I'm Too Old To Adventure

[Iconoclast]

The way I see it, a lot of adventurers wouldn't want to keep delving into dungeons when they're tenth level. Sure, it's good money, but there has to be more to life. As one of my jaded NPCs said to the party (he was an eighth level fighter who had been adventuring for fifteen years):

"Adventuring isn't all fame, glory, and scantily clad women - you don't bathe for weeks at a time, all kinds of bugs and diseases are everywhere, and after two months in the field, you can't tell whether someone started as a man or a woman. And do you know how many times I've sh*t myself? Drink some dirty water, get surprised by a monster in the swamp, don't have time to take a squat... that's what adventuring boils down to: dirt, disease, and diarrhea."

As such, I like to provide my PCs with the ability to do things that don't revolve around monster killing. I've had PCs start trade companies, build the Renaissance equivalent of the Job Corps, and even take up leadership of a country's most powerful organized crime family. There's something more fun about adventuring when you're doing it not to complete someone else's quest, but when you're doing it to secure the interest of your personal ambitions.

Now, D&D doesn't have many rules governing PC enterprises. There's the leadership feat, but other than that, everything is pretty much done through role play. But, because I don't want to give the PCs power they don't work for, and because I want them to be able to actually use what resources they have, I have devised a system for empire building that I would like people here to critique.

First, it starts with PC reputation, because PCs need to have a bit of oomph behind them before Joe Shmuckatelli will seek employment with them. Reputation is written on a 1-30 scale, and bonus reputation can be awarded through excellent role play or completing a quest in an original way. Before a PC can influence a certain organization in a "leadership" capacity, he must have reputation equal to the CR of the organization's most powerful leading member plus the organizations resources and connections.

For example: if the party wants to insinuate themselves as ranking members or allies of a thieves guild whose leader is a sixth-level beguiler and whose contacts span the entire city (as well as boasting total assets of 10,000 gp), they must first have reputation equal to 10 (6 for the leader, 2 for city-wide influence [if they work in an official capacity, this increases by another 2], and 2 for their assets). There are, however, different kinds of reputations, outlined below. For this kind of organization, the PCs would have to have the relevant [u]Local[/u] reputation.

The first kind of reputation is overall reputation - this is a party's notoriety/renown for their "adventuring" deeds.

Local: City, village, town, monastery, etc. Limited to a specific small area.

Regional: Country, kingdom, tribal network, expansive organization.

Legendary: Continent, world, empire.

Planar: Specific extra-planar entities, gods, otherworldly organizations.

Reputation can be received any number of ways. Helping the local healer may garner local reputation, and rolling particularly high on perform checks (using the guidelines in the PHB) will garner reputation. A series of Perform checks around 10 will give a bard a reputation of a "decent singer", and a series of perform checks over 30 made in many different locales may attract the attention of an erinyes flautist.

The second kind of reputation is specific reputation, which deals primarily with organizations and offices.

Local: A fisherman's guild, a seamstress, a group of lumberjacks or miners.

Regional: A knightly order, the military, local officials, small trade companies, a local church.

Legendary: A universally feared conclave of assassins, a far-reaching merchant organization, an entire faith, an emperor.

Planar: The curators of Boccob's library, The Lady of Pain, a roaming platoon of hound archon paladins, a council of devas.

So, two kinds of reputations. Every action the party takes that could increase their reputation may give them 1, possible two points in their category. Working for the local traders to help clear a road of bandits would give the party a +1 reputation with that organization. Traveling to Acheron to recover the blessed mace of a mythical cleric might give upwards of a +5 when dealing with every member of that faith.

Now, there's also notoriety in there as well. Doing something against the will of another organization will subtract reputation from that particular group or region. To use the previous example, allying with the bandits and running a protection racket against traders will make it less likely that the PCs will be able to get buddy-buddy with the local militia, but more likely that they will be welcomed by other local bands of brigands.

