First off, No Spoilers Please
Second, my DM has banned all knowledge of the specific effects of city buildings so please do not mention stats for them. I have run into some inter-party relations problems and ask for others insight, especially in relation to Kingmaker kingdom mechanics. We are currently only 9 months into our Barony.
I have need for other advice(badly), but for my city founding thoughts skip to the end.
My party consists of;
LN Aasimar Cavalier- Tends to act like a Paladin except when he realizes being neutral would benefit him. Our current Baron, due to noble parents and none of the other parties interested were present when the charter was issued.
CN Halfling Bard- Seriously wanted to be ruler, passed quite a few notes in the last session while ignoring much of what was going on(planning a coup?90% probability)
TN Elf Rogue-Only his second true campaign, seems content with a supporting role under the Cavalier.
TN Dwarven Ranger- Seems obsessed with the gold mine, when first mentioned stated that his kin would mine it for us for a mere 50%. When everyone else shot this down, he promptly started making plans to have his dwarven relatives take and hold it by force. Possibly before we can expand there.
TN Human Inquisitor-Real life has caused him to revert to NPC mode about half the time. Maintains a full backstory, and spends much of his time in it rather than interacting with us other PCs. The only one who doesn't deliver finishing blows in combat, he prefers to interrogate foes before he kills them.
Which leaves myself;
CG Human Oracle of Heavens-Has issue with how prone to violence the rest of the party is. Currently championing the Kobolds due to a life debt, and anticipating complete and overwhelming internal strife.
Now while disaster seems looming, I can't help but think of how I would be building my own city differently with much different priorities. And wondering if I'll ever get the chance. Any suggestions for the above situation would definitely be considered, and it is a priority problem.
What I would really like to talk about is a plan to put forth to my current leader for my own city. Now cost as far as I can tell equates to;
3BP -Claim 3 plains Hexes
1BP -City District
4BP -2 Farmlands to Negate Consumption
??BP-Buildings to get to a +5 Economy modifier
Once all this is established I should have an income of 1BP per turn for the +5 economy bonus. Because the size added is only equivalent to 4, the overall economy modifier is still at +1 to where it was, but loyalty and stability are down depending on stats for the economy buildings I build. The only way to make this worth my leaders while is to provide most of the initial cost, and give him an advantageous cut later on. So what do you guys think is a fair cut? My initial thoughts.
1 BP = +5 economy(to the next stage will take years)
2 BP = +12 economy / Stability and Loyalty to cover my size
3 BP = +20 economy / Stability and Loyalty to cover my size
4 BP = +30 economy / Stability and Loyalty to cover my size
Probably take my whole life to make it past the first 2 stages(Lucky I have an heir, huh?)
On the Note of your DM not allowing you to know any city info, as a DM I Found this to make things very hard. With that said, giving you the info allows things to become broken fast as well if the party tries. I let the party make Knowledge Local checks (DC25 per building) to find out what they did. If the DM wants to be really stingy he might make a Local for what they do, and an engineering for the costs.
As for the Kobalds things... As a DM who likes Kobalds and RP... Good on ya :)
On the Note of your DM not allowing you to know any city info, as a DM I Found this to make things very hard.
really really poor on the GMs side of thing
"So mr we-build-stuff, why should i pay you to build me a guildhalll"
Mr BS...erm, i dunno
have them pay an 'expert' 1gp/BP cost to explain what the benefit of a building is
after a while, everyone will get really bored with how slow this is, and the GM will show you the goods
I fall on the side of making profession, craft and knowledge checks for information. A dash of realism, a dash of making players spend skill points for well-rounded characters, and an incentive for hirelings and Leadership. All of these are good things in a sandbox.
True to River Kingdom's style, you are all bickering over who gets to lead. I love it.
