[Intelligence Check] Are you still Master of Your Domain?

After an unexpected hiatus, I've finally updated Intelligence Check, my Pathfinder blog! And once again, it's an article about the Kingmaker Adventure Path, titled Are you still Master of Your Domain?

Well, it's actually an article about focusing play around rulership and politics, instead of killing things and taking their stuff, but it's discussed in the guise of Kingmaker.

The article discusses the why's of running this sort of game, and covers the major areas where the Kingmaker rules fall short - that the ultimate incentive is still XP and GP, both of which are gained via combat - before presenting some suggestions for tweaking the rules so that players can gain experience points and money without near-constant combat.

Enjoy, and if you feel so inclined, please let me know what you think!

Good article. I liked the idea of getting a stipend each month and getting XP for earning Building Points. As someone who is playing a social character in a Kingmaker game I think I would enjoy bring in all of this stuff.

Also, I have a question. Are you, by chance, a teacher or in the process of education classes?

Good article. I liked the idea of getting a stipend each month and getting XP for earning Building Points. As someone who is playing a social character in a Kingmaker game I think I would enjoy bring in all of this stuff.

I'm glad you liked the article! The XP award for BP is actually for spending them, but gaining experience for earning new BPs is an interesting idea also.

The major idea was to create a standardized method for allowing Kingmaker PCs to earn XP and gp, so I hope this works well for you in that regard.

Also, I have a question. Are you, by chance, a teacher or in the process of education classes?

Not formally, no. I'm a librarian by training and profession, though that does entail some instructing and management techniques for helping patrons and co-workers using the library system.

I kinda figured it was something like that. No one else uses the word "rubric".

I'm a student teacher, myself.

Cosmo Kramer and I are both out, and no longer master of our domains...

;)

Cosmo Kramer and I are both out, and no longer master of our domains...

;)

Perhaps you two could open up a fruit stand together. ;p

After an unexpected hiatus, I've finally updated Intelligence Check, my Pathfinder blog! And once again, it's an article about the Kingmaker Adventure Path, titled Are you still Master of Your Domain?

Well, it's actually an article about focusing play around rulership and politics, instead of killing things and taking their stuff, but it's discussed in the guise of Kingmaker.

The article discusses the why's of running this sort of game, and covers the major areas where the Kingmaker rules fall short - that the ultimate incentive is still XP and GP, both of which are gained via combat - before presenting some suggestions for tweaking the rules so that players can gain experience points and money without near-constant combat.

Enjoy, and if you feel so inclined, please let me know what you think!

Great article did any GM write any political intrigue adventure?

I'd say that your poo-poo'ing of BP withdrawals is actually horrible advice for upcoming GM's for this AP. This sub-board is filled with posts about the acidic effect this practice had on the game balance of Kingmaker and how much GM's were struggling with overpowered parties.
Example 1
Example 2

Interesting article, but after playing through parts 1-5, I would add that it requires some revision of the kingdom building system, and more importantly a "Do not abuse" clause between GM and players. My experience is that the BP for GP option is at best an underdeveloped idea, at worst a game-breaker, as magnuskn have pointed out.

I would have been interested in running an in-depth political extravaganza, but I can hardly manage to get my magpie players to listen to the exposition bits in the AP, much less involve themselves in something as intricate and time-consuming as politics. Yet somehow, they also find the exploring and combat tedious (mostly due to being overpowered) and silly, as they should be able to send other people to do that.

They have better system mastery and combat sense than I do, being veteran war-gamers, but have a far less impressive grasp of politics, their arguments being irrelevant (real life historical practices in a rather enlightened fantasy setting) and/or mostly immature (both in the under-developed sense, and sometimes the inflammatory/tantrum sense, which is sad for a group where the average player age is 30). So most political moments proceed to be somewhere between the range of the convenient "We must not show weakness!" argument to kill people (despite making their kingdom NG), and the "If you do that, my character is gonna leave party!"-pout, instead of actually having argumentative discussions in-game and developing political standpoints. (two players are especially guilty of this)

Last session was the aftermath of the Pitax "war" (the players are so mechanically over-powered that what the AP threw against them could hardly be called a war in the true sense of the word, making it more akin to America intervening in an underdeveloped third world country). And I was thinking I would mix things up a little. But before that, some exposition: After a long time prior to the last couple of sessions, I was contemplating shutting down the AP, since they found a way to beat the system by harvesting 150BP/phase, made all stability/loyalty/economy checks on a 2 on the d20, and spent the surplus making sure they had the best equipment the wizard could craft, and thus became nigh invincible. Instead I abolished the kingdom building bit and introduced a more RP-oriented approach.

