|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yeah, there is a BP-to-GP conversion, but it has accompanying Unrest generation. I've used that formula's numbers for commissioning magic items to boost your Proxies (increasing the BP cost appropriately and generating Unrest), but since mercenaries are an ongoing expense, having an ongoing Unrest generation engine seems problematic.
I could just increase their cost without the unrest, but at some point it becomes "why bother instead of recruiting my own?". I'll play with the numbers a bit and see how it goes.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I wish he'd leave his email address instead of his phone number. I take a certain pleasure in signing up spammers to each other's junk email lists.
Philadelphia recently started targeting "Junk signs" (those "Sell homes fast!" type of thing stuck randomly on telephone poles) by adding them to the city's robodialer. Apparently they would get a call every 15 minutes until the signs were taken down. It's supposedly been very effective.
Clearly Paizo needs a robodialer to harass spammers.
Just a FYI: I've actually decided to cut an optional system that added excessive complexity.
Ultimate Battle has a system for recruiting armies day-by-day, a handful of d6s worth at a time. It's a cool system that prevents armies from appearing from nowhere, and it allows you to have a pool of recruits not yet assigned to army units, but it's a huge amount of additional rolling that just doesn't seem worth it to me. You'd need to make up to 30 Loyalty checks (since we work at month-long scales), and then recruit something like 40-60 d6's worth of recruits (depending on buildings and check results).
If people are interested, I'll throw it in. I'm not totally opposed to it - just inclined against it.
I'm also trying to decide how to pay mercenaries, since they typically need gold in addition to BP, but the kingdom's treasury is measured in BP, not gp. Thoughts?
Shouldn't we be getting some significant benefits if we're paying an extra 20 or 40 BP in order to get advanced or monstrous characters? I think that entitles you to a bit more than extra options to pick from. Or am I misunderstanding something?
No, you're directly addressing the tension here. On the one hand, spending BP on a race should give you bonuses for what you spend. On the other hand, spending initial BP for an ongoing benefit that lasts the entire game could be very unbalancing. I'm not striving for perfect balance, just "in the same ballpark".
What I'm thinking is something like "You get three racial benefits", and the stronger races get stronger options to choose from, but are still limited to those three. Thus they don't completely overpower weaker races (because they still only get a few specific benefits), but you do still get something for your points (more & better options).
That being said, this is still very much up in the air, and introneurotic's point is a good one. If it gets too hard to make it work, I'll just cut races back to being an entirely flavor-based option. They were introduced accidentally by the Proxy rules, in order to affect leadership stats, and while I agree it makes sense to have each race be different, it may be too much to deal with for now.
In unrelated news, I've finished writing up all the edicts. That just leaves two major and two minor sections left: Recruiting armies and Mass Combat are the major; finalizing the initial setup rules and the new building-specific information are the minor.
Progress is being made!
Well, I'm back. More or less.
My intent is to balance the races on the meta-level, so even having an amazing race doesn't get you more actual bonuses than a mediocre one, just a better selection to choose the ones you actually will benefit from from.
That being said, I have no idea yet how I'm going to do that. I will ask for at least a little background and description of a custom race, just to give some flavor to what they build. But it is a mechanics-focused game, so it won't be more than a few sentences.
Definitely a good point - I don't want to over-complicate things, since there's already a large number of rules to keep track of. I'll leave the race-specific stuff out for the time being, and graft it in later once everything else is done, based on the races people want to play.
Ultimate Rulership imposes a 50% price increase on duplicate buildings within the same district (except for a few things that are supposed to duplicate like city walls and housing). That may or may not be enough to force diversity - I might make it a stacking 50% increase.
The Master of Nod wrote:
The ratfolk have +2 craft(alchemy) so they would get a x bp discount on the alchemy building.
I can see that. It'd be a pretty minor benefit, since you're not going to build alchemy-type buildings very often, but if we make it stronger because of that...Alternatively, rather than making the building cheaper, it could make it stronger. An extra +1 Economy from it, for instance (off the top of my head - I have no idea what the stats are).