Are you talking 1 BP once you hit 5 total to give to your bennefactor or 1/month? He is giving you an up front capitol of ~15 BP. Thats a down payment of about 60K, since there is a coversion of roughly 4K gp to 1 BP. 1 BP a month is equivalent of 80% interest on a 10 year loan. 1/4 BP/month is close to 15% on a 10 year loan, which I think is more appropriate. 3BP a year over 10 years and he will double his money in that time. Either way, I would work something in where you get to buy him out and never have to pay him again, allong the lines of 1+1/2 the BP he gives you.
|
So, as I understand it...
1) You have a GM who does not want you to know any of the rules behind actually building and running a kingdom;
3) there is inter-party strife amongst your group of chaotics and neutrals; and
3) your response to this strife is to plan to make a city of your own within said kingdom that you will solely be able to control and build?
Observation #1: The rules of kingdom management are not any different from those of combat or character classes and spells. The rules are designed to be given to and explained to the players and are neither designed nor intended to be held back from them. At all. Your GM is making a significant mistake and screwing up his campaign with his approach. Sure, he's allowed to run his campaign however he likes and make whatever mistakes he likes, too. By the same token, I'm allowed to say to his players that their GM is making a big mistake and screwing up their Kingmaker campaign, too. *shakes head*
Observation #2: He's not screwing up his campaign without a lot of help though -- and it seems you players are all contributing nicely to the chaos. With all this inter-party strife going on? If you don't settle it, your campaign will end when your kingdom falls -- and it will fall. Because if you don't hang together, you will all hang separately.
Observation #3: Your response to inter-party strife and difficulty in kingdom management is not to actually settle those problems with a discusison between the players, but instead, your "solution" it to take a personal city and develop that on your own? *ahem* Do you plan to defend it on your own, too?
Without getting into any specifics... there are castles, walls and other defensive fortifications you can build in Kingmaker. What do you think the chances are of a FRPG, where the main rule system spends several hundred pages explaining the rules to permit you to run tabletop battles abstracting player character combat against monsters...is suddenly going to NOT make combat a feature of Kingdom management? What are the chances of that? What do you think they are? High, low, medium or non-existant. Pick one.
Seriously? Don't you think it's reasonable to assume that a campaign that allows you to build a kingdom is also going to force you to defend it? How will you do that when the PCs are all bickering and running these mini-boroughs instead of co-operating to actually build and defend a kingdom?
I hope your GM listens to the forthcoming Episodes #008 and especially especially Episode #012 of Chronicles: Pathfinder Podcast, each of which is dedicated to Kingmaker: Stolen Land and Kimgmaker: Rivers Run Red, respectively.
Not too sure that Episode #012 - which won't be out until early December - will be released in time enough to be of help to your Kingmaker campaign, but here's to hoping.
The guy is asking for help here dealing with his fellow PCs. He didn't come here to get yelled at and told he is doing it wrong. As for not telling the players all of the rules, one of the authors has said that is what he did for his group, and many people here have done the same.
So, you have an issue where a couple players are working against the leader because they don't like how he is running things. First, you have to separate which problems are player issues and which ones are character issues. Character issues can be solved in character.
The Dwarf, for instance, sounds like a character issue. His character saw an opportunity and was slighted, so now he is going to fix the problem. To fix this, fix the slight. Why don't you hire his dwarven brethren to mine the gold for you? Claim the mine as the rightful rulers of the land and then offer it to them at a certain tax rate. They pay you a tithe and get to live in the mine as they want. This can easily be handled by the GM with the rules for the mine. You make and keep friends and everyone wins. What else are you going to do with the mine besides hire people to mine it? This way you get people who want it.
The Halfling sounds more like a player issue. He is playing a character who wants the spotlight and he sounds like someone who enjoys backstabbing the party. Talk to the GM about your concerns that he is going to cause the campaign to snowball out of control. Then, if your comfortable, have a talk with the player. Dealing with these issues in character first I find usually results in someone feeling cheated and having lost. You have a couple options. Here are a few.
1, the halfling can tone down his antics and become less adversarial. The GM could introduce a foe only he can really deal with, so that he isn't plotting against the PCs but annother enemy, if the plotting is really what he enjoys.
2, The player could switch to be completely an adversary, pretty much playing an NPC, and accept that he will lose but will make it fun for everyone. This way there are no hard feelings and he knows his plans shouldn't succeed and he gets to see them through to be spectacular.