An opportunistic home-brew mercenary general named Horatio Varreno, who helped them during the war as he knew how the wind was changing, made an offer to "take the headache of Pitax out of their hands". His argument: Pitax is a city-state with an ancient history, home to many old families running trade houses with international connections and so forth. The PC kingdom just endured a war, were low on funds and had Brevoy looming on their doorstep (as they threw the secession in their face when they came and demanded giving the reins of the kingdom to the ruling family to use the fledgling barony as a pawn in Brevoy's civil war). Annexing and trying to control a seditious council of traders that will invariably lose money and a torn country would be more a burden than it would be worth. And killing the rightful landholders would prove them tyrants, shattering the NG image their country is supposed to uphold. Alternatively, they could influence the powerful families, find good representatives/puppets, and so forth, creating a vassal realm, where the council would answer to the PC kingdom, which would lead to a new series of challenges.

Now there was something to contemplate, and that involved them a little more, as there were consequences to every choice. If we had run with the kingdom system; "roll a d20, don't get a 1. Made it? Pitax annexed."

However, this requires... patience. And players even interested in devoting time to politics in a game that is inherently skewed towards hack'n'slash.

I'd say that your poo-poo'ing of BP withdrawals is actually horrible advice for upcoming GM's for this AP. This sub-board is filled with posts about the acidic effect this practice had on the game balance of Kingmaker and how much GM's were struggling with overpowered parties.

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. You mention that I'm poo-pooing the idea of withdrawing BPs for gold - which I am, since under the system I'm proposing every BP withdrawn in this way is a small XP award the party doesn't get - and then say that withdrawing BPs for gold has ruined a lot of games.

If that's the case, then aren't I right to look unfavorably on the practice?

Now, to be fair, I also do talk about the upside to doing this - but it must be understood that this is taken in the context of the campaign idea I've proposed, where the PCs adventure very rarely, if at all, as as such earn hardly any of their XP from combat encounters. Withdrawing BP for gold thus directly subtracts from their main source of experience points.

Interesting article, but after playing through parts 1-5, I would add that it requires some revision of the kingdom building system, and more importantly a "Do not abuse" clause between GM and players. My experience is that the BP for GP option is at best an underdeveloped idea, at worst a game-breaker, as magnuskn have pointed out.

I can see that being the case in a normal game. (My own group was always very dry for BPs, and never explored the BP for gold pieces option.)

But again, the salient detail here is that I'm speaking in the context of a game that puts political role-playing first and combat in a very distant second. When there's very few other ways to gain XP or gp, the players won't be willing - or, I hope, able - to abuse excess BPs quite so much.

magnuskn wrote:

I'd say that your poo-poo'ing of BP withdrawals is actually horrible advice for upcoming GM's for this AP. This sub-board is filled with posts about the acidic effect this practice had on the game balance of Kingmaker and how much GM's were struggling with overpowered parties.

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. You mention that I'm poo-pooing the idea of withdrawing BPs for gold - which I am, since under the system I'm proposing every BP withdrawn in this way is a small XP award the party doesn't get - and then say that withdrawing BPs for gold has ruined a lot of games.

If that's the case, then aren't I right to look unfavorably on the practice?

Now, to be fair, I also do talk about the upside to doing this - but it must be understood that this is taken in the context of the campaign idea I've proposed, where the PCs adventure very rarely, if at all, as as such earn hardly any of their XP from combat encounters. Withdrawing BP for gold thus directly subtracts from their main source of experience points.

Hm, I am not sure if giving them extra XP isn't too much either... the AP works pretty well already in regards to having the players at their expected level, without giving them extra means than the standard ones to acquire experience.

The main problem with withdrawing gold for BP's is that under the standard kingdom building rules and with no limitations set by the GM, it is exceedingly easy to cheese the system for almost unlimited funds, through the magic item economy. Hence encouraging withdrawal of funds from BP seems to be the wrong way to go for me.

Hm, I am not sure if giving them extra XP isn't too much either... the AP works pretty well already in regards to having the players at their expected level, without giving them extra means than the standard ones to acquire experience.