So, through the course of the adventure, the PCs get reputation. If they get high enough reputation, it ALLOWS them the ATTEMPT to start their own businesses and such. If the party has reputation with local trade guilds, for example (by working for them or paying extortionist licensing fees), they will be able to become licensed merchants, will be able to use their money to buy their own ships, and will be recognized in ports as traders, allowing them to buy, transport, and sell goods. If their deeds have been martially legendary, they may be able to assume ranking positions in a mercenary company, re-unite a fracture knightly order, or have enough renown to form their own military force (nothing too big, at first - a group of a couple hundred soldiers). If they are known as magically savvy, they will be able to receive authorization from the government to build their own wizard's academy. Quests then start to revolve around their personal dealings as well as trouncing bad guys, and having their businesses gives them bonuses that will give them more opportunities and better supplies to help them along the way.

Reputation only ALLOWS the players to role play as though they are trying to start a business. It does not just GIVE them stuff, but it lets them take the initiatve to do it.

So... what do you all think?

[Pax Veritas]

Your reputation model sounds like its working for you well. Nice way to support the idea of "retirement."

I tend to also hold a traditional Gygaxian view on adventuring, which involves the classic.... around 9th level or so, you settle down with a small keep and a lady-friend idea.

Levels 1-9 are great for adventuring, maybe even through 13th or 14th these days.

Then, I like to retire my character and start new campaigns. If the campaign continues, I like the game to transcend the 'mire' of ScottBettsianKoboldSlaying as the motis operendi of the game. I like to get involved in castle politics, running baronies, ascending to leaders of churches and states. Then, bringing out the PC for an occasional, "once more unto the breech dear friends," seems very reasonable, and continuing to advance based on fame, nororiety, and also dragon slaying are my wants of choice.

So, your ideas for "too old to adventure", I understand in spirit. Its what the original game of Basic, Advanced, Companion, Master were all about. Essentially - the game was meant to shift paradigms the way cars shift gears - - - but, unfortunately, a lot of that has been lost over the past 30+ years.

[ghettowedge]

Pax Veritas wrote:

Then, I like to retire my character and start new campaigns. If the campaign continues, I like the game to transcend the 'mire' of ScottBettsianKoboldSlaying as the motis operendi of the game.

Normally I like to avoid stuff like this, but I don't know why you gotta do it. This isn't an edition war thread, why call somebody out?

As to the original subject, I don't play D&D to do bookkeeping. I play to be the hero. I'd rather be going on the save the world quest than trying to figure out how much cash I made in taxing the common folk (even if that means fighting kobolds). I'm pretty sure they keep trying to figure out a high level game system because a lot (not all, so no offense intended) of players want their high level character to keep it going. Especially in the later editions of the game, where characters frequently hit level 20 in less than a year in game time, I suspect that like me, many players (again, not all) would rather not relegate their beloved character to retirement, but would prefer to up the stakes.

I understand that adventuring isn't exactly pleasant, but we all live the pleasant life. My characters would prefer to deal with a little excrement in the small clothes, and be personally responsible for holding back the demonic horde.

[Iconoclast]

@Ghettowedge

As Pax Veritas said, Ghetto, it doesn't HAVE to mean putting up the swords. As well as you, I wouldn't really want to play a game that was nothing more than taxing the peasantry.

By letting the PCs make their mark, however, it changes the way the game is played. There's battle and conquest, but of a different kind. The PCs might not be delving into dungeons, but perhaps pirates are attacking their trade ships, and after they witness the failure of the nation's Navy, they decide to go for a little pirate-killing goodness. Perhaps a competitor has forged papers in their names authorizing illegal purchases, and they must rush to investigate and secure their innocence.

It can also be used in conjunction WITH hack and slash gaming. Just because the party's fighter is first knight of an order, it doesn't mean he has to retire. Having elite fighters at his beck and call, as well as being in the good graces of those the knights defend, would just open up new resources for the party to use when they travel into the lions den.

Let's say a player went above and beyond and became a high-priest of Heironeus. As a reward for such role play and focus, I'd let him have a group of twenty or so low-level clerics following him around, hanging out in back and having cure spells ready when the heroes-proper emerge from the dungeons.

Gameplay preference aside, however, I was more wondering whether the systems seemed as though it worked or not.

@Pax

I know exactly what you mean - you seem to be a kindred spirit.

Ah, yes - Mr. Gygax, who supported role playing and world building before endless rules-lawyering and combat became the norm. The creators of fourth edition should be ashamed at themselves!