3, Turn the halfling into an NPC that the party gets to deal with. The player rolls up a new character more in line with the party dynamic.
Keep in mind that your desire to go off and found your own colony only exacerbates the existing cohesion problems of the party.
|
|
The guy is asking for help here dealing with his fellow PCs. He didn't come here to get yelled at and told he is doing it wrong. As for not telling the players all of the rules, one of the authors has said that is what he did for his group, and many people here have done the same.
Nope; not buying. It's a mistake and I'm saying so and I'm not going to apologize for it or soft-pedal it either. It's a conversation he needs to have with his GM. That's the best way to head-off conflicts concerning city-building priorities. The party needs to read the damned rules.
A mistake repeated by a few others on this forum (and to be clear, it is a tiny minority of GMs who are doing this) does not make it less of a mistake. Even if you don't like me saying so I will not change, retract or soften my comments in this regard.
So, you have an issue where a couple players are working against the leader because they don't like how he is running things. First, you have to separate which problems are player issues and which ones are character issues. Character issues can be solved in character.
Actually, it's not clear what, precisely, he is asking about at all in his post. He asks for some vague suggestions about resolving the above issues as a "priority problem". The rest is a discussion about the wisdom of building certain things in his "own city".
That's not a problem that needs addressing. What needs addressing is that he needs to sit down with his other players and persuade them to stop being dicks in their game. That's the issue.
This really isn't a main issue here of "role-playing" and resolving in character issues. It's a problem where metagaming and player co-operation should be able to resolve these issues so that the party acts as a PARTY. However, everybody seems to be resorting to "role-playing" their characters in an effort to derail the campaign.
Perhaps the players involved skew to the younger side (one of the players appears to be new to the game) so they may have not had the benefit of the experience of having several campaigns DIE for these sorts of reasons.
If inter-party strife supported by the ageless cry of the RPG inter-party crap-disturber(s), the "I'm just role-playing my character" is your thing? Good luck with all that, as that approach will lead your campaign straight down the toilet.
IMO, that's a crappy game to be in and a crappy game to run, too. Short term laughs at the expense of medium-term headaches and long-term dead campaigns is a really BAD idea and a BAD play style, all-in.
If somebody in one of my games did these things -- they wouldn't be playing in my gaming group for very long. Approaches to NPCs and alignment and in-game character choices are all well and good, until they effect party cohesiveness and result in inter-party strife. That's the point where a wise and experienced GM steps in and ends it, whether the players like it or not. There is no bargaining or accommodation of activities which lead to inter-party strife, bad feelings, or grief at the gaming table. It results in UNFUN and dead campaigns.
I repeat: sit down with your other players and the GM and resolve this with them directly as fellow gamers. This isn't the time for more "in character role-playing". That's the very thing that's got you into this whole mess in the first place.
|
The guy is asking for help here dealing with his fellow PCs. He didn't come here to get yelled at and told he is doing it wrong. As for not telling the players all of the rules, one of the authors has said that is what he did for his group, and many people here have done the same.
Nope; not buying. It's a mistake and I'm saying so and I'm not going to apologize for it or soft-pedal it either. It's a conversation he needs to have with his GM. That's the best way to head-off conflicts concerning city-building priorities. The party needs to read the damned rules.
A mistake repeated by a few others on this forum (and to be clear, it is a tiny minority of GMs who are doing this) does not make it less of a mistake. Even if you don't like me saying so I will not change, retract or soften my comments in this regard.
So, you have an issue where a couple players are working against the leader because they don't like how he is running things. First, you have to separate which problems are player issues and which ones are character issues. Character issues can be solved in character.
Actually, it's not clear what, precisely, he is asking about at all in his post. He asks for some vague suggestions about resolving the above issues as a "priority problem". The rest is a discussion about the wisdom of building certain things in his "own city".
That's not a problem that needs addressing. What needs addressing is that he needs to sit down with his other players and persuade them to stop being dicks in their game. That's the issue.
