Reclaiming the Stolen Lands (The Redeemers)

Game Master Patcher

Welcome!

The Redeemers of Lost Dominion consists of:
Korvin (CG Goblin Rogue)
Msosth the Grey (NG Kobold Witch)
Alrich (Half-Orc Oracle)
Kezzin (CG Kobold Wizard)
Irikar (Goblin Inquisitor)
Falger Ortio (Human Magus)

What needs to be decided and confirmed right now is:

Which alignment are you? Consensus seems NG, but please confirm.

Are you sponsored or independent? If sponsored, suggest a sponsor, and affiliation.

If independent, your starting BP will be 15. You will have no entitlements.

If sponsored, either 20, 25 or 30, dependent on the identity of the sponsor. You will receive objectives from the sponsor that may be detrimental (such as "accumulate X BP for me" or "venture to area X and retrieve this item for us/me.")

Also: who fills the Ruler position? Which title would he or she hold? Mayor or Lord, or...?

Once this has been resolved, there is also a matter of how to run the Kingdom building. I suggest a separate thread for this. There is also the matter of how to run this in-character - I suggest that when the end of the month arrives, the technical crunch of kingdom building occurs.

You will also have to explore tiles and claim them, as per the rules. For the sake of the story, we will do "Month 0" in regards of Kingdom building, so you actually have a village to start with. For this special edition month, you have no build limits - so you can build as many buildings as your BP allows.

Optional: do you want quests from the village? Not only in the sense of "I wish somebody could retrieve X from Y" but also "villagers request the construction of X".

Optional: I am considering also letting other villages grow and develop around in the Stolen Lands. Does this idea appeal?

Dot

Welcome!

Thanks and likewise.

Which alignment are you? Consensus seems NG, but please confirm.

Yes, NG, unless someone corrects me.

Are you sponsored or independent? If sponsored, suggest a sponsor, and affiliation.

I think we want the freedom of independence, but someone will correct me if wrong.

Also: who fills the Ruler position? Which title would he or she hold? Mayor or Lord, or...?

What do we want to do guys? My character has a charisma of 16 and no one else has a charisma over 10. Do we actually want an NPC (Elise?) as the ruler? Is a ruler actually anything other than a figure head? I would prefer Alrich to hold a religious post before a ruler post. What would be the game effects of having an NPC (i.e. Elise) be the ruler?

Optional: do you want quests from the village? Not only in the sense of "I wish somebody could retrieve X from Y" but also "villagers request the construction of X".

Sounds good to me.

Optional: I am considering also letting other villages grow and develop around in the Stolen Lands. Does this idea appeal?

Sounds good.

@ DM Patcher

Is the village there?

Do we need to spend BPs to claim the hex, ready a city district, and all that before paying BPs for buildings?

New Celtara

Just for kicks I made an alias to keep track of our kingdom. If something ever happens to me (hope not), you guys could just go to the alias page and copy all the information.

Just a thought.

@ DM Patcher

Is the village there?

Do we need to spend BPs to claim the hex, ready a city district, and all that before paying BPs for buildings?

For simplicity's sake, let's say that the BP you start with is what you have after claiming and preparing the city district.

Is a ruler actually anything other than a figure head?

It depends. I'd say that the intent is that the Ruler is the one with the final say, the one who Rules. After all, the ultimate "upgrade" for the Ruler is called "King / Queen".

This assumes you have a monarchy, which you don't. Yet. Which is why I am asking for the title.

However, whether elected or picked because of background, for all intents and purposes the role itself is granted or given to whoever has the "final say". Whether or not that person is independent enough to exert this is, again, up to you - much like how the Queen of England technically has a lot of power because of her position, in practice she doesn't. (Or something to that effect.)

I just had a random idea. What if we each made a second character. We could split xp between them. It would allow us to cover most or all of the decision making positions if we wanted. We could trade off which one is with the party if we desired to play something a little different without causing a lot of disruption or introducing an entirely new character. One group would be at home taking care of business while the other is in the field. If an event occurred at the village while we were away, we could play the second party to react to it. If a character dies, we've got a backup with an instant in.

Good idea? Bad idea?