I'm wagging my finger at the computer screen. I hope they see it, because I'm doing it as hard as I can.

I have to say, though - for a down-and-dirty combat/war game, 4th Ed. isn't too bad. I was actually thinking of using it to run a "Behind Enemy Lines" campaign, where things like non-combat skills aren't really necessary.

[Lord Fyre]

Iconoclast wrote:

"Adventuring isn't all fame, glory, and scantily clad women -

You're no fun. :P

Spoiler:

Do keep in mind that that most of the "scantily clad women" are also adventurers - and can likely kick your a*$! :D

[FabesMinis]

Pax Veritas wrote:

If the campaign continues, I like the game to transcend the 'mire' of ScottBettsianKoboldSlaying as the motis operendi of the game.

Modus Operandi. ;) And this is a slur that's rather unworthy of you and unrepresentative of Scott, who has done some quality work and analysis of 4E.

I respect both of you and find myself in the tricky position of agreeing with both of you on many points, as two of the most cogent thinkers about the game on the boards.

[Disenchanter]

Iconoclast wrote:

So... what do you all think?

I want to start with: This isn't my style.

While I am ware that isn't what you asked, I want to be clear that if I seem biased against it... I am. ;-)

It sounds like it could be a great deal of bookkeeping. But I am used to traveling continents in the games I play in (aside from the Pathfinder APs). Guilds in different cities, different priesthoods. I wouldn't want to be the one tracking it.

It also doesn't seem to cover if a PC wants to start a brand spanking new business or other profession of a sorts...

If I was playing a Cleric, and wanted to start up a church in a poor farming village that didn't have a church already, what reputation would I need before being able to try?

That was meant as an example, you don't need to answer it. But I'd like to know if you are willing.

Barring those two critiques, it seems pretty solid from your preview.

Have you looked at Affiliations in the PHBII? I'm not suggesting you use it instead, but it shares some similarities to your system. Although it focuses on a reputation score after you already join a guild or organisation. If you have the chance to look at it it migh inspire you some more. I'm not recommending you purchase the book for this alone, but if you can borrow it for a bit.

[Lord Fyre]

Disenchanter wrote:

Have you looked at Affiliations in the PHBII?

Which edition? 3.5 or 4th?

[Paul Watson]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Disenchanter wrote:

Have you looked at Affiliations in the PHBII?

Which edition? 3.5 or 4th?

3.5

[Snorter]

Pax Veritas wrote:

I tend to also hold a traditional Gygaxian view on adventuring, which involves the classic.... around 9th level or so, you settle down with a small keep and a lady-friend idea.

Then, I like to retire my character and start new campaigns.... I like to get involved in castle politics, running baronies, ascending to leaders of churches and states. Then, bringing out the PC for an occasional, "once more unto the breech dear friends," seems very reasonable, and continuing to advance based on fame, nororiety, and also dragon slaying are my wants of choice.

I agree with your post, and the original post.

That is the way we played for years. Each person in the group would be taking turns to run a short campaign, or have two or more running simultaneously on alternate/rotating weeks.

Some would be totally homebrew, some would be a series of published adventures. Sometimes we'd alternate between D&D and a different game, for a change of pace and mood.

Our preferred style, of creating a PC at level 1, and advancing legally from there, usually resulted in us ending the campaign at level 9, or just before. Sometimes it ended with a whimper, tailing off due to DM/player fatigue, sometimes it ended with a climactic session that made a perfect sense of closure. Our PCs either got the lands and titles, or it was implied that it would be a foregone conclusion, having usurped the previous tyrant.

[Snorter]

Our on/off group style, coupled with the slower level advancement of 1st/2nd Edition, meant we very rarely played PCs of higher than 10th level, and those few times we did, were more likely to be one-off events, where either existing PCs were artificially levelled up, the DM handed out pre-gen PCs, or the players made up their own, out of the blue, with little backstory or personality to them. As such, these games were less satisfying, and have less stories to re-tell.

There's no glory in getting through, say, 'Tomb of Horrors', if it was with the third or fourth in a line of cardboard PCs, some of whom you never bothered to give a name, or were identical twins/clones of the last dead PC.

