

A character could choose the Leadership route and gain quite an entourage, another the Landholder route and build a great castle, another would become a master diplomat, another one would become a great merchant and haggler that gets everything by a lower price, and other would become a creator of magic items.

Of course each feat should be justified by your character background, no point giving a cha 6 half-orc barbarian who has spent all his life being raised by bears the High Society feat.

[hymer]

There's a different field from murderology?

But seriously, I tried this once. I pretty much just offered the players what would be like a free feat and four skill points for free, on the proviso it was used on something that built character.
All of them built their character further inside the field of murderology. I haven't tried anything like it since.

I love the idea, but I haven't developed it sufficiently.

[JohnnyCancer]

There's a new retro-clone called Adventurer Conqueror King that has a strong focus on domain building at higher levels. They're all class-oriented as well; fighters go for the traditional castle and army arrangement, clerics get temples with acolytes and lay followers, thieves get guilds, and magic-users make towers and dungeons (to attract monsters that can be farmed for spell components/magic item fodder or monster hybridization).

[thirdkingdom]

There's a new retro-clone called Adventurer Conqueror King that has a strong focus on domain building at higher levels. They're all class-oriented as well; fighters go for the traditional castle and army arrangement, clerics get temples with acolytes and lay followers, thieves get guilds, and magic-users make towers and dungeons (to attract monsters that can be farmed for spell components/magic item fodder or monster hybridization).

I am a huge fan of ACKS; one of the neat things it does is introduce the concept of playing in tiers, so you might have one PC that is a high level ruler, guildmaster, etc., a second mid-level character doing the hex-crawl thing, and a low-level PC just starting out in a dungeon.

[Narren]

There's a different field from murderology?

But seriously, I tried this once. I pretty much just offered the players what would be like a free feat and four skill points for free, on the proviso it was used on something that built character.
All of them built their character further inside the field of murderology. I haven't tried anything like it since.

I love the idea, but I haven't developed it sufficiently.

I give my players an extra skill point per level (and the 4 freebies at lvl 1) for a background skill. They've always used it for fluff, and will occasionally find a practical use for it. I don't shoehorn those situations, though, so it's always rewarding when they figure one out.

[Yukitsu]

I always, always take landlord and leadership in 3.5, just because I think random truant is less interesting than a baron, or a canny store chain owner, or the arch dean of a wizard academy. They work well when all that is for a flavour base, but since I did take feats from them, when I'm there I'll take advantage of the services I can provide myself. I also use the leverage of the fact that I'm a baron, or a rich merchant with a huge market square, or a big wizarding icon who the best and brightest go to learn from when roleplaying, because it adds I think, a dimension that most characters don't have, that being some sense of legitimate authority.

[PersonMan]

At the same time, there's something nice about playing someone without any strong ties to land or followers. There are plenty of concepts that are "otherwise dirt poor champion of the people" which wouldn't benefit from Landlord and for whom Leadership doesn't really work out that well.

Then there are the feat starved builds, like one I'm working on right now, which don't have the room for Landlord/Leadership...on the other hand, the character really isn't the leader/landlord type. At all.

[DigoDragon]

In the longest running campaign I ever ran, the PCs decided around level 18 to pool money together and buy a run down tavern. It was located in a nice city that was an easy ride to other prominant towns and the tavern served as a base of operations for their adventurers.
They didn't have followers of their own, but they used the tavern as a networking place for young up-and-coming adventurers to find a group.

It was supposed to be part of an epilogue for the end of the campaign and should we ever go back to that setting, they have a starting point for fresh level 1 characters.

We never did trythat, but several months (real-time) later the founding party came back for one last epic adventure. It began in their taven... and actually ended there too after a long quest to slay a couple demigods. The characters officially retired around level 22.

[Siegel]

Well if you play a Hardholder, Hocus, Chopper, Maestro'D or Operator in Apocalypse World you START with this ****. Much cool things do happen.

[Clistenes]

There's a different field from murderology?

But seriously, I tried this once. I pretty much just offered the players what would be like a free feat and four skill points for free, on the proviso it was used on something that built character.
All of them built their character further inside the field of murderology. I haven't tried anything like it since.

I love the idea, but I haven't developed it sufficiently.

I give my players an extra skill point per level (and the 4 freebies at lvl 1) for a background skill. They've always used it for fluff, and will occasionally find a practical use for it. I don't shoehorn those situations, though, so it's always rewarding when they figure one out.