I also think that the AP works very well as it is. I need to reiterate that I'm not talking about altering the Kingmaker adventure path. I'm talking about the using the kingdom building rules (including the exploring and mass combat rules) as mechanics in a political Pathfinder campaign.

The main problem with withdrawing gold for BP's is that under the standard kingdom building rules and with no limitations set by the GM, it is exceedingly easy to cheese the system for almost unlimited funds, through the magic item economy. Hence encouraging withdrawal of funds from BP seems to be the wrong way to go for me.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean via "the magic item economy."

The PCs don't automatically acquire magic items that are produced by institutions that create them. They still have to spend the requisite gold pieces to buy them, which isn't any different than in any ordinary Pathfinder campaign that has magic items for sale.

The Magic Item Economy problem is one of the things that killed my campaign.
If a group decides to focus on building shops that produce magic items and then gets their economy score high enough they can pretty much auto sell those items every turn. Now it doesn't give them cash but it does earn BP's which lets them build huge towns/armies to insane game breaking levels. If you add in the ability to withdraw BP's as cash then they quickly have near infinite wealth. All that together decks out every party member in near epic gear with any item their hearts desire.

Yeah, I didn't see it coming but my optimizers did

The Magic Item Economy problem is one of the things that killed my campaign.

If a group decides to focus on building shops that produce magic items and then gets their economy score high enough they can pretty much auto sell those items every turn. Now it doesn't give them cash but it does earn BP's which lets them build huge towns/armies to insane game breaking levels. If you add in the ability to withdraw BP's as cash then they quickly have near infinite wealth. All that together decks out every party member in near epic gear with any item their hearts desire.

Yeah, I didn't see it coming but my optimizers did

Okay, now I see what people are referring to. This is about that entry for Step 3 of the Income Phase "Sell Valuable Items," which lets the kingdom gain BPs for selling the magic items - the ones worth more than 4,000 gp - that the shops develop and earn the kingdom BPs from their sale.

I overlooked that simply because it never came up in my game (I suspect that my players all overlooked it also).

Personally, I'd completely delete that part of the process. If the PCs want to bolster their kingdom's treasury with sold materials, then things should stick squarely to the 4,000:1 rule for gps to BPs.

Besides the game-breaking implications of that rule, it also doesn't make sense regarding verisimilitude. While the mechanics have the PCs, as the kingdom rulers, growing the town, it's not a state-controlled market. Those shops making the magic items are private retailers and manufacturers, so it makes little sense that they can be directed by the PCs to sell their wares and deposit the funds in the kingdom treasury. That's the equivalent of a contemporary government forcing people to produce and sell things, and then keeping all of the profits for itself.

If the PCs want to use material wealth to pump up their kingdom's treasury, they better be prepared to donate it themselves - you can't direct private enterprises to do it for you.

Okay, now I see what people are referring to. This is about that entry for Step 3 of the Income Phase "Sell Valuable Items," which lets the kingdom gain BPs for selling the magic items - the ones worth more than 4,000 gp - that the shops develop and earn the kingdom BPs from their sale.

I overlooked that simply because it never came up in my game (I suspect that my players all overlooked it also).

Personally, I'd completely delete that part of the process. If the PCs want to bolster their kingdom's treasury with sold materials, then things should stick squarely to the 4,000:1 rule for gps to BPs.

Besides the game-breaking implications of that rule, it also doesn't make sense regarding verisimilitude. While the mechanics have the PCs, as the kingdom rulers, growing the town, it's not a state-controlled market. Those shops making the magic items are private retailers and manufacturers, so it makes little sense that they can be directed by the PCs to sell their wares and deposit the funds in the kingdom treasury. That's the equivalent of a contemporary government forcing people to produce and sell things, and then keeping all of the profits for itself.

If the PCs want to use material wealth to pump up their kingdom's treasury, they better be prepared to donate it themselves - you can't direct private enterprises to do it for you.

My main problem is that I really don't see how selling tons of major items could feasibly work. Who is buying all that stuff? From a rinky-dink new barony out in the wilds of the River Kingdoms, to boot.

Erik Freund mentioned that he replaced the magic item economy with added resources in sometimes far-away hexes, which encourages exploration and expansion of the kingdom... I am still hoping he'll share with us the details of his houserules. :)