Not that we were as bad as that, but we knew of plenty of players/groups who were. They'd proudly declare that they'd 'beaten' some notoriously long or lethal adventure, only to admit they'd used several PCs each to do so. Obviously, anyone can 'win' if they're given an infinite supply of disposable heroes, and no time limit; it's a matter of attrition.

That's why I roll my eyes when accusations are made about those 'awful younger gamers' only being interested in 'xp-farming' and 'grinding', as though these concepts only sprang into being in those terrible, evil, modern MMORPGs. It might be worth wondering, which early groups and adventures did those MMOs get their inspiration from?

[Saern]

I'll begin with my common preface that I'm a whippersnapper who started D&D with 3.0. That being said, I have heard many people on these boards talk of the elder editions of the game in terms of this paradigm shift, which I agree, the above system seems to capture fairly well. That being said, the paradigm shift implies that there is one paradigm at the low levels for players to shift from in the later levels. This paradigm often seems to be "fortune and glory," to quote Dr. Jones.

I've also heard many people on these boards talk about this low-level "fortune and glory" paradigm, that typically involves a bunch of upstart treasure seekers who "just fell off the onion cart," picked up a sword, and headed out looking for, well, fortune and glory. That's all well and good, and I don't really know more than through some word of mouth that such was truly the case in previous D&D editions. That being said, it it was... it certainly wouldn't be the type of game for me.

I'm not a fan of campaigns where PCs go dungeon-delving for no reason other than to strike it rich. If that were the case, forget retiring at 10th level; try 3rd. Now, I can and do certainly get behind a good hack n' slash dungeon crawl every now and again for the same reason I ocassionally like a good first-person shooter: the catharsis of imaginary destruction. However, these I can only stand as interludes in a game with a much stronger plot running through it. That plot doesn't necessarily have to span the entire campaign, such as in an AP. I'm fine with a campaign made of ultimately unrelated adventure arcs. But there needs to be some story-driven reason for my PC to be doing what he's doing at any given moment (or the PCs in my games when I DM, which is the more frequent situation).

In that case, he's rarely going into the dungeon just to get rich; there's some greater reason for being that. That's the reason I use to explain why PCs don't get tired of going back underground with all the monsters and traps (and treasure) at 10th level and later. They have an evil, dragon-possessed queen to stop from conquering a city; or the imminent rebirth of a god of undeath to halt; or a strange Abyssal presence to combat before it conquers the kingdom; etc. For me to feel like my PC is a hero, and thus to remain interested and keep playing him, there has to be a story compelling him to adventure, which necessarily explains why he keeps going into the dungeon (though, you can probably also glean from my statements above that I like a lot of my adventuring to be done above ground, too).

Since we're discussing fundamental assumptions about how and why PCs adventure, I suppose my reasons for writing this are simply to share my own (though I've noticed a good deal of fellow Paizonians share them).

[Tronos]

Tracking a business or some other "un-adventuring" type endeavour would not be that hard at all. The DMGII covers much of it, other than that, whip up a quick excel spreadsheet and apply it to any paperwork-heavy situation you are faced with. With the advent of monster generators and such coming into vogue, many time consuming matters for the DM are made easier.

Kudos to DinglesGames who is currently up on another thread here regarding improving the "game bearacracy".

As to the differences of opinion about retirement, it seems that we tend to dismantle others' points of view as to what a cool game might be. Suffice to say that DnD can and is played in almost infinite styles. My 2CP is a big thumbs up to anyone trying to expand the scope of the genre. That's a big part of the hobby - trying to improve it. The great thing about 3.5 is that it's sooo massive. Choice is huge, and, as such, the great ppl who frequent this site will keep improving it. Hmmm, build an empire campaign.......

Happy days ahead. :)

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

I think what you're doing makes sense, but I also think there are several already existing ways of handling this sort of thing. I think it was PHB2 in 3.5 that introduced affiliations, some of the supplements that come after that continue the idea. As you build up points in a given affiliation, you gain prestige in it, which carries with it certain benefits.