You know, it could work if the DM offered the player to take an extra skill points per level plus four extra skill points at level one plus a bonus feat at levels 1-4-8-12-16-20, all to be used to develope the background.

The player should be offered several background packs to choose, and he/she would have to pick his/her extra feats and skill points from there.

Something like:

Farmer pack.
-Feats: Skill Focus (Profession - Farmer), Skill Focus (Handle Animal), Skill Focus (Knowledge - Nature), Skill Focus (Knowledge - Local), Skill Focus (Survival), Animal Affinity, Self-Sufficient, Efficient Hunter, Natural Dowser.
-Skills: Profession - Farmer, Handle Animal, Knowledge - Nature, Knowledge - Local, Survival, Heal.

Merchant Pack.
-Feats: Skill Focus (Profession - Merchant), Skill Focus (Appraise), Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Skill Focus (Bluff), Skill Focus (Sense Motive), Skill Focus (Knowledge - Local), Skill Focus (Knowledge - Nobility and Royalty), Diligent, Wanderer Diplomacy, Polyglot, Appraise Magic Value, City Slicker.
-Skills: Profession - Merchant, Appraise, Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Knowledge - Local, Knowledge - Nobility and Royalty.

It would be easy to make packs for sailors, artists, actors, musicians, travellers, religious/devout people, leaders, landholders, diplomats...etc.

[SowZ]

You know, it could work if the DM offered the player to take an extra skill points per level plus four extra skill points at level one plus a bonus feat at levels 1-4-8-12-16-20, all to be used to develope the background.

The player should be offered several background packs to choose, and he/she would have to pick his/her extra feats and skill points from there.

Something like:

Farmer pack.
-Feats: Skill Focus (Profession - Farmer), Skill Focus (Handle Animal), Skill Focus (Knowledge - Nature), Skill Focus (Knowledge - Local), Skill Focus (Survival), Animal Affinity, Self-Sufficient, Efficient Hunter, Natural Dowser.
-Skills: Profession - Farmer, Handle Animal, Knowledge - Nature, Knowledge - Local, Survival, Heal.

Merchant Pack.
-Feats: Skill Focus (Profession - Merchant), Skill Focus (Appraise), Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Skill Focus (Bluff), Skill Focus (Sense Motive), Skill Focus (Knowledge - Local), Skill Focus (Knowledge - Nobility and Royalty), Diligent, Wanderer Diplomacy, Polyglot, Appraise Magic Value, City Slicker.
-Skills: Profession - Merchant, Appraise, Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Knowledge - Local, Knowledge - Nobility and Royalty.

It would be easy to make packs for sailors, artists, actors, musicians, travellers, religious/devout people, leaders, landholders, diplomats...etc.

Hmmm.... Merchant pack looks... very tasty. Sense motive, Diplomacy, Bluff... These are all things that come up often. I think what would happen is people would pick up packs to free up skills for more combaty things. The ranger was going to take handle animal. Now he doesn't have to. The cleric was going to take Knowledge (Religion.) No need. The rogue wanted bluff and sense motive. All the better for sneaky stuff!

[Clistenes]

Hmmm.... Merchant pack looks... very tasty. Sense motive, Diplomacy, Bluff... These are all things that come up often. I think what would happen is people would pick up packs to free up skills for more combaty things. The ranger was going to take handle animal. Now he doesn't have to. The cleric was going to take Knowledge (Religion.) No need. The rogue wanted bluff and sense motive. All the better for sneaky stuff!

Well, it's only a skill point per level, and I think it's OK as long as they justify it roleplaying their background and don't cheat using the feats and skill to become better killers.

Maximize Survival and Handle Animal because you are a farmer? Fine.
Maximize Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive because you were a traveling peddler? Fine.
Maximize Decipher Scripture, Knowledge (The Planes) and Appraise because you are an scholar? Fine.
Maximize Balance, Climb and Swim because you are a sailor? Fine.
Somehow make a build that allows to convert those skill points into a higher DC for you spells, higher Hide rank, or greater damage for you blade? Not fine!

[Yukitsu]

At the same time, there's something nice about playing someone without any strong ties to land or followers. There are plenty of concepts that are "otherwise dirt poor champion of the people" which wouldn't benefit from Landlord and for whom Leadership doesn't really work out that well.

Then there are the feat starved builds, like one I'm working on right now, which don't have the room for Landlord/Leadership...on the other hand, the character really isn't the leader/landlord type. At all.

