It annoys me. All the characters ever seem to want to do is become filthy rich, start their own buisinesses, armies, and organizations, and take the leadership feat. And then i have to think up what their first level henchmen are doing while they battle war trolls. I have one player who has this marvelous wizard/fighter/spellsword/archmage mix at epic levels and never adventures with him because he's too busy running his organization and ruling his country. I've got another player who's ranger/fighter insist that he lead a mercenary company, and the followers do nothing but make them stick out like a sore thumb. I've thought about banning the leadership feat altogether, but if i do, then the characters will get upset, and the high seas campain i'm creating won;t work, because they'll all insist on having a crew of loyal followers. Anyone else got these kinds of problems? What can i do?
then make them pay for seprate ships for each chacters crew they won't all fit on one ship or say they can only bring cohorts with them to the dungeon sites and crews stay on ships and only fight in ship to ship battles
It annoys me. All the characters ever seem to want to do is become filthy rich, start their own buisinesses, armies, and organizations, and take the leadership feat. And then i have to think up what their first level henchmen are doing while they battle war trolls. I have one player who has this marvelous wizard/fighter/spellsword/archmage mix at epic levels and never adventures with him because he's too busy running his organization and ruling his country. I've got another player who's ranger/fighter insist that he lead a mercenary company, and the followers do nothing but make them stick out like a sore thumb. I've thought about banning the leadership feat altogether, but if i do, then the characters will get upset, and the high seas campain i'm creating won;t work, because they'll all insist on having a crew of loyal followers. Anyone else got these kinds of problems? What can i do?
I really wouldn't call this a problem per say. Real estate and followers can provide a ton of natural adventure hooks. Just off the top of my head:
1. One follower has a price on his head for one reason or another.
2. The land the character's castle is built on is sacred, cursed, the meeting place of fairies once every century, located on a faultline, strategic possition between rival nations or planes.
3. A population lives in fear of what enemies the wizard's tower might attract and form protests, start a rebellion, sabotage it's construction, or ally with those same enemies to eliminate the threat.
4. Labor disputes. Sure upper management can kill them all but can he or she pay their medical, daycare, and retirement expenses. What happens if they strike?
5. Paranoia. The characters rival starts a rumor that there is a spy among the ranks.
6. Over enthusiastic subordinates start acting more and more like the leader (because that's right, right?) Any good/bad leadership traits are passed down through the ranks (i.e. if the leader starts badmouthing something many of her followers do. A very few might go a step or two further).
7. Office politics. Cliques form with in the group.
8. Another fine villain brought to you by the Wayne Foundation. A follower is horribly injured (physically, mentally or spiritually) and becomes a villain because of it blaming the PC for their state.
9. Hostage situation. Stay where you are and kick the money over here or I kill this hireling/cohort.
10. Bribery. How loyal are they. Can they be persuaded to neglect a duty for the sake of money that might go to help their families.
11. Army of Doppelgangers. 'Nuff said.
12. The burden of leadership. What does the leader do when his followers get into trouble, catch the plague or die while on duty. Does he comfort their families? pay for their burial? Raise their kids?
13. Logistics. How do you feed, arm, and care for those people?
14. Recreation. How do you keep moral high.
15. Upkeep. Homes and buildings need constant upkeep. Who does the gardening, the cooking, cleaning and occasional painting and carpentry work.
16. She's rich (let's go rob her blind). How many shady characters come offering credit? A chance to get into a "sure fire" business deal? Or an offer to buy some lakefront property in a marshland? How many thieves just try to steal things? Money is a responsibility.
17. How many kingdoms like to see a small army wander through? How many enemies of the kingdom try to recruit them?
18. Oh look there she is. It is difficult to remain hidden from people when you have an entourage.
19. Personallity clash. What if you don't get along with one of your followers on a specific topic?
20. Madame PC I need your help. Who do people go to when they need help in a typical campaign - the PCs. So what if the people who follow them have problems (and who doesn't)?
21. Troup Play. If everyone has a PC with a cohort they can play the cohorts instead of their regular characters for a change of pace. This group of characters can handle clean up missions or deal with adventures that are well beneath the primary characters' level.
22. The grass is always greener. If more than one character has the leadership feat and their followers mingle together team rivalries might form. "My boss is better than yours!" "Is not." "Is too."