Paizo ran with the concept in some of its adventure paths as well. One of the ones I can comment on specifically (since I am running it, almost done in fact) is Savage Tide. If you have the Savage Tide Player's Guide, you'll see some of the factions in it with which you can affiliate. There are others as well, but I can't think of any specifics off hand.

That, plus the DMG's rules about letting the PC's run a business, plus the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook' rules about how much given buildings and such cost, and most of the heavy lifting is pretty much already done for you.

I don't tend to go outside the rules to make up my own stuff unless there is absolutely nothing in the rules about it already. That's really not the case here. But YMMV, and of course if you like your way better, who am I to tell you differently? :)

[Set]

It seems that many adventures are written with the assumption that the PCs have no actual goals or base of operations of their own (and, if they do, they'll just get in the way / have to abandon them).

Second Darkness starts out with a series of Traits and recommended skills dealing with Riddleport and the Golden Goblin, and foreshadows intrigues involving the Cyphermages and Overlord Kromarty (or whatever), etc., all of which comes to naught, as the party is led completely away from that area for the next five chapters of the AP. The player ends up with a headful of neat ideas about the city, it's power-players, etc. that he's dragged kicking and screaming away from, because 'the adventure is that way.'

It's grand to have all sorts of wonderful 'base camp' setup, as in the Shackled City AP, but that level of detail would be wasted on many more recent adventure series, where the party ends up being sent on a whirlwind tour of different locations and may never see 'base camp' again, let alone have to worry about their membership in the Blacksteel Cartel and it's running feud with the Dwarven smith-merchants of the Firebeard Clan.

It seemed at first like the stated purpose of Campaign Traits was to give the characters a tie to Riddleport, in the Second Darkness Player's Guide, but those ties are quickly severed, and Riddleport becomes a receding speck in the rearview mirror, which seemed contradictory to the original intent.

[Disenchanter]

Set, I can't tell so I need to ask: Was that post meant for this thread?

It doesn't seem to fit right... Not trying to play mini mod, just wondering.

[Snorter]

It worked for me.
It referred to the theory that the campaign has to start one way, and change gear later.
I believe it helps if those high-level themes are introduced earlier, so they're less jarring later.

Low-level PCs may not be barons and high priests, but they can come to the notice of such people, once they've gained some local renown, and these NPCs can sponsor them, and act as mentors, so that when the PCs do get to mid-high level, they already have a foot in the door, and some nobles willing to vouch for them.

[Pax Veritas]

Saern wrote:

I'll begin with my common preface that I'm a whippersnapper who started D&D with 3.0. ...

Your post was very well articulated for a self-described 'whippersnapper.' Well done.

Your description of fortune and glory very much describe what many would expect to be adventuring motivations. When I speak of the lower level paradigm implicit in the original editions, I am indeed NOT describing the burlesqued hack-n-slash-kill-things-take-stuff that has developed over the years through many third party (and some first party) products and marketing.

For example, I can recall some of our games from 1983-1985:
>One time we were seeking the 5 parts to the Crystals of Callanon in order to prevent the bbeg from assembling them before we could; in his hands very bad things would happen with that assembled artifact.
>One time we were seeking the source of fantastic things that were threatening an important town; it turned out that the bbeg was just an author who had incidentally acquired a book containing magic vellum that would bring to life any ideas written upon it.
>One final example, the PCs needed to rescue a friend who had unfortunately drawn the donjon in a deck of many things. We paid Charon, traveled down the river styx, and rescued him from a prison known only as Brimstone. It was so funny to eventually find him playing cards there and not wanting to leave! (The notion that hell is a charming place, describes our precocious imaginations though we were just tweens.

So, the idea of the first paradigm (perhaps best known as the red box) meant we were adventurer who were making names for ourselves. Sometimes that meant treasure, but very often that meant reputation and thanks more than anything else. And, the Gygaxian implication was that "experience points" were also a reflection of one's renown within the local realm to some degree. As we were more successful, we earned a modicum of prestige and popularity, befriended those in power, and earned the thanks and gratitude of barons and kings.