I tend to not ever play that sort of character, simply because the "rich orphaned hobo" archetype always sort of felt shallow to me. I couldn't ever reach in to that character and get at what should or would motivate them, and usually it comes down to really bad self interest. I know a ton of people like playing rich orphaned hobos, and the ones in my group explicitly state that it's so they can't give the DM those bad "your family is being held hostage" plot hooks, or "your factory is under attack" or "your dog died". but honestly, those are all better motivation points than "some guy somewhere needs your help and will give money" or even "some guy somewhere needs help, do you have a good or lawful alignment?", or "because you have to or the world is doomed."

Basically, it's about making things more personal to the character. When I'm a player or a DM, I find those sorts of characters really sort of awkward to interact with, since their motivations are partly arbitrary, or just a white and black alignment check. I know why people like playing it, but it really isn't for me.

[Acanous]

This is an awesome idea and I wish more DMs did it.

It's almost exclusive to sandbox games, though.

[Yukitsu]

This is an awesome idea and I wish more DMs did it.

It's almost exclusive to sandbox games, though.

You can take it in linear story lines if you're DM isn't a bit of a mushroom. Ideally, all that really happens is all instances of "you meet in the pub" are replaced by "you meet in Player X' pub." or wherever. If the DM's actually really on the ball, he can simply replace "and then the evil whatevers attack the castle." with "and then the evil whatevers attack Player X' pub." And those are just if the DM is a half step above a complete tool. If he's actually competent, he can usually weave your settled nature into the story.

[PersonMan]

I tend to not ever play that sort of character, simply because the "rich orphaned hobo" archetype always sort of felt shallow to me. I couldn't ever reach in to that character and get at what should or would motivate them, and usually it comes down to really bad self interest. I know a ton of people like playing rich orphaned hobos, and the ones in my group explicitly state that it's so they can't give the DM those bad "your family is being held hostage" plot hooks, or "your factory is under attack" or "your dog died". but honestly, those are all better motivation points than "some guy somewhere needs your help and will give money" or even "some guy somewhere needs help, do you have a good or lawful alignment?", or "because you have to or the world is doomed."

Personally, I've always considered that character-based motivations (in this case, the character has a drive to be unlike her sister as much as possible and will often tackle tasks like "save our village from [threat]" to establish herself as her own person) are better than "[your stuff] is threatened". Whether [your stuff] is equipment or a town or similar makes some difference, but it's still "I don't want to lose what belongs to me, so I'll go defend it".

In a way it's interesting to see how, in essence, our arguments are all but mirrored - "doing stuff because of black/white alignment decisions or getting money is shallow" vs "doing stuff because your stuff is under threat is shallow" is what I can see it as.

I guess it's a playstyle difference, but I do have a few concepts that would benefit from 'officially sanctioned' land/followers in their home region.

Basically, it's about making things more personal to the character. When I'm a player or a DM, I find those sorts of characters really sort of awkward to interact with, since their motivations are partly arbitrary, or just a white and black alignment check. I know why people like playing it, but it really isn't for me.

For me, it's that the character interacts with the world in their own way, rather than simply running on "family/loved ones/property/followers threatened? Resist!" The character finds (or just has) their own reasons for doing what they do, instead of always relying on "well, if I don't, my [important thing] will [be destroyed], so I'll defend you" to justify doing potentially deadly things all the time.

[Clistenes]

About the people who make their high or epic level characters own a castle and run a fiefdom...how do you handle the fact that those characters have probably already made themselves enemies to the likes of Orcus, Pazuzu, Fraz-Urb'luu and Lolth during their previous adventures? Even a single high-level cleric or wizard can easily start a massive undead outbreak or a demon invasion, and while your high-level characters can indeed kill every monster that bothers their subjects, they can't protect them 24 hours/day, 365 days/year...eventually the economy and society of the fiefdom will break and people will escape. And that without even taking into account how evil spellcasters and demon can manipulate public opinion and the will of rulers to make things difficult for you...

I know you can just tell your DM you would like him not to do that, but wouldn't it feel a bit like cheating yourself?

[Kadzar]

What would be the point of playing a stronghold game if your old enemies didn't come after you?

[PersonMan]

What would be the point of playing a stronghold game if your old enemies didn't come after you?

I think his point is more of "any followers of high-level characters will quickly end up dead or leave to avoid dying, since things they cannot hope to fight, hide from or escape will come to massacre them as revenge for their master's actions".

[Kaervaslol]

Check the 2e Castle Guide if you can find it, pretty cool for fortifications.