I'm definitely going to have to rethink the racial bonus plan. You're probably right that it should just be sundry bonuses rather than big steps like that.
What if racial (non-movement) abilities could be translated to a +2 on a check of some kind, and you got to choose up to two for free, and pay 5 points each for each extra? Movement abilities would give some other bonus, but still count towards your two-for-free-pay-for-more.
Maybe single-race kingdoms would get +3s instead of +2, but dual-race kingdoms would get the +2s for both races (so four free, but you're paying to have the two races in the first place)?
I'd definitely wait until the army rules are closer to being done before setting these numbers in stone, because there should be benefits on that end, too. But how's the idea?
The Master of Nod wrote:
Ok so if we are using all the rules I'm thinking of having a overlord or oligarchy ruler.
Definitely in there!
I'm also just letting everyone know that RL's kicking me around this week. It's my last week at my old job, so I'm working late trying to get everything done. Hopefully, I'll still have some time to work on this, but it's less likely than I expected and this is turning into a larger project than expected. I had originally had hopes of starting this on this last Sunday, but looking at my calendar, the last weekend of April is looking more likely.
Which is not to say you should all go run away and vanish! I'm going to keep on working on assembling the rule document, and I'll keep posting excerpts and questions. The more feedback I get the better.
However, if you do find yourself losing interest in the interim, I'll also PM anyone who expressed interest in this thread once the recruitment thread is up (whenever that ends up being), just to let you know that everything's done and ready to go.
Very good question... and as I've gone on, I haven't had any good answers for the racial questions. Honestly, they only started mattering at all when I wrote up the Proxy rules and went "Wait, we need stats...". It's clear people want it to matter, and I like the idea that race does have an impact, but I worry about whether some races might be too strong when abstracted down to a few benefits. I know different civilizations in Civ have different traits and tweaked units...
Thinking about this question, I think I may have two different problems which are each other's solution. What if starting BP could be spent to apply a racial ability to the kingdom rules? Something like "If your race can fly, you can spend 15 starting points to have every expedition automatically be Exceptional quality for the cost of an Average one." I'd probably limit it to three traits - two kingdom and one army. This way, everyone could pick their race's "best" features and get adjustments, without me having to account for each race individually.
As always - thoughts? Suggestions?
The Master of Nod wrote:
All of them.
Or at least, the default assumption is all of them, as adjusted to the concept by me and this thread.
As for divine casters, I'm inclined to say that markofbane is right. Their powers still work, but they're really being granted by the Being, or all the Beings as a group, or some god-emulator they created for the sake of granting divine powers. Or this is just a custom demi-plane in the Golarian universe. Or all universes touch on it and all gods (from any system or RL setting) are available...
And on that theme - here's the Exploration Edict excerpt, for the usual feedback and commentary.
Other than the atrocious formatting of the table, any feedback?
My plan is to apply 7 days worth of rules/rolls to each expedition each turn. Lost time just means they get a "Did nothing useful" type of result for that day.
The other way of exploring that was hinted at is moving armies around. If you send an army out (even a small one), it'll move slower and probably cost you a lot more, but you won't have nearly the same amount of trouble with monsters.
Question, will there be NPC settlements, marauding bandits, and monsters?
Possibly, probably only through events, and yes but only as you explore.
I like the idea of having NPC settlements, but I don't know how I'd handle them. I wouldn't want to try running them on top of everything else, so they'd probably be static and/or just a DC to annex as a city. Much easier to just not include them and leave the interactions to between players.
Monsters will be something you have to take into account when you're exploring hexes (as per Exploration Edicts, possibly tweaked slightly to provide numbers for the Stealth check), but the only way they'll attack you is if an event calls for it.
Another question, what character classes can our proxies take?
As of right now, they're too abstract to actually have classes - they're just attribute arrays that may potentially have stat-boosting items. However, once I get to the army rules, their class may matter enough that I go add something for it.