All of this, then, led to companion levels. These were levels (perhaps best known as the light blue box) that involved the spending of acquired fame, money, fortune on something lasting - our mark upon the realm. Usually this translated to around 9th or 10th level, and we paid for a small keep. Or, for the very rich, a small castle and a few hexes of land. And — here is where the same wonderful fantasy role-playing game was still played, but now the examples changed:

For example, I can recall some games we played from 1986-1988:
>The Fighter had unraveled the Assassins Knot and also fell in love with the Baronness of Garrotten on Lendore Isle in the Spindrift Sound. He and she married, had children, and to expand Garrotten, he gathered his adventuring buddies once again to clear hexes of beasts. Over time, his buddies settled for a time in town. Thankfully they were there when political trouble and court intrigue happened. Thankfully the 'party' could help Lord Crinx defeat various enemies, and villains of the past who came looking for vengence based on earlier foiled plots. Later still, voyages with he and friends took the party against the mighty ships of the Sea Barons of the Spindrift Sound (this is Greyhawk btw).
>And I would be sorry if I didn't mention that not all characters "settled-down" in this manner. At what we called the higher levels... the reclusive Wizard still had troubles defending his isolated tower in the swamp where he spent time in arcane studies.
>The rogue was hired by a mighty lord to the be 'eyes and ears' of his court - thus leading to many, many epic musketeering-style adventures.
>Another brooding fighter of mine stole a ship built by demons and traveled the planes. All-the-while being chased by the demons who built it and wanted it back!
>And, perhaps my favorite of all at the 'Companion Level' is actually a campaign I am a player in now. My priest (cleric) is 12th level, but was a former inquisitor/justicar/nasty of the church. He had acquired the status of arch-bishop through sheer force of will. However, after sinning (loosing his cleric powers) by following the temptation of an evil dragon-god, and after a mighty smite from his deity, his aligment has changed for good. Now he is involved in the intrigues of fighting against the evil branches of the church in which he was once a part.

Sorry for the long post. This was a nice reflection on how we still, to this day recognize and shift the paradigm from Levels. It remains an 'unspoken' understanding in which the players and GM develop our characters from fledgelings to soaring eagles. Hope you don't mind this kind of example/illustration.

[Set]

Disenchanter wrote:

Set, I can't tell so I need to ask: Was that post meant for this thread?

It doesn't seem to fit right... Not trying to play mini mod, just wondering.

Yup, the overall theme seemed to me to be about having the characters 'put down roots' and establish connections, alliances and role-playing ties to the surrounding area and I was just struck by how many published adventures almost seem to actively discourage that sort of thing (by sending characters who may have painstakingly forged ties to one area haring off to other areas for indefinite durations).

But I may have failed to make the connection terribly explicit, as I tend to ramble...

[Disenchanter]

Set wrote:

Disenchanter wrote:

Set, I can't tell so I need to ask: Was that post meant for this thread?

It doesn't seem to fit right... Not trying to play mini mod, just wondering.

Yup, the overall theme seemed to me to be about having the characters 'put down roots' and establish connections, alliances and role-playing ties to the surrounding area and I was just struck by how many published adventures almost seem to actively discourage that sort of thing (by sending characters who may have painstakingly forged ties to one area haring off to other areas for indefinite durations).

But I may have failed to make the connection terribly explicit, as I tend to ramble...

That's cool. The connection was there, or else I would have been certain the post didn't belong here. ;-) It just seemed so focused on traits that I thought it might have been one of those forum glitches where you had multiple reply windows open and the forum posted to the wrong one.

[Iconoclast]

First, allow me to state how impressed and delighted am I by all of you here in the Paizo forums. You have the kind of eloquence and role-play savvy I had only thought possible from the Steve Jackson forums, specifically the "GURPS Traveller" section. And you have all been very helpful!

@Disenchanter (& others)

I took a lot of ideas from the affiliation section, but it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Affiliations, patrons, and guilds seemed too restrictive - the PCs pay dues and complete quests to get a +2 bonus on Charisma checks or a meager allowance of supplies with their allies. It seemed, to me, like a tool the DM could use to shut the players up and keep them happy so that they would get back on the railroad tracks, short of having Railman the Inevitable, Kolyarut of Plot Movement, descend from the heavens and tell them to get on with the quest.