I just had a random idea. What if we each made a second character. We could split xp between them. It would allow us to cover most or all of the decision making positions if we wanted. We could trade off which one is with the party if we desired to play something a little different without causing a lot of disruption or introducing an entirely new character. One group would be at home taking care of business while the other is in the field. If an event occurred at the village while we were away, we could play the second party to react to it. If a character dies, we've got a backup with an instant in.

Good idea? Bad idea?

We did this in my RL group - though the biggest reason for doing this was that my group consisted of 3 people (at first). It does work, and it is a good idea, though the idea of having to look over 12 different characters - not to mention there being 12 different characters roleplaying in one thread - is also very overwhelming.

Truthfully, though, I'm for this idea - I don't know how many of you want to make - and maintain - two characters, though.

Ideally in most situations it would be one character or the other, especially anywhere conflict is liable to be involved. A sort of gentleman's agreement that one stays behind to help run things while the other is in the field.

I just had a random idea. What if we each made a second character. We could split xp between them. It would allow us to cover most or all of the decision making positions if we wanted. We could trade off which one is with the party if we desired to play something a little different without causing a lot of disruption or introducing an entirely new character. One group would be at home taking care of business while the other is in the field. If an event occurred at the village while we were away, we could play the second party to react to it. If a character dies, we've got a backup with an instant in.

Good idea? Bad idea?

I already have a 2nd character that fills thew same role (a different oracle, high charisma, party healer but better).

I could quickly switch her into a 1/2 orc and she would be ready to go. :D

But, I don't like the "splitting XP" bit since DM Patcher already said something to the effect that we would have a slow advancement, IIRC.

For the A Team :D

So, is Elise going to be our ruler?

Do we have a benefactor?

What do we want to build first?

Where do we want to explore first?

Perhaps the second character could be an NPC class - expert, aristocrat, etc. Make them 20 point builds, but never adventure with them. Have them gain the same exp that the main group does so that they stay level consistent and our real party is as we formed it. Essentially these are the bureaucrats and we are the doers. There are 11 leadership roles. This would allow them all to be filled. As the party size decreases through attrition, then we would slowly bring real NPC's in as leaders.

Another thought would to be have them be regular controlled NPC's with normal adventure classes. That way if/when the main characters make bad decisions - I open the door with the picture of the colossal red dragon on it. - the "backup" character is already prepared to step in since the NPC is part of the government anyway.

Our Kingdom is NG - we will get money somewhere.

No sponsor - we can get the exp and loot through adventuring and other events. Much better than someone who keeps requesting that we do things adverse to our alignments.

Mayor Alrich has a nice ring to it until we get an NPC or controlled-NPC to fill the role.

More the idea is that they should be the same level to avoid logistical headaches.

Ultimately if you split split the xp between two characters, if those characters are using the slow track they'll be about 2 levels behind a single character on the slow track, if the two characters use the medium track, they'll be about 1 level behind a single character on the slow track, and if you use the fast track for the pair, they'll be about equal level to a single slow track character. What does all this mean, I don't know, I just thought it was interesting.

Mostly splitting was a thought of fairness to the other town if we happen to go with the same continuity. But you're right, too slow a rate of advancement can be a real drag, especially in PbP since the format is already so slow.

The way I do it in my RL game, I don't split experience between the eight characters - the way we do it is: I divide the amount of experience gained with the amount of characters present (2-5), and then that value gets added to the "party experience tab" - everyone levels at the same rate.

Which does remind me, I will be using the "Step-based Advancement System".

Which alignment are you? Consensus seems NG, but please confirm.

- snip -

Are you sponsored or independent? If sponsored, suggest a sponsor, and affiliation.

- snip -

Also: who fills the Ruler position? Which title would he or she hold? Mayor or Lord, or...?

- snip -

Once this has been resolved, there is also a matter of how to run the Kingdom building. I suggest a separate thread for this. There is also the matter of how to run this in-character - I suggest that when the end of the month arrives, the technical crunch of kingdom building occurs.

- snip -

You will also have to explore tiles and claim them, as per the rules. For the sake of the story, we will do "Month 0" in regards of Kingdom building, so you actually have a village to start with. For this special edition month, you have no build limits - so you can build as many buildings as your BP allows.