In other words, they can be any class or class combination you want :)
Chris O'Reilly wrote:
I think he mentioned giving each player a different coordinate system but maybe im just making that up
I think I did, and if I didn't, I should have. My plan is to take my master map, and slice it up for each player. Possibly with rotations before applying a coordinate system. I'd then need to translate visible moves (and other information) from one player's map to the other, but it means that no one else would know what you mean if you refer to A32, but they'll still know that it's adjacent to A31 and B32.
Yep, that's pretty much it. The numbers might change, but I can't think of anything else you'd be able to spend pre-game points on. After all, you need them to start your kingdom...
I think I do need to tweak the numbers, though. A standard kingdom under ordinary rules starts with 50. My target number for this is to start with around 60, to speed up the early game slightly. Thus there ought to be around 40 points worth of stuff for the average person to spend it on. Then you can spend less, to get extra starting BP, or spend more to get a better position. My numbers don't come anywhere near making that target into the sweet spot, though.
By water, do you mean a river running along the border of the capital, a seacoast adjacent to the capital, a one-square lake, or players choice? It makes a difference.
I hadn't given much thought to it - I had been thinking in terms of a starting point for farm irrigation. I just went and gave water a closer look, though, and I see how many buildings depend upon having a water border (or completed aqueduct) to exist. I have two thoughts on the matter:
Thought #1: 10 BP to start with a water border for your capital which connects to the sea in some way (either river or coast). 5 BP to start with a source of non-connecting water (small lake or mountain river)
Thought #2: Alternative to all the starting-location rules I've proposed, I could give each player a radius-2 view of a spot, and let them set their capital anywhere in the inner circle. See this image, with any of the seven marked spaces being viable starts. With this plan, you would pay a set cost per terrain to alter what's in this starting grid. Probably 2 points to make something into a "inferior" type, 5 for a good type.
Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any rivers on your example map. It is all one continent with lakes of different sizes. Is that what we should expect?
Hmm... I hadn't noticed that, but that is an issue. I do have the ability to draw my own rivers, which might be the answer (and would be something I'd do before assigning starting areas).
I'm going to have to take a look. I'm using Hexographer right now, because it was the best random hex generator I found, but I hadn't considered looking at Civ. I'll take a look and see whether something like Civ or FreeCol will work.
Really interested in playing! I love these types of games! Count me in if there is room!
Are you still looking for budding tyrants or do you feel like you have the core group you want to move forward with? I'm in a Kingmaker game and have been enjoying the kingdom building aspect a lot, and Civilization has always been my favorite PC game. This sounds like a great idea to me!
Definitely still room! I don't know that there is a practical limit, other than my ability to keep up with everyone. I'm still very much in the planning stages, but the more people chiming in on those, the better everything will work in the end.
I couldn't agree more. Mountains and deserts represent territory that currently don't provide any real benefit to conquer and settle on. There is, currently, no real value to either terrain type, and I for one would love to find a reason to explore and expand in those areas. Perhaps by adding a mechanical, technological, magical, offensive, or defensive advantage to these terrains it may prove lucrative.
Mountains and deserts are both viable places to build mines, but so are hills. Deserts can be irrigated, and mountains quarried, but again, hills can do both. So they're not useless, but they also aren't as versatile.
I like the idea of making them have a higher chance of having boons, but I'm not quite sure how I'd actually accomplish that with my current tools.
And one more map-related snippet tonight before I go pass out:
As always, comments and feedback are appreciated. Are the costs reasonable? Is there actually any advantage to paying? Should I guarantee water?
I also need to add special hexes (Lair, Landmark, random building, ruins, resources, rivers) - should they be guaranteed? In the same pool as water? No control?
And, while I'm at it - Do I ask too many questions? :)
So, I haven't made progress on the rules yet tonight, but I have been playing with map software. Here's an example map I generated:
Thoughts? Are the groupings of terrain too big? Are the proportions wildly off? How much expansion do people want to have before they start encountering each other? Before they start running out of space? I can generate more of these maps and piece them together, or generate smaller ones.