Remember to use all of this sparingly. Having to be semi-responsible for the lives of your employees and take care of your property can really add some depth to the followers. I suggest making up names for all of them (or at least the first and most important two or three dozen (there are a lot of name generators out there on the web that can do this sort of thing in a second). Give each of these characters a personality trait or tag, like hums all the time, or is really handsome but doesn't know it. Role-play these characters as you would any NPC. Don't go throught the trouble of fullydeveloping them - unless they takeon actual significance. I doubt the player will be able to keep all the names straight at first like any new boss, but sooner or later they will start having opinions about these characters. They might grow to like or dislike some of them and when the time comes might even mourn the passing of brave Sergeant So-and-so who spoke with a lisp and had a twin brother in the local militia or whatever.
"Remember with great power comes great responsibility."
-Any given Spiderman flashback featuring Uncle Ben
GGG
2. The land the character's castle is built on is sacred, cursed, the meeting place of fairies once every century, located on a faultline, strategic possition between rival nations or planes.
I can see it!
"People said I was daft, building a castle on a sacred, cursed, meeting place of fairies once every century, located on faultline that is in a strategic position between rival nations *and* planes... but I built it anyways. Then it fell into the swamp."
Seriously, though... yeah, you might be in a bad spot. But, if your players' characters want to stop the adventuring life, it might be time for them to make new characters.
It would be next to impossible to run a campaign with players whose PCs each own a separate army, city, or whatever. At the point when the PCs stop working together, there will be large conflicts of interests.
I don't see how you can run a campaign that will please your players this way. If one player wants a campaign that allows him to role-play the intrigue inherent in running a city, how are you going to be able to spend time with the mercenary crew trying to maintain a base of operations and find jobs for all of his followers? Not to mention the high-seas campaign that you want.
Sounds to me like you have a problem of MIN/MAXing just in reverse. Rather than hack & slash and powerplay (which clearly it appears your PCs have been doing), the pendulum has now swung to the full opposite extreme and all they want to do is deep intrigue, behind-the-scenes, in-depth personal stuff.
My first advice is - absolutely DO NOT abolish the leadership feat in an effort to curb your players behavior. I firmly believe what they are currently experiencing is a phase, one in which they will likely quickly tire of in not too much time. This clearly is not your personal style of play but humor them for at least one campaign and if they still insist, then you need to revisit your options at that point (like discontinuing being their DM for a while or something).
I personally don't believe you'll have to ever go that far. I mean, you asked the question and you gave the answer at the same time. You have this epic level super-hero who doesn't actually ever get to adventure because he's so busy with the details of his empire. That sounds more like HIS problem than yours. The ranger/fighter can't logically travel anywhere with this troupe of mercenaries he insists on dragging along - EXACTLY! That's going to get real old, real fast! If the players want to play these traveling hordes and armies of followers, don't prevent them from doing so - punish them by LETTING them do so. A session or two of them having to go through the logistics of deciding the behavior/actions of what amounts to a dozen or more NPCs and they'll quickly be pleading for mercy. If they each want a ship with full compliment and crew to adventure in your up-coming high seas campaign, let the others at the table sit with twiddling thumbs while player number one goes through the 15 minute explanation (and die rolling) required to complete his "actions" for that round, then onto player two, and number three ... and so on. The tedium will quickly convince everyone involved that having just one character a piece is truly the way to go!
Like the saying goes "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!".
Give them what they're asking for and they'll soon be asking for the kind of game that you personally prefer anyway. But give them a chance to sample the grass on the other side or else they'll resent you for being an oppressive DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2. The land the character's castle is built on is sacred, cursed, the meeting place of fairies once every century, located on a faultline, strategic position between rival nations or planes.I can see it!
"People said I was daft, building a castle on a sacred, cursed, meeting place of fairies once every century, located on faultline that is in a strategic position between rival nations *and* planes... but I built it anyways. Then it fell into the swamp."
"So I built another and when that one sank beneath the Earth's crust I built another. That one burned down, so we built this one on top. And no singing!"
GGG
I had a similiar problem but the players insisted on bring their cohorts along on every adventure. Not only did this upset the adventure balance (add a extra monster here, a few class levels there) but it also slowed the combat down measurably.
Every round was a saga as characters had a few shots each plus their cohorts had a couple and then all the monsters and their extra allies who had to show up to balance the encounters had to have all their goes...every battle was a very lengthy ordeal.
The players began to be swapped under too because they had to think of how a number of characters would react rather than just one. It all became a bit much.
SO...we decided if the party were to take on followers/cohorts they would leave them back in the castles etc. I reduced the amount of 'castle adventures' - and had the homebases more self sufficent. Problems (adventures) were few and far between centered around the homebases and cohorts. They became more nice retreats/sancturies to return to betwenn adventures rather than continuous adventures themselves.
