|
(we have a 9 man party),
On a side-bar, you may (or may not) run into a similar problem my group of 7 players did during kingdom building.
They couldn't agree on much.
7 people with 12 different ideas of what to do next created for some VERY lengthy discussions and lobbying for what to do next that would give filibuster a bad name.
Fortunately we have a very diverse group of people with a lot of knowledge, and creativity to bring to the table. Unfortunately that just creates more debate as each has a different idea on what is the best way to proceed.
What I finally did after a few games of very lengthy discussions is divide the "turn" into several parts of what decisions must be made and then the group divied them up to each other. Now we have a group of "cabinet" officials/advisors that made decisions on specific aspects of the kingdom building. The Baron has the right to veto an option and essentially he decides on a course if two or more people's proposal contradict one another.
It also divides the responsibility of tracking specific things into those cabinet officials. That way no one or two players is responsible for knowing the ins and outs of all rules of the kingdom building turn, and no one person has to track all nuances of it.
One person tracks Unrest, another tracks BP, another tracks Consumption, Another tracks Loyalty, etc.
It has worked wonderfully, and has cut down the decision making discussions down by 75%. Players are still encouraged to give their opinions of a matter - even if it's outside their scope of responsibility; but instead of continuing to debate, once an opinion or varying opinons of others are given, then that advisor/official of that responsibility makes the aribtrary decision as to what action to take and reports to the Baron and says "After all is considered my suggestion is go with another barrack."
The Baron can then say "I agree" or "I veto - I'm going with the wizards idea of a Magic Shop."
The players seem to really like their roles, and they've settled into them nicely.
Robert
|
|
I am considering the idea of modifying the food production (farm BP) rules to depict seasonal production.
Something along the lines of x2 production during the summer and fall months and 0 production in winter and spring, allowing farms to store food for their consumption free of charge and adding a granary building to the city structures where food only (points from farm consumption reduction) can be stored.
It will add a nice target for sabotages and riots and it shouldn't require too much bookkeeping.
Comments from those that are already far enough in the campaign to have an idea on how it could work?
|
|
I am considering the idea of modifying the food production (farm BP) rules to depict seasonal production.
Something along the lines of x2 production during the summer and fall months and 0 production in winter and spring, allowing farms to store food for their consumption free of charge and adding a granary building to the city structures where food only (points from farm consumption reduction) can be stored.
It will add a nice target for sabotages and riots and it shouldn't require too much bookkeeping.
Comments from those that are already far enough in the campaign to have an idea on how it could work?
I was considering doing the same thing.
Only doing a 50% change. Increase BP to 3 during part of the year, and reduce to 1 in the other part. I guess one could do 0 for three months (winter), 4 for three months (summer), and 2 the other six.
However any such changes complicates the use of excel based tracking sheets that auto-calculate consumption based on farm hexes.
You can however redesign the random event table to increase the liklihood of 'bad weather' during winter months and cost them BP which would be equivalent in the end to reducing Farm effectiveness.
Robert
|
|
Great ideas Robert and Diego.
I'm going to run with :
Summer: 3BP
Autumn: 2BP
Winter: 1BP
Spring: 2BPBuilding a Granary will allow the Kingdom to store BP generated by Farms for consumption later.
Could you elaborate on that a bit?
Here's what I imagined you imagining.....
So if I have a consumption of say 6 in the summer, (counting reductions from farms already), I could say "increase consumption to 8 this month" so as to add "2 in the granary" for winter.
Then winter when Consumption goes up to 12 because my three farm hexes have reduced their output by 2 each, I can "withdraw" from the granary the 2 and make the consumption "10 for this month".???
Robert
|
|
Could you elaborate on that a bit?Here's what I imagined you imagining.....
So if I have a consumption of say 6 in the summer, (counting reductions from farms already), I could say "increase consumption to 8 this month" so as to add "2 in the granary" for winter.
Then winter when Consumption goes up to 12 because my three farm hexes have reduced their output by 2 each, I can "withdraw" from the granary the 2 and make the consumption "10 for this month".???
Robert
Something like that.
I am a boardgamer too and I have recently played a lengtly game of Word in Flames using the Russian forces.
From previous discussions with James Brevory and the Stolen Lands have a climate like eastern Poland and that gave was fairly instructive on the possible climate of the area.
That mean that during the winter months you have a heavy cover of snow and during spring you have the problem of melting snow and the thawing of the terrain. Than can make the roads unusable for months and mean little or no winter harvest.
So I am thinking about making difficult to import food from outside the Kingdom during periods of war and during the spring. So what is accumulated in the granaries become important in those periods.