[Clistenes]

I think his point is more of "any followers of high-level characters will quickly end up dead or leave to avoid dying, since things they cannot hope to fight, hide from or escape will come to massacre them as revenge for their master's actions".

That's exactly what I meant. You're essentially offering your enemies thousands of squishy targets they can use to hurt you.

You may be able to kill ancient red dragons and balors, but a single Shadow, Wraith or Wight sent to one of you villages could mean their doom...and at that level your enemies can churn them really fast (create wight, kidnap hobos, give hobos to wight, teleport hobowights to village and let them have their fun).

And then there is the spell Gate and what could happen if somebody opes a Gate to the Abyss and allows to cross to any demon who wishes to do so...

[Yukitsu]

About the people who make their high or epic level characters own a castle and run a fiefdom...how do you handle the fact that those characters have probably already made themselves enemies to the likes of Orcus, Pazuzu, Fraz-Urb'luu and Lolth during their previous adventures? Even a single high-level cleric or wizard can easily start a massive undead outbreak or a demon invasion, and while your high-level characters can indeed kill every monster that bothers their subjects, they can't protect them 24 hours/day, 365 days/year...eventually the economy and society of the fiefdom will break and people will escape. And that without even taking into account how evil spellcasters and demon can manipulate public opinion and the will of rulers to make things difficult for you...

I know you can just tell your DM you would like him not to do that, but wouldn't it feel a bit like cheating yourself?

A proactive defense and finishing my damn jobs.

[Grommen]

Back in the day, I had a player who's Ranger was high enough level that his follower had a follower. So we had "Rotho, Thryo, and Hyro". Rotho dual welded longswords (2nd edition ranger), and had amassed quite a collection. Stuffing them all into "Golf's Bag of Holding". So before the fight, and imagine this in stuffy British.

"Thyro should I go with the +3 frostbrand or the +4 defender?"
"Why not both sir?"
"Both...Why yes a jolly good idea mate. Both it is. Why don't you use the luck blade, and give the laky the +1."
"Brilliant sir! Shale he go in first?"
"Well certainly, I'm not going to be me. I'm a lord after all, I have people to look after."
"Of coarse sir...Hyro old been! Take this sword and go slay that Dragon."

With another group we got bored one night after saving the kingdom so we decided to oust a rival wizard from his tower. So after evicting him from the tower, the party decided to use it as a base of operations. Over night I plagued them with followers and serfs. When they woke up their was a small village around the tower. Funny how things work out, and the players all rolled with it coming up with their own jobs and roles. We had us a king, queen, royal wizard, head priests, a sheriff and even local rogues guild. Ironically it was all from the same party. By the end of the night of gaming we had founded a city with smaller villages out side of it, and had contracted a local group of Stone giants to help protect the region when the players were gone.

Yet another group began amassing bars and taverns in the cities they visited. It was very strange because every time they went to a new village, the local tavern would burn to the ground and the players were able to buy cheep! Lets see their was the "Flaming Dagger, Cutthroat's Dagger, Assassin's Dagger, The Flying Jimba, and the Nobleman's Blade".

And lastly one of my last campaigns. The party answered a distress call from a little village named Bloodstone, and wound up becoming King and protector of the valley, fighting off an undead army. When they got done with that they embarked on a multi stop tour of the other kingdoms near them saying "You too can have your own Quintion like Ruler!" and handed out pamphlets on how to over throw their king and have "Quintion the Great" installed as ruler and king. They just paraded down main street with carts full of gemstones, passing out flyier.
This did not endear him to the local rulers.

[Kadzar]

I think his point is more of "any followers of high-level characters will quickly end up dead or leave to avoid dying, since things they cannot hope to fight, hide from or escape will come to massacre them as revenge for their master's actions".

AH, well, I haven't looked through or played 1e or 2e, but I'm guessing that, since their advancement is different than 3e, monsters and such were not made to be apocalypse-inducing as the ones in 3e. Either that or you really had to be proactive about your defenses; there's probably a reason you retire in a fortress rather than a fishing village.

[Clistenes]

AH, well, I haven't looked through or played 1e or 2e, but I'm guessing that, since their advancement is different than 3e, monsters and such were not made to be apocalypse-inducing as the ones in 3e. Either that or you really had to be proactive about your defenses; there's probably a reason you retire in a fortress rather than a fishing village.

Actually, if you have Mind Blank, retiring to a fishing village would be the safest option (you would still have to find a way to hide your weapons and other adventurer stuff from Locate Object, but I`m sure there is a way).