The usual kingdom break points will be in effect, and I assume everyone would like to get up at least to the 51+ range, which is between three and four hexes away from your capital (assuming you explore out evenly). Personally, I suspect people would prefer the 101-200 range before any serious conflicts emerge. Maybe 125 or so as an "decent sized" kingdom, with the 201+ breakpoint being the "huge juggernaut"? Am I wildly off base?
0 -> 1 (Capital only) - Size 1-10
1 -> 1+6= 7
2 -> 1+6+12= 19 - Size 11-25
3 -> 1+6+12+18= 37 - Size 26-50
4 -> 1+6+12+18+24= 61 - Size 51-100
5 -> 1+6+12+18+24+30= 91
6 -> 1+6+12+18+24+30+36= 127 - Size 101-200
7 -> 1+6+12+18+24+30+36+42= 169
8 -> 1+6+12+18+24+30+36+42+48= 217 - Size 201+
Does anyone know if this ever got answered anywhere?
So maximum of two races then or could you keep going spending 5+points for additional races? Just looking for the boundaries here, I imagine points would start to run short after not too long, especially for monstrous ones :)
Good question. My inclination is to limit it to two, but I could be convinced to bump it up... possibly with the extra cost going up, depending on how much benefit there is.
I should also come up with some variation for a "we take everyone" civilization.
DM Nerk wrote:
Yeah, when I went to go write the background today, I realized that it was set in Golarian. That's what I get for posting while 3/4 asleep.
As for divination, it's definitely doable. Here's an example from my previous campaign. (There's a second reading further back if you want to look at Rogath's other posts.) It takes some creativity and flexibility, and it can't be overdone, but it is doable.
Stats half done. Backstory still needs to be rewritten to adapt it. Passing out.
Expect my submission tomorrow morning. If you don't have it in the next 8 hours, you probably won't before you make your picks...
Oh, no objections to the standard Pathfinder pantheon? Or at least Desna? Oh, did I mention Harrow cards, too?
Well, I'm not done with the the kingdom rule document yet - it's up to 14 pages, and I've still got about a quarter of it left to do (not counting the list of buildings).
Slightly too late for me to edit the last post, but just to reassure people: It's 14 pages, but it's not very dense. For example, the Upkeep phase, which is almost the same as core, is half a page long. The Proxies rules quoted above are a whole page themselves.
Well, I'm not done with the the kingdom rule document yet - it's up to 14 pages, and I've still got about a quarter of it left to do (not counting the list of buildings). I also haven't started including the mass combat rules yet. It's definitely a bigger project than I was anticipating.
That said, here's another preview. As always, comments and feedback are appreciated.
Founding your Kingdom wrote:
Gobo Horde wrote:
Yep, that looks right. I think it's easier to apply the -2 first, since you can reroll the +2 if they match, but as long as it works out the same in the end, it's all good, and +2/-2 is definitely more natural. Don't forget the points you can apply, too!
It should be impossible to generate a worse-than-average Proxy with this system, although it takes a bit of luck to get a really good one.
Btw, is there any benifit/drawback to having short lived proxys and having them constantly die and get replaced (goblins are not known for their longivity ;D)
The idea is more-or-less that you're stuck with the ones you get until you kill them or an event does. I'm toying with the idea of letting them die from old age, but even goblins might not reach that point - depends how fast we move and how long we go. At one turn a week (the slowest I'll go), that's still three RL months to play out a year. At 3 turns a week, which is likely the fastest pace than I can keep up, we can fit in 12 years per RL year, which might be enough for them to die of old age.
Edit to respond to Chris, too:
Chris O'Reilly wrote:
Seems fine thus far. I assume you generate the proxies before you place them in the leadership positions.
Yep. You can even generate them before you need them - your limit is 15, and there's only 11 "regular" leadership positions.
Whats the bonus someone gets from the leadership feat? The ruler entry says "If you have the Leadership feat, the bonus from the feat applies to all kingdom attributes you affect (one, two, or three attributes, depending on the kingdom's Size)." Does that refer to the "Leader's Reputation" modifier and whatnot?