While I didn't discourage the players spending time refurnishing castles, purchasing new armourments, hiing personal/troops etc I sped up thesed processes dramatically and highlighted the adventures much more.
The results were that the party enjoys play a lot more. High level combat is slow at the best of times. Increaing the numbers of attacks/variables does little to increase enjoyment and a great deal to destroying it. Linking the cohorts and followers to 'home' also makes them less desirable but still allies/resources that can be used in a pinch.
Ultimately this is a decision you will need to address with your party. Tell them your concerns and ask them to come up with solutions. For you Highseas adventure have the cohorts/followers stay at home or have you run the crew on mass (ie this is what happens rather than having each follower have to make a roll every time). Warn the party that during this adventure any cohort/follower they bring along you will be controlling or they can hire a crew (still under your control).
If you are not happy with the state of play you need to discuss this with your party. Go in with some ideas or even a list of choices the party much choose from. See what works best for you.
Good luck and keep us posted.
Delvesdeep
While not on the epic scale you're playing with in a recent Eberron game we had it come up that a character's lackey wasn't coming along with us on the lightning rail simply because the PC didn't have the money to spare...do you know how much the damned lightning rail costs?! Put that to a much larger scale and that still comes into play. Moving that many people ain't free and unless your characters have their gold in the Bank of Really Great Interest Rates the money will dwindle...or bleed out if enplanned for building expenses pop up, an embezzler is among the ranks, the nearby thieves guild catches wind of gold just lying around waiting for a vault to be built for it, or any other manner of NPCs that can smell money and have a way to take it. I can't imagine wanting to keep playing a character who's essentially a bureaucrat of is own making. Where's the adventure in that?
- Chris Shadowens
all good ideas. I beleive i shall follow them. This wealth-mongering, nation-leading, hiding-in-the-castle attitude will wear off soon enough. This is good. I can encourage it to wear out. Even better. Thank you.
Though as it is, i never understood the alure of it all anyway. I mean, my DM in the Forgotten Realms campain insisted that i had to be part of a cult, despite my character's obvious loner potential. So i comandeered the cult and set them on a suicidal mission while i rigged up the entire noble's district of Baldur's Gate with boompowder and oil and blew it all to kingdom come. Then he inists i meet some more cultists at the inn and join them. So i ended up killing them. Then he's insisting that i join this OTHER cult, and i'm in the process of making him understand that while it is fun to work WITH cults, playing a cultist is boring.
|
4. Labor disputes/6. Over enthusiastic subordinates/7. Office politics/8. Another fine villain brought to you by the Wayne Foundation/13. Logistics/15. Upkeep/etc.
As always, GGG is a fountain of good ideas... All of these can really make the characters take stock of how important it is to have a retinue of 'hanger's on' fluffing their pillows at night. If they are wanting to keep a small army, well, that's an option, but they better be ready to pay a fair wage for every damn one of 'em. Every single retainer will have to be outfitted and upkept...housing them on the fly can be problematic, so they better like camping a lot if they are gonna be following along. And as for moving them through other Lord's land holdings...Well, they had better be paying for that to make sure the local and regional governments don't see it as an invasion (name value only goes so far...gold coin goes farther).
20. Madame PC I need your help. Who do people go to when they need help in a typical campaign - the PCs. So what if the people who follow them have problems (and who doesn't)?/21. Troup Play. If everyone has a PC with a cohort they can play the cohorts instead of their regular characters for a change of pace. This group of characters can handle clean up missions or deal with adventures that are well beneath the primary characters' level.
This may be your best option. Have your players work on the 'next generation' of heros. In some of my past games (both as a player and as a DM) having fresher, younger characters come in and follow in the footseps/traditions/collossal F-ups of the earlier group can make for some really compelling stories. The sons/daughters/students developing and moving out of the shadows, forming different opinions and aims can be profoundly interesting because it feels like so much more is at stake... the history and the future!
I suggest making up names for all of them (or at least the first and most important two or three dozen (there are a lot of name generators out there on the web that can do this sort of thing in a second). Give each of these characters a personality trait or tag, like hums all the time, or is really handsome but doesn't know it.
In Hollywood this is known as the 'McHale's Navy Effect' or the 'Hogan's Heroes Constant'.
BTW, GGG... Do you have to wear a hard-hat to keep people from sinkin' a pick in your cranium to dig up all those nuggets of gold?
As always... GGG is a DM after my own heart;
Seems like any or all of those "characters-as-rulers" plot hooks would work just fine; just remember, "With great power comes great responsibility." If the players want to run small fiefdoms, make sure that they get fiefdom-sized encounters, like a tribe of Bugbears at a time. If they're happy to run a '250+ good guys vs. 250+ bad guys' style of encounter but you don't, volunteer for one of the more rabid players to DM that type of game and bow out.