- snip -

Optional: do you want quests from the village? Not only in the sense of "I wish somebody could retrieve X from Y" but also "villagers request the construction of X".

I think that this is a good idea. This gives you the ability to easily present new opportunities to us.

Optional: I am considering also letting other villages grow and develop around in the Stolen Lands. Does this idea appeal?

I am a little torn on this. My OCD side says no, because they will not manage themselves optimally. But my realistic sides says why would we be so unique. I will leave this up to the others for now.

My OCD side says no, because they will not manage themselves optimally.

What makes you think they wouldn't?

Just out of curiosity, why is everyone so focused on eventually getting NPCs into the leadership roles in the kingdom? Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I thought the point was for our characters to do it.

What makes you think they wouldn't?

Pessimism. :)

Just out of curiosity, why is everyone so focused on eventually getting NPCs into the leadership roles in the kingdom? Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I thought the point was for our characters to do it.

Because the base system - i.e., Kingmaker itself, is built for four people. There are 11 roles, 10 which are compulsory. It's not the need for NPCs, it's the circumstancial demand for it. While we're playing with a modified role where the demands for filling these roles is non-existent, unless everyone agrees to have a roster of twelve, you'll only have six slots - out of eleven - filled on your own.

There are pros and cons to having twelve characters - here's my opinion.

I don't want second characters, if made, to simply be stat-blocks that's shoved into leadership roles. That's what an NPC is.

Not everybody will want to play two characters - at the same time - in the same campaign. I wouldn't, at least.

While I won't demand that each character posts once a day, if he or she is simply made to fill a leadership spot, then I'd rather have been filled by an NPC, because as mentioned above, that's what an NPC is.

I like one character - otherwise you are too split. It would be easy for us to have a muscle bound brute, a few super charismatic bards and so forth to fill the roles and call them our alternate characters. We started with 6, lets stay that way. If people want to create NPCs, go for it, but I think 1 PC/player is the way the game is designed and the way we should have played it. If we become a really small group due to attrition, then we could rethink this at that point.

The way I do it in my RL game, I don't split experience between the eight characters - the way we do it is: I divide the amount of experience gained with the amount of characters present (2-5), and then that value gets added to the "party experience tab" - everyone levels at the same rate.

Which does remind me, I will be using the "Step-based Advancement System".

I approve of these methods! :D

A while back I cam to the conclusion that leveling players at differing times ends up making the game not fun for those leveling behind. since then, I have basically run where I leveled the party every other or every third time. Very similar to the above methods.

Thanks for the link by the way. I hadn't seen that particular system before.

I like one character - otherwise you are too split. It would be easy for us to have a muscle bound brute, a few super charismatic bards and so forth to fill the roles and call them our alternate characters. We started with 6, lets stay that way. If people want to create NPCs, go for it, but I think 1 PC/player is the way the game is designed and the way we should have played it. If we become a really small group due to attrition, then we could rethink this at that point.

Agreed.

Actually I agree with most everything posted so far (except for the 2 characters).

NG for the kingdom.

I'd still like Elise as a sponsor. Is this doable, DM Patcher?

Alrich only has a 16 CHA and that is the highest of the group. That is a low bonus for the ruler position, which affects a lot of things. We may want to elect a figure-head to run the town while we, the council, decide things.

Alrich has a 16.

Here is my suggestion for the first build:
Mill (6BP), +1 Economy, +1 Stability
Shop (8BP), +500GP Base Value, +1 Economy
Tenement (1BP), Unrest +2

My goal is to boost the economy since that is what we are lacking as a NG kingdom. The unrest from the Tenement should only last 1 month (after turning it into a house), and if we do it at the start, it wont be as bad. We can turn it into a house for 2BP later and build another 'improved' building next to it.

My other suggestion would be to have the ruler focus on economy and we can build something else?

Here is my suggestion for the first build:

Mill (6BP), +1 Economy, +1 Stability
Shop (8BP), +500GP Base Value, +1 Economy
Tenement (1BP), Unrest +2

My goal is to boost the economy since that is what we are lacking as a NG kingdom. The unrest from the Tenement should only last 1 month (after turning it into a house), and if we do it at the start, it wont be as bad. We can turn it into a house for 2BP later and build another 'improved' building next to it.