No, it's just a flat +1 to everything you do to run a kingdom just for having the feat (for all leadership positions, not just the Ruler). There's also extra benefits to having it on your General.
I was also thinking, just like the actual civilization games, the first turns there really isnt going to be a lot to do. Maybe we can find a way to do multiple turns at once or have a higher minimum posting than 1/week at first when towns are really small and easy to keep track of.
Good point. People in PbP games do seem to tend to start off posting fast, then slow down as time goes on, so this might adjust itself, but I'll certainly start thinking of ways to accelerate the first few turns.
Still working on the rules document, but figured I'd share a preview.
I've decided to go with the "World ex nihilo" scenario, since several people suggested it in various forms.
This is a few excerpts from the current document, and are subject to change before the final form. I would really appreciate any feedback or suggestions.
Turn Sequence & Submitting actions wrote:
Proxies are the mortals you can use as leaders in your kingdom.
The Ultimate Campaign rules for Exploration Edicts say:
If you are not traveling with the explorers and they have a hostile encounter, you may have the expedition attempt a Stealth check (DC 10 + twice the encounter’s CR), using the worst Stealth modifier among the expedition members.
But how are you supposed to know what the Stealth modifier of the expedition is? There's nothing about choosing members, or what type of stat blocks to use, or anything else like that.
That's kindof what happened to me, except it was PvP arena games that sucked me in. Now I'm in four active or about-to-start games (two PFS PbP), was in a large number of games that ran for a while and stopped, and I'm preparing to start running my first one. :)
As far as progressing this goes, I'm hoping to have the house rules file assembled by the end of the weekend (incorporating Ultimate Campaign, most optional rules from it, the UR/UB additions, and my own tweaks and extras), at which point I'll start official recruitment. No promises, but that's my goal. (It's possible it'll just be the kingdom rules, not yet the mass combat ones - that may need to wait for the following weekend.)
As for teaming up - I'm good with that, although you'll have to decide if you're running as two separate kingdoms that are allied and/or vassals (and thus still in competition for good locations and such, have separate BP pools, etc.) or both running a single kingdom (in which case it's still just a single kingdom). You can't run two separate kingdoms out of the same capital city, though.
Ultimate Rulership does specifically say that an underwater city can share a hex with another city - usually a barge city (lashed together boats) or a causeway one (think Venice). Likewise, a cavern city is located in the cavern hex below a standard hex (if I generate any of those), but you'd be very limited in how you could expand. I'd be willing to allow either of those to be split between two kingdoms (and thus the one way to peacefully share a hex, because it's really two hexes).
Both "world ex nihilo" and "foreign shores" are definitely viable. The latter would be something like the Americas in the 1600's - lots of European countries sending out explorers, landing in unknown spots and only later defining where the borders were. Some people could start inland as the "natives".
I think we'd have too many people for "spread into the wilderness" to work on land. Not enough surface area to spread out in.
Are the players going to be able to influence the map in their immediate area before play? Are we going to be in the same general biome, or will it be erratic across the realms?
Good question. My plan is to generate a large swath of terrain randomly, including most/all types, then put people down 15-30 hexes apart (less if everyone's on a coast, more if everyone's inland). Starting locations may get BP costs, or be chosen blindly, or randomly assigned. I'll probably let you choose the hex type of your starting city, and separately, a type to guarantee at least 6 of the hexes within a radius 2 (18 hexes) will have (if we don't start on a coastline). Then I'll have BP costs for adding other specific features and/or special resources (if doing those).
I'm not sure. I definitely like the idea of an undead kingdom, but that implies a much higher power level than one of kobolds, though. I don't want to add too much to the paperwork by making things play differently for each race. I'm leaning towards bonuses to the relevant leadership scores and flavor, and let the rest of the mechanics come from the choices you make. But I might make certain things available for a BP cost.
Well, I've gotten a few questions answered. First of all, there's definitely interest! Absolutely no question about that any more. I'm by no means closing recruitment, since I haven't even opened recruitment yet, but this does inspire me to actually make this happen!