So I expanded the system a little - think of it as a younger, more robust version of it's PHBII grandpappy.

@Disenchanter (specifically)

It seems that many people are thinking this system is a set-in-stone series of rules. Not at all - it's merely a loose guide for DMs to make influencing powerful people and making marks on the world through other vehicles than adventuring doable but realistically difficult for the players, to let them take a piece of the world and make it their own. It should not limit, only aid.

If, in one of my games, the PCs spent the money and rallied the people to build a church (or if they built it themselves, even), I'd let them go on with their bad selves - unless, of course, they were building a church to an antagonistic deity, or building a church in the middle of the city (this would require them to be in good standing with city officials ala Reputation).

If, however, they built a church for a churchless village with all the space in the world - and managed to find ministers and such to keep it stocked - I'd give them bonus reputation points for it. My system should not stop the PCs from doing something conceivable (building a church in a town that wants a church would only require the PCs to be willing), but should only measure their "good/bad standing" within certain circles, allowing them to go above and beyond the usual PC skulduggery. Building a church, as you said, would make them shine like Rick Ross in the eyes of the clergy, allowing them to possible ascend the ranks as crusaders, military leaders, or ranking bishops later on.

@Set

I think I see what you're getting at. Whirlwind tour campaigns would not be well suited to having the PCs build their own little empires. Still, the reputation system could work well for it, allowing the PCs to gain notoriety as traveling adventurers and possibly opening up opportunities for them to adventure at the behest of foreign organizations.

The system I outlined is by no means good for every single game - only for those that would support PCs having their own little holdings for the purposes of RP flavor, role play bonuses, and for the sheer pleasure of them having something to call their own.

If this system would limit your ability to enjoy the game you're in, obviously you shouldn't use it.

@Saedren

It's all about player satisfaction. If a group of PCs wants Fame and Glory to be more about their accomplishments and not so much about getting more gold to buy more pluses, letting them take part in the flow of the world and its all of its facets is an excellent idea.

A PC who knows that the DM will allow him to form his own guild of thieves is the kind of PC that goes into a dungeon with actual realistic motivations. Maybe he's looking for gold to impress potential recruits and hire mentors to teach his band of would-be brigands. Perhaps he's hoping to stumble across some kind of subversive, magical item that will allow his operations remain hidden from the eyes of the guard.

There could be PCs that just like dungeons for dungeons' sake, too, and there's nothing wrong with that.

@Pax Veritas

That's exactly the kind of sh-t I'm going for, except only moreso.

Just last night, my group of RPG noobs found a ship converted into living quarters for a dock-dwelling group of thieves, racketeers, and exotortionists. They asked if they could fix up the ship and make it their own, fully expecting me to say, "no."

I said, "Sure - make some rolls to find a ship building, hire him and his men, and maybe find someone who can forge some ownership papers."

They stared at me, wide-eyed and unbelieving, and asked, "So, if we want to take this ship up the coast and start exploring little-known islands or start trading in spices, we can do that? We could get money, turn our ship into a war frigate, and hire it out as a mercenary naval vessel?"

I said, "If you take the time and effort to get all the official stuff figured out and build up enough 'street cred' with local politicians and nobles, absolutely."

I think I may have broken a few of their minds as they had visions of owning a magical galleon with ballistae that shot lightning, crewed by rugged, swashbuckling lizard-man pirates, bristling with griffon-riding knights brushing their mounts on the flight deck. So long as it doesn't interfere with the party's ability to have fun, I'm all for it.

Love the plane-traveling demon ship, by the way. I may have to use that one.

[Disenchanter]

Oh, I think I understand better now.

It seemed as if you were presenting it as more of a rules set than a set of guidelines. I know that is more a matter of semantics... But I hope you know what I mean.

It isn't so much as the PCs need a specific reputation to try something, but more they need a specific reputation to have a chance to succeed?

[lordzack]

Funny thing is, that I was considering using this idea to handle the transition between editions while still having some continuity. What I was going to do is have the players retire to establish they're temple, which was a goal of the characters. Then they'd create new character which would work for the other ones. Then after all the books came out they could create versions of they're old characters to do more adventures. But then my group disbanded and I ended up never getting the 4th edition books so...