My other suggestion would be to have the ruler focus on economy and we can build something else?

I think we would need to get a ruling on that.

Unlike economy, stability, and loyalty which are added up each turn and recalculated, unrest carries over and is adjusted every turn by what new happens (new buildings, events, edicts etc.). Buildings affect unrest only for the turn they are created. So, (I think that) if a tenement is built in one turn it affects unrest by 2 that turn and upping it to a house would not remove that penalty other than the one change in unrest awarded for building a house. A I understand it (quite possibly incorrectly), it is best to purchase buildings that cause unrest in the same turns as those that reduce it: for instance a tenement in the same turn as a temple or perhaps a house in the same turn as a brothel. Purchasing buildings such as houses and temples when there is no unrest wastes their ability to reduce it as unrest cannot have a negative score and buildings only modify unrest the first time after creation.

But, perhaps DM Patcher will rule it as you describe.

Even if he does rule it as retroactively removing the penalty, the first time we make a roll we will have a -2 penalty to all the rolls (economy and loyalty and stability) DM Patcher has us make. Failure on economy will lead us with no BP in the next turn.

Not building the tenement, would make our economy roll two higher, not to mention that if that penalty would cause us to fail we would gain no BPs. Also, unspent BP carry over.

Depending upon how DM Patcher intends to adjudicate the rules, I would go with building the mill (6 BP, E+1, S+1, a prerequisite for a carpenter IIRC, T2?) with either a smith (6 BP, E+1, S+1, note that a number of buildings match that criteria) or a butcher (6 BP, E+1, L+1) if we would wish to spread the non-economic bonus up instead of concentrating it.

Further, with limited leadership positions in use, I don't know if the starting DC will be 20...

Does that make sense?

Was there some reason as to really want the shop to get that +500 base value on the first turn? I am not fully familiar with all the rules, so perhaps I am missing something.

Alrich is correct on many points.

Buildings that reduce unrest do so only once. Buildings that give unrest only do so once. It was my belief that the rules state this rather clearly?

If a building affects Unrest, it does so only once, when it is first constructed.

Now, the big reason why you might want City Base Value is: if you wish to find an item, you have a 75% chance of finding it in a city if its value is below the city's base value - which is a base 200 gp.

I should mention: selling magic items won't be allowed. It breaks the system - even with the revised BP changes in the Book of the River Kingdoms. Essentially, Step 3 in the Income phase is changed to "Discard 1 magic item per city district" (or is it "per city"...)

Starting DC will be 10 + size, so 11. Which means you will have a rather high chance of succeeding.

I haven't quite decided when the DC increases to 15 + size, or 20 + size. It'll cap likely at 50 + size (but that scenario will likely only happen when you control something like 3/4th of the Stolen Lands...)

Ah. An oversight on my part. My apologies. After working all night and not being too familiar with the rules, I over looked it. I went off of what would be realistic (A slum providing the negatives every 'round') rather than what the rules illustrated. I guess I'll just stick to sneaking around and stabbing things =P

Unrest sucks =(

Well, we cannot build a shop until we have a house, since we have to have a house adjacent to the shop. My vote would be:

Mill: (6BP), +1 Economy, +1 Stability
Butcher: (6BP), +1 Economy, +1 Loyalty

@ DM Patcher: What leadership roles are available and which roles are mandatory at this stage of development.

I like one character - otherwise you are too split. It would be easy for us to have a muscle bound brute, a few super charismatic bards and so forth to fill the roles and call them our alternate characters. We started with 6, lets stay that way. If people want to create NPCs, go for it, but I think 1 PC/player is the way the game is designed and the way we should have played it. If we become a really small group due to attrition, then we could rethink this at that point.

Not any more split than playing characters in multiple games. And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't particularly have a desire to min/max a character just to fill a leadership roll, I want to make a character I'd be interested in playing. They might not get equal screen time all the time, given that only one or the other would be with the party when they're out and about, but that seems reasonable, you expand on the things the camera happens to be focused on. And actually I think it could have some potential from a storytelling perspective, it would allow for the focus to be able to shift between the town and adventuring more easily.