Which leads to the next point - Clearly most people are familiar with the Ultimate campaign rules, but not either of the addons. That means I either need to scale back to the "core" rules, or actually build the supplement documents. Which means it's time for me to start building them. :)
Here's a preview of what I intend on including from each:
A note on the books:
As my intent is not to just reproduce the books, there is stuff I'm not using, details I'll be simplifying, and things that I'll just keep to myself until needed. I'd like to encourage people to buy them, although I have no stake in them beyond that of a fan. Probably, I'll say that if you have these books and reference an aspect of something I simplified by page number, you can take advantage of it. For example, a Colossus (4 lots) can share the same space as a Lighthouse (1 lot) or an Observatory (1 lot). If I left that out of the summary PDF, but you referenced it by page, you could save yourself a single lot. Nothing major or game breaking, but a minor boon for actually supporting the publisher. If you object to this, let me know and I'll reconsider.
So, all that being said, I want to turn to some of the other things I'd like to decide. Does anyone have suggestions for where the kingdoms are coming from all of the sudden? Does it matter? Settlers do just appear at the start of a Civilization game...
Given the interest, I'd certainly be willing to consider adding more people to my initial 2-5. I may pick an initial few, then add more after a few rounds have passed and we're getting into the swing of things. Starting late shouldn't matter, since by the time you encounter another kingdom, there will have been enough potential for growth to even things out.
Does anyone have feedback on the tools? Are you willing to play across up to three different websites (here, roll20, and Obsidian Portal)?
Is anyone interested in actually interacting with each other in-world or quasi-in-world outside of waiting for your kingdoms to find each other? If so, how would you suggest going about that?
Edit: One more: Running a kingdom is a lot of bookkeeping. I don't have any particularly good tools for it at the moment (The spreadsheet doesn't support the addons, Hero Lab doesn't support the addons, etc.), so there's not going to be much automation. If this campaign falls apart, it will almost certainly be because of the bookkeeping effort involved. So be prepared for a lot of tracking and/or specific formats for things.
Ultimate Rulership and Ultimate Battle are third party books from Legendary Games. UR, at least, is written by the same person who revised the kingdom rules for Ultimate Campaign, and basically has everything he wanted to include, but wasn't picked up by Paizo. I think UB is the same for Mass Combat.
There's a good summary of each on those pages.
Gobo Horde wrote:
Excellent! Mechanically, a kingdom of goblins (or any other race) would automatically get their racial modifiers applied to their leader's stats, after whatever system we use. So the Goblin General would have a -1, but the Goblin Marshal would have +2. Also, Ultimate Rulership has rules for wooden buildings (instead of the default stone)... half the cost to build, but -10 to stability checks to avoid damage to them. Sounds perfect for goblins :)
Ever since the Kingmaker rules have come out, I've had a desire to play a game about kingdom building, rather than a game which involved kingdom building. One where the PCs were secondary to what the kingdom as a whole was doing. With Ultimate Campaign (and possibly the Ultimate Rulership and Ultimate Battle addons), it's now actually feasible to try something like that.
So, this is an interest check and idea thread for a Pathfinder-ish kingdom game. Players would be playing as a Kingdom, or at least its entire leadership council. Kingdoms would be placed in the same area of the world, but far enough apart that they could (probably) expand for a while before running into each other. Where these kingdoms come from is open for negotiation: You could start as vassals or explorers from a shared starting kingdom, journeying out into the unknown by land or by sea; travelers from another dimension which just appear in the middle of nowhere, either intentionally or by accident; or simply be the leaders of native populations that all decided to start banding together into a kingdom around the same time.
This would probably be roleplay-lite. There is a frame story set by the origin, and I may create events related to it, but the focus is more on the numbers and kingdom growth than character interaction. Negotiations would get at least RPed on at least a basic level, and I'm open to the idea of the leaders having some way to remain in contact even if the kingdoms themselves are not. In the same vein, events would require some description of how they're being handled, possibly with some small interactive scenes, but it wouldn't be the primary focus. Leadership characters would not necessarily need to be fully statted out, and kingdom players could choose any or all of them to RP as appropriate to the scene.