The headaches of administering that style of play is precisely why I enjoy running lower level games; I've yet to run any campaign over 12th level and I find them a bit more fun for all involved.
I've been a part of a 2nd Ed. game group for over three years now that runs exactly that type of game; I'm running one of four characters who are over 14th level and have taken control over a small section of Cormyr in FR due to our exploits. We save the DM a lot of the minor administering headaches by doing it ourselves (castle staffing, supply & payroll, local township population, taxation, militia and other low level followers, and things of that nature); the DM merely takes care of designing large scale and high end encounters for the region.
Of course, this is mostly made easy by one of the players - who is a retired Army Colonel and very apt at all of the paperwork and number-crunching... But, in that vein, I wouldn't recommend that a DM trust his players to do that much administrative work on his behalf, unless all of the players in the group are all over 35 yrs of age (or at least act like it), like we are.
M
I seem to recall in 3.0 (it may still be there in 3.5) that it said that taking leadership was up to the DM. I think this should be stressed. Prereq: dm's permission should be written right on the feat.
I'm of the mood that if a PC wants to recycle a severely level drained PC, or perhaps feels bad for Oak the Warforged and gets an arcane caster with repair light wounds, then I'm all for cohorts. If they're going to be running a financial empire, I'm going to keep the PC out of the managagement.
I agree- mercenaries should be paid. However, the costs of retaining a group of mercenaries listed on pg. 105 of the DMG is pathetic. In fact, all those prices are pathetic. Almost any 2nd level or higher group could afford at least a few mercenaries for a week or two at a time. It says that these are for long-term services, but it still adds up to peanuts, even over a few years. The section indicates that these are for low-level hirelings, and the DMG 2 has higher level costs for specialists... but not long-term retainers, such as mercenaries.
My point is, basically, this question: Do other DMs actually use those tables, or just generate a price that seems right for the situation? Also, if the party can only afford very low level hirelings, then they shouldn't cost much, since they can't do much of anything. In that case, why take the leadership feat at all?
And that question goes even deeper. What is the point of Leadership? Hundreds of NPCs around the party have people under their command, but they don't have Leadership. Perhaps if one has a position of some type of authority, it isn't needed? Shouldn't that be in the rules? What about the orc chief who allies with the Erythnul cultists, and doesn't ahve Leadership? Alliances of mutual interests are exempt, too? That is very vague. And the dragon with his minions? Intimidation also circumvents the feat? I know it's not too heroic, but many players, including some of mine, wouldn't hesitate to go that route if it freed up another feat. Take the first adventure in the AoW AP- Kullen has cronies that would be followers if he were a PC- but not only does he have leadership, he's 3 levels too low to even qualify.
Is leadership just a way to say, NPCs can make allies/have followers all they want, but the party has to spend an extra feat to get the same? I'm not above given NPCs strange abilities that the party has no chance of ever attaining; I do this all the time. But with something so basic as having lackeys?
If I'm missing something, please tell me. Leadership is a favorite with my group, too, but I don't really see why it should even be there. The PCs do great things, and people are attracted to them. If the characters seek followers or will accept them, they will come when the party has the ability. Then it is completely under the DM's purview without draining a player feat, which sounds great to me. However, I don't want to fiddle with the rules to soon. So if someone can please enlighten me as to how Leadership-granted allies differ from those amassed by many other NPCs without that feat, I'm all ears.
speaking of mercenary prices, i once had the idea to use the mercenary prices listed as a reward for the mercenary PCs after their adventures. And they were pissed. So maybe that will work.
My point is, basically, this question: Do other DMs actually use those tables, or just generate a price that seems right for the situation? Also, if the party can only afford very low level hirelings, then they shouldn't cost much, since they can't do much of anything. In that case, why take the leadership feat at all?
I banged into this as well. The prices are insane. Its clearly based on a campaign world of, I don't know, 9th-11th Century Europe maybe. Totally non-specialized populations who where brutally poverty struck. It states that most of these people spend large periods of their none working hours essentially foraging or doing self sustaining activities. In anycase unless your running in a really poverty struck part of the world I just can't see how these prices really add up.
Personally I just used the opportunity to make distinctions to varous parts of my lands. So a few regions that really are poverty struck and ruled by kniving warlords are in fact this poor. Other areas show off their wealth by having inhabitants that are some multiple of this tables prices. In my home brew a wealthy land is one where even the peons can afford to the tavern once a week.