Personally I think it would be more interesting to have the various leadership roles filled with actual personalities rather than some NPC's statted just to fill them. Asking Patcher to have them all as NPC's will in the end either put a lot more work on his plate creating distinct personalities or will cause them to fade into background statistics. Do we really want to min/max an NPC ruler just to have a high stat for the kingdom, I mean at the 15 point buy a 16 is a solid stat. Honestly, I'm not super keen on an NPC ruler, they either have to be a complete Milquetoast and roll over for the PC's or end up having the GM making important decisions for us.

Plus being able to swap characters back and forth can help keep things fresh without being too disruptive.

In the beginning, only Ruler is available. It is also compulsory.

The other roles are available when the following buildings are built:

Councillor - Unlocked with Town Hall
(Grand) Diplomat - Unlocked with Town Hall
(High) Priest - Unlocked with Temple
General - Unlocked with Garrison
Marshal - Unlocked with Office of the City Guard
Magister - Unlocked with Academy
Royal Assassin - Unlocked with Castle
Spymaster - Unlocked with Guildhall (subject to change)
Treasurer - Unlocked with Town Hall
Warden - Unlocked with Garrison

On a different note, Falger doesn't have his second trait. Where you going to pick something appropriate, or should we come up with something and run it by you, or what?

On a different note, Falger doesn't have his second trait. Where you going to pick something appropriate, or should we come up with something and run it by you, or what?

Second trait is mostly an opportunity for you to pick traits that could give you 1 more BP at the beginning (noble parents, or some such) or possibly a +1 bonus if assigned to a particular leadership role. Or simply a normal trait. It's your pick, but I asked that you kept it open in case you wanted something a little more campaign-appropriate.

Possible Trait:

Societal Helper: Known for spending years going from town to town and only helping the weak and the injured despite continual prejudice has given Msosth a reputation to honesty and safety.

Benefit: +1 when in any Leadership role which promotes trust related to Stability or Loyalty -- Councilor, General, Grand Diplomat, High Priest, Marshal, Treasurer, Warden
_________________

For the town, I think we should get:

Brewery: +1 Loyalty, +1 Economy
Baker: +1 Stability, +1 Economy

Leaves us with 3BP, we can get a house and a Tradesman or Stable next turn.

Possible Trait:

Societal Helper: Known for spending years going from town to town and only helping the weak and the injured despite continual prejudice has given Msosth a reputation to honesty and safety.

Benefit: +1 when in any Leadership role which promotes trust related to Stability or Loyalty -- Councilor, General, Grand Diplomat, High Priest, Marshal, Treasurer, Warden
_________________

For the town, I think we should get:

Brewery: +1 Loyalty, +1 Economy
Baker: +1 Stability, +1 Economy

Leaves us with 3BP, we can get a house and a Tradesman or Stable next turn.

I think Brewery is Tier 2.

Have we figured out what to do about the ruling position?
Elise (party made NPC, Celtaran Princess) Ch 20
Alrich Ch 16
bring in Dax (Sorcerer Ch 16, IIRC) to be the ruler and have 7 members?
Anyone else have something over 10?

what title to use?
1. The First of New Celtara short for The First Among Equals of New Celtara (borrowed from the Wheel of Time, seems good for when one player will be a ruler with other players in rulership positions) has my vote. :)
2. Mayor?
3. Anything else?

Any other ideas?

I've only just started absorbing the kingdom building rules, so I don't know if this would even be feasible, but I've a suggestion that might fix out stat allocation problem. While I understand it would normally be well outside the bounds of what a trait is normally capable of, what of a trait that allowed a different stat to be substituted for Charisma. For instance, Lead By Example: Use Strength instead of Charisma, or Wise Leader: Wisdom, Diligent Planner/Crafty Schemer: Int for Chr, et c.

Not entirely sold on it myself, but just brainstorming a little.

I kind of like the First Lord/High Lord idea that was floated.

Given our party make up, how about something a little more gobliny/monstary (look I'm making up words) like: Boss, Big Boss, Boss Boss/Grand Poobah/Biggest Boss/et c.

I kind of like the First Lord/High Lord idea that was floated.

Given our party make up, how about something a little more gobliny/monstary (look I'm making up words) like: Boss, Big Boss, Boss Boss/Grand Poobah/Biggest Boss/et c.