If this type of game interests you, read on:
Rules & sources:
I'd like to play with the Ultimate Rulership and Ultimate Battle rules, but they're not on d20pfsrd, and the basic Ultimate campaign rules are. I'm willing to make sections of them into a file of house rules, for those who don't have access to them, or we could discuss just playing by the basic campaign rules.
Likewise, I'm not sure which optional rules we're going to want to include, and I'm open to discussion on those.
I have a set of house rules already which include specific resources (such as Iron) which can be refined into a more valuable form by certain buildings (such as a Smithy turning Iron -> Tools). They're written for the Kingmaker rules, but they should convert over well. This is another house rule we might want to include.
The Paizo forums seem like they may not be the best way to manage something like this, although I wouldn't want to automatically abandon them altogether. I think Obsidian Portal might be the best way to handle most of this, possibly using roll20 for maps. I have an ascendant account, so we would have access to the game forum, single-player-only pages to keep kingdom stats secret, and things like that. We could do rolls and RP posts here, or we could do rolls on roll20 and posts on the OP forum. Again, open to discussion.
I'm not entirely sure yet what type of creation method I'd use for the initial setup. It may depend on the frame story. Probably there will be a way to buy leadership stats or other kingdom advantages (like nearby resources or a unusual race) with starting BP, leaving less to build with.
I would probably be looking for 2-5 players who could all commit to at least one kingdom-month's post (that is, one Kingdom action) per week. It's slow, but Kingdom turns can have a lot more going on than a combat turn. I'm certainly open to faster posting - that's just the lowest minimum I'd be looking for.
If this still interests you, or you have suggestions on how to run it, or ideas for any of the things that are are vague now, let me know!
Dotting for potential interest. I was in a very similar campaign with Rogath Silvertarn, a CG cleric of Desna (or whoever the setting's luck goddess is), which got put on indefinite hiatus recently. Rogath's interest in the expedition is simply exploration. It's new, and he wants to be among the first there. As a Desnan cleric, he's an explorer at heart.
I'd rebuild him for whatever point buy/dice system ended up getting used, of course, but I really enjoyed playing him so I'd like to send him (or a clone) along with this expedition.
First draft of stats for this image. Background still uncertain.
Grisank Hackshield, Dwarven Foehammer (stats):
Dwarf Fighter (Foehammer) 7
Medium humanoid (dwarf)
Init +2; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +8
AC 20, touch 11, flat-footed 19 (+9 armor, +1 Dex)
hp 84 (7d10+14)
Fort +6, Ref +4, Will +3 (+2 vs. fear); +2 vs. poison, spells, and spell-like abilities
Defensive Abilities bravery +2, defensive training (+4 dodge bonus to AC vs. giants)
Speed 20 ft.
Melee +1 impact warhammer +14/+9 (2d6+8/×3) and
. . masterwork dwarven boulder helmet +12/+7 (1d4+4)
Special Attacks hammer to the ground, +1 on attack rolls against goblinoid and orc humanoids, relentless, sledgehammer
Str 19, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 6
Base Atk +7; CMB +11 (+18 bull rush, +13 overrun, +13 sunder, +15 trip); CMD 23 (25 vs. bull rush, 23 vs. grapple, 25 vs. trip)
Feats Combat Expertise, Greater Bull Rush, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Trip, Power Attack, Quick Bull Rush, Weapon Focus (warhammer), Weapon Specialization (warhammer)
Skills Intimidate +8, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +12, Perception +8 (+10 to notice unusual stonework), Survival +11
Languages Common, Dwarven
Other Gear +2 banded mail, +1 impact warhammer, masterwork dwarven boulder helmet, 468 gp
Bravery +2 (Ex) +2 to Will save vs. Fear
Combat Expertise +/-2 Bonus to AC in exchange for an equal penalty to attack.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Defensive Training +4 Gain a dodge bonus to AC vs monsters of the Giant subtype.