It is a way to reward local food production, something that was very important till very recent times.
(we have a 9 man party),
On a side-bar, you may (or may not) run into a similar problem my group of 7 players did during kingdom building.
They couldn't agree on much.
7 people with 12 different ideas of what to do next created for some VERY lengthy discussions and lobbying for what to do next that would give filibuster a bad name.
Fortunately we have a very diverse group of people with a lot of knowledge, and creativity to bring to the table. Unfortunately that just creates more debate as each has a different idea on what is the best way to proceed.
What I finally did after a few games of very lengthy discussions is divide the "turn" into several parts of what decisions must be made and then the group divied them up to each other. Now we have a group of "cabinet" officials/advisors that made decisions on specific aspects of the kingdom building. The Baron has the right to veto an option and essentially he decides on a course if two or more people's proposal contradict one another.
It also divides the responsibility of tracking specific things into those cabinet officials. That way no one or two players is responsible for knowing the ins and outs of all rules of the kingdom building turn, and no one person has to track all nuances of it.
One person tracks Unrest, another tracks BP, another tracks Consumption, Another tracks Loyalty, etc.
It has worked wonderfully, and has cut down the decision making discussions down by 75%. Players are still encouraged to give their opinions of a matter - even if it's outside their scope of responsibility; but instead of continuing to debate, once an opinion or varying opinons of others are given, then that advisor/official of that responsibility makes the aribtrary decision as to what action to take and reports to the Baron and says "After all is considered my suggestion is go with another barrack."
The Baron can then say "I agree" or "I veto - I'm going with the wizards idea of a Magic Shop."
The players...
I cannot remember if the thread was started by myself or one of my players, Kolokotroni, but we addressed this very issue with a charter that basically created a High Council. I cannot get the link to work, but here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/adventurePa th/kingmaker/governingTheKingdomThis came up recently when Kolo wanted to outlaw cults, after the incident with Gyronna. As general, he felt he was doing it to protect their citizens. The other players were against this 'slippery slope' such a law represented. After 20 minutes, the players decided to instead build a cathedral to educate the people about religion and the gods. It was a nice bit of role-playing, everyone was satisfied, and they really worked together.
It also came up with the cultists and Gregory as well. Both were legally tried and hung, as per the players' own laws.
This council has led to a Kobold run city, diplomatic relations with Fae and trolls, and very few arguments. The party is one of our best run groups to date. Everyone feels important because I and the PC's make sure everyone actually is important.
|
Could you elaborate on that a bit?Here's what I imagined you imagining.....
So if I have a consumption of say 6 in the summer, (counting reductions from farms already), I could say "increase consumption to 8 this month" so as to add "2 in the granary" for winter.
Then winter when Consumption goes up to 12 because my three farm hexes have reduced their output by 2 each, I can "withdraw" from the granary the 2 and make the consumption "10 for this month".???
Robert
I was thinking along the lines that if your Summer farm production reduced consumption to a negative level, that surplus could be stored in the granary to be used later.
You could, however, change the farms contribution from a reduction of consumption to an addition of BP. BP from farms have to be used that month to meet consumption unless you have a granary. This is probably neater.
|
|
Could you elaborate on that a bit?Here's what I imagined you imagining.....
So if I have a consumption of say 6 in the summer, (counting reductions from farms already), I could say "increase consumption to 8 this month" so as to add "2 in the granary" for winter.
Then winter when Consumption goes up to 12 because my three farm hexes have reduced their output by 2 each, I can "withdraw" from the granary the 2 and make the consumption "10 for this month".???
Robert
I was thinking along the lines that if your Summer farm production reduced consumption to a negative level, that surplus could be stored in the granary to be used later.
You could, however, change the farms contribution from a reduction of consumption to an addition of BP. BP from farms have to be used that month to meet consumption unless you have a granary. This is probably neater.
Depending on your kingdom organization there will be periods in which you don't ave excess food production and you are actually importing it from Brevory.
With the abstract rules it don't matter, but as I want to create problem with transportation during winter/spring if there isn't a decent road network and always during wartime, a system to store brought or produced food for future consumption will be useful.|
|
...and very few arguments. The party is one of our best run groups to date. Everyone feels important because I and the PC's make sure everyone actually is important.
In the end the paradigm shift to one in which each player controls very specified aspects of the kingdom-building turn, has indeed created an atmosphere where each person feels important as you indicated above, and far less arguing. Everyone still shares their opinions, but at least now it's up to one person to make the final decision about each aspect instead of having every little decision go to a debate and vote methodology.
Robert