Well, both the goblin and kobold cultures have been drastically changed by integration into the Celtaran nation. Also, we are essentially trying to resurrect the Celtaran nation, so I would prefer titles that are more conventional; we want to attract and include everyone.

I kind of like the First Lord/High Lord idea that was floated.

Given our party make up, how about something a little more gobliny/monstary (look I'm making up words) like: Boss, Big Boss, Boss Boss/Grand Poobah/Biggest Boss/et c.

Silly me didn't even realize Kezzin had floated that when I posted "my" idea for first among equals, the exact words used by Kezzin.

First Lord works for me, with the rest of us being High Lords.

I plan on playing the Intellect roles, my Cha is between really bad and sucky.

Falger Ortio wrote:

I kind of like the First Lord/High Lord idea that was floated.

Given our party make up, how about something a little more gobliny/monstary (look I'm making up words) like: Boss, Big Boss, Boss Boss/Grand Poobah/Biggest Boss/et c.

Silly me didn't even realize Kezzin had floated that when I posted "my" idea for first among equals, the exact words used by Kezzin.

It's okay. He may have been first, but they're equally valid. :)

I'm all for making a second character -- and no worries, Patcher, I understand your point about wanting valid and useful second characters who aren't just NPCs.

It might be worth seeing what those look like before we decide on who rules.

First Lord/High Lord is good for me -- do we assume that each of the founding families (us) has 1 High Lord amongst its numbers then?

On the second character thing, how do people feel about it as an optional thing. You can if you want to, but if yo don't want to be bothered then no big deal.

On the second character thing, how do people feel about it as an optional thing. You can if you want to, but if yo don't want to be bothered then no big deal.

Fine with me - I am already in too many campaigns, the last thing I need is to remember which of two characters I am running in this campaign.

So, what are everybody's ideas for a ruler? Unless I'm mistaken, I think that we need to pick that first.

At least some of our group does not wish to make extra characters.

So, given that there will be open spots, we need a ruler type, and some people were willing to make extra characters if need be, would we rather add another player, Dax with Jarix, a sorcerer with an 18 charisma; have some of us make extra characters one of which would be the ruler; use an NPC for a ruler (Elise), or choose Alrich because he is the only current character with a charisma over ten.

My vote:
As of now, I would say add Jarix (Dax), but I don't speak for the party.

Note: If DM Patcher agreed to Falger's suggestion, post 35 (I think), the best we would start with would be a +3 (same as Alrich but less than Elise (+5) and Jarix(+4) although some would bump to a +4 before Alrich but still be behind Elise and bump to a five after Jarix would.

On the second character thing, how do people feel about it as an optional thing. You can if you want to, but if yo don't want to be bothered then no big deal.

Doesn't bother me.

First Lord/High Lord works.

My vote is for Elise, but it may just be my fondness for the NPC since I created her ;). Also, I would note that the position would be similar to the Queen of England, as DM Patcher pointed out.

I would generally prefer to have player characters fill leadership roles. That being said, I would be okay with Elise being our figurehead. In fact, having the last scion of the Celtaran Royal House be the ruler of New Celtara appeals to me.

Now, we just need to hear from the morning crew. :)

Just out of curiosity, before building any extra characters, so that no ones toes get trod upon, what roles are you all shooting for. There are only 3 for which Falger Might be ideal. General, Marshall, and Royal Assassin. The later would be out of character for him, and besides it is the only role that isn't damaging to forgo (beyond the loss of the bonus it would provide). Marshall seems like the most obvious for him, as it's vacancy penalties are the worst of the remaining two, I think he's the only one statwise that could currently cover it, and guardian role sort of suits his personality.

Regarding Jarix, I have no problem one way or the other.

I posted this in the other thread. Here is, essentially, the summary of Month Zero. The Income and Event phase is skipped because you are merely establishing this month.

I would imagine, based on his personality and views, would want to be the Warden.

Patcher -- how would this be as a trait for Irikar:

Spirit of the Wilds: Select one woods hex controlled by your kingdom. As long as you are present and able to patrol that hex, it increases the ability of that hex to reduce consumption (from 1 to 2).