Actually if you have access to it you might want to take a look at the 2nd Edition Mighty Fortress book. I can't really remember how that panned out in terms of prices but I think it was fairly realistic for a 16th century style world which is probably roughly closer to where most campaigns are in terms of their societys as compared to the Dark Ages. We can somewhat understand the beliefs and values of our 16th century forebearers where as I think that understanding the mind of some one from the 10th Century is near impossible - we just have no real frame or reference for what their lives where like. Its probably significantly easier to understand the world of a hunter gatherer then some one who lived in 10th Century Germany.
I think the leadership feat is yet another example of how versions 3.0 & 3.5 constantly create problems and then later are forced to impliment complex systems to fix the problems (or worse, force DMs to untangle the mess). It's like the overmedication of our elderly, for crying out loud!
I believe WOTC created the leadership feat as a way to curb the large-scale usage of followers/henchmen by the average PC so that the whole thing didn't get out of control (which I wasn't aware has ever been a problem until now), instead they succeeded in creating the very problem they sought to avoid. If characters are going to spend a hard-earned feat, they sure as h*** are going to use it. This just motivates PCs to squeeze every possible advantage out of their followers and creates the kind of headaches the original poster complained about. This requirement is not enforced on NPCs because WOTC figured no DM in his right mind is going to waste time with endless underlings and thereby rob their cool villian of the spotlight.
Still, now they have created this problem and it won't be easy to fix. You can't unring a bell so changing leadership to a non-feat option for those who've already played it in its newest version probably will do little to alleviate stress and trouble. Once a DM finds him/herself in this quagmire, its best to use tactics like those described in the thread above. Those DMs who haven't encountered this as a problem, remove the leadership feat while there's still time or risk going screaming into the night!
Thanks again, WOTC!
Epic-level characters need epic level problems. any creature that's in the epic level handbook can lay waste to a bunch of pions or a stronghold and if the pc's want to stop this problem they are going to have to do it themselves or they wont have an army or stronghold for long.
Demon Hordes
A Rage of Dragons
A Gith invasion
I think the leadership feat is yet another example of how versions 3.0 & 3.5 constantly create problems and then later are forced to impliment complex systems to fix the problems (or worse, force DMs to untangle the mess). It's like the overmedication of our elderly, for crying out loud!
I believe WOTC created the leadership feat as a way to curb the large-scale usage of followers/henchmen by the average PC so that the whole thing didn't get out of control (which I wasn't aware has ever been a problem until now), instead they succeeded in creating the very problem they sought to avoid. If characters are going to spend a hard-earned feat, they sure as h*** are going to use it. This just motivates PCs to squeeze every possible advantage out of their followers and creates the kind of headaches the original poster complained about. This requirement is not enforced on NPCs because WOTC figured no DM in his right mind is going to waste time with endless underlings and thereby rob their cool villian of the spotlight.
Still, now they have created this problem and it won't be easy to fix. You can't unring a bell so changing leadership to a non-feat option for those who've already played it in its newest version probably will do little to alleviate stress and trouble. Once a DM finds him/herself in this quagmire, its best to use tactics like those described in the thread above. Those DMs who haven't encountered this as a problem, remove the leadership feat while there's still time or risk going screaming into the night!
Thanks again, WOTC!
Before leadership it was indeed worst. I had parties that where trying to recruit worshipers in a bid for Godhood. Imagine having to answer the question.P.c.How many worshippers do I need before I can become a minor power? Hmmm...1,000,000. PC..Okay I'm going to go into major cities and begin paying beggers to worship me. DM...oh crud.
A blast from the past. I've not seen some of these names in years...
Toz, probably because the thread was 7 years dead. But it's still an interesting topic.
My PC's don't adventure with their low level followers but do bring their cohorts along for back-up support.
|
I think you need to sit down and discuss the type of campaign they want to play and what you want and are willing to run and hope to come to some sort of compromise.
Even if you decide to give them a campaign focused on leading great entourages etc you probably need to focus on a single character's entourage, with the other players being more supporting characters - e.g. Master at Arms in charge of the main PC's mercenaries.
If necessary do multiple short campaigns (maybe 20 sessions) with each campaign focusing on one of the PCs as the "leader" character.
Of course if you really don't want to run this sort of campaign you need to let the players know.
To me this sounds like you and the players want different things out of the campaign - and maybe even the choice of system needs looking at if you decide to deliver what they want (e.g. FATE where 10 Minions can be handled as a single character, or perhaps something like Reign, not that I have read Reign).
EDIT - Doh, just noted TOZ's comment about the age of this thread!!! Oh well :)