Greater Bull Rush When bull rushing, foe's movement provokes AoO from your allies.
Hammer to the Ground (Ex) Make a trip check vs foe after successful bull rush.
Hatred +1 Gain a racial bonus to attacks vs Goblinoids/Orcs.
Improved Bull Rush You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when bull rushing.
Improved Trip You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when tripping.
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Quick Bull Rush May bull rush in place of one of your melee attacks
Relentless +2 Gain CMB bonus to bull rush/overrun while both self and foe stand on ground.
Sledgehammer (Ex) +2 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to bull rush, overrun, sunder, or trip
As always (at least since it came out), I've taken a randomly generated background and adapted it. Here's what I rolled, although I got started late enough that I don't think I can form this into a story (even with replacing the out-of-place "left to die"). It was a busier day than anticipated.
Homeland: 1d100 ⇒ 95 -> Non-dwarven city or metropolis (Brewmaster, Vagabond Child)
Parents: 1d100 ⇒ 16 -> Both alive
Siblings: 1d100 ⇒ 65 -> Biological siblings: 1d4 ⇒ 4 (Kin Guardian)
Background: 1d100 ⇒ 54 -> Knighted (Influence)
Conflict: 1d12 ⇒ 11 -> Malign Associates (4 cp)
Relationships: 1d12 ⇒ 10 -> Current Lover
If I come up with something in the morning, yay. Otherwise, I guess I'll have to miss the deadline.
Ok, trying again.
#1: 4d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 2, 3) = 12
Reroll from #2: 1d6 ⇒ 5
That's much more reasonable.
Dotting and also chiming in for CRB+2. Otherwise, you can't ever have an archetype of a APG class, which is just too restrictive.
Also, a set of stats for me to mull over:
#1: 4d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 2, 6) = 11
Reroll from #1: 1d6 ⇒ 3
I have no words...
If someone were to go ahead and carry forward with this, I would definitely want to focus heavily on roleplaying, and it might not be a bad idea to let players roleplay as several different characters, allowing more interaction by representing not only the actions of the ruler, but also their ambassador(s), general(s), etc. Would be interested in how to handle activities during the other three weeks each month too. (Would we go exploring and fight monsters in order to claim more land and level up?)
As the potential GM, I wouldn't want to keep track of the casts of characters required to have entire ruling councils interacting with their townsfolk on a regular basis. At that point, I'm closer to running multiple one-player games set in the same world. Likewise for having each kingdom's "heroes" go tromping off into the wilderness.
I'm more in line with what Inlaa would be thinking, where it's "The kingdom" acting, the Ruler being the main character controlled by each player, and the other members of the ruling council being bit parts as needed.
That said, I'd be perfectly fine if the leaders of each kingdom had some way of interacting with each other, and each player played as many or as few of their leaders as they wanted. I'm also fine with playing a member of each kingdom's ruling council myself, (probably the Councillor) as a way to feed information to each player. I just don't want to devolve a kingdom-level game into a standard wilderness crawl or urban adventure.
I am sorry to have to announce that real life has gotten in the way of gaming. Niether Tobaris or I have time to run this game. We appreciate the interest that has been shown and are sorry to dissappoint you all. Thanks again for your interest.
I just found this thread... I was already to dot it for interest, then I saw this. Sad :(
Still, dotting it in case anyone else comes along. I'm actually willing to consider running it, too. No promises, but now that the idea has been seeded, I'll mull it over for a bit. I've run Kingmaker before, although we only got through book 3 and we were using a heavily modded version of the original kingdom rules.
For the players who may still be interested (#33 and Tobaris included), if I were to do this, what would you be looking for in terms of gameplay? Would it just be you posting kingdom rounds and me handling the world? Would you each have embassies with each other so you could interact? Would you want to roleplay out your people dealing with events? Or just the kingdom as a whole dealing with them? Or just writing one-off story posts to describe how the kingdom reacts?