This really isn't a main issue here of "role-playing" and resolving in character issues. It's a problem where metagaming and player co-operation should be able to resolve these issues so that the party acts as a PARTY. However, everybody seems to be resorting to "role-playing" their characters in an effort to derail the campaign.
Perhaps the players involved skew to the younger side (one of the players appears to be new...
I agree. Even the few gms that did this(not share the rules) gave them skill checks, or at the very least gave them an npc adviser from Rostland. The gm is setting them up to fail.
The guy is asking for help here dealing with his fellow PCs. He didn't come here to get yelled at and told he is doing it wrong. As for not telling the players all of the rules, one of the authors has said that is what he did for his group, and many people here have done the same.
Nope; not buying. It's a mistake and I'm saying so and I'm not going to apologize for it or soft-pedal it either. It's a conversation he needs to have with his GM. That's the best way to head-off conflicts concerning city-building priorities. The party needs to read the damned rules.
A mistake repeated by a few others on this forum (and to be clear, it is a tiny minority of GMs who are doing this) does not make it less of a mistake. Even if you don't like me saying so I will not change, retract or soften my comments in this regard.
So, you have an issue where a couple players are working against the leader because they don't like how he is running things. First, you have to separate which problems are player issues and which ones are character issues. Character issues can be solved in character.
Actually, it's not clear what, precisely, he is asking about at all in his post. He asks for some vague suggestions about resolving the above issues as a "priority problem". The rest is a discussion about the wisdom of building certain things in his "own city".
That's not a problem that needs addressing. What needs addressing is that he needs to sit down with his other players and persuade them to stop being dicks in their game. That's the issue.
This really isn't a main issue here of "role-playing" and resolving in character issues. It's a problem where metagaming and player co-operation should be able to resolve these issues so that the party acts as a PARTY. However, everybody seems to be resorting to "role-playing" their characters in an effort to derail the campaign.
Perhaps the players involved skew to the younger side (one of the players appears to be new...
First, you are assuming the party has to act as a unified whole. It doesn't. I have played in and loved dozens of games that violate this concept. In fact, all of my favorite games to date did. Just because it is not your play style does not mean that it is not valid, fun, or acceptable. It is not for everyone, but it is just as valid a play style as having a unified front and it will get you just as far in a campaign. It will not cause campaigns to collapse unless you do it retartedly. I have played in campaigns where 3/4 of the time the GM spent out of the room with 1-2 players, and it was glorious. The problem here is not the play style. The problem here is that not all the players are looking for the same type of play. I for one love to be in a campaign where everyone is keeping secrets from eachother waiting to stab others in the back, and nothing prevents you from doing that in Kingmaker and succeeding.
And no, it is not a mistake to hide those rules from the players. Many GMs have done it, and there is a lot of advice on these boards on how to do it. Giving the players the knowledge derails just as many games, just look at the number of people complaining that their towns are half filled with brothels and dumps. The key is to look at your players and make sure that they have the information that they need to make decisions. This does not have to be knowing the exact mechanical bennefit of every building. Saying stuff like small shops increase your ecconomy and large shops increase it more works just as well, if not better, for many groups.
|
|
I've bee DMing a kingmaker campaign in which I did not give specifics to the players on how the rules work.
I provided them with phases and what is done in each of them and explained the various "saving throw checks" for the kingdom, and explained that the buildings will typically assist one of those three.
Then I basically threw all the buildings into one of three tiers.
Tier one: 1 city square bldg - Minor and provided a range for BP costs of those bldgs.
Tier two: 2 city square bldg - Moderate and provided a range of BP costs for those
Tier three: 4 city square bldg - Major and provided a range of BP costs for those.
Then with using real world common sense explained that for the most part: bldgs that specifically sell things - increase loyalty. bldgs that specifically manufacture goods (brewery) or ensure security/safety - increases the stability, and bldgs that provide leisure activities will provide loyalty bonuses - with some overlap.
Finally - with the rule of thumb that "the more it costs, the bigger the bonus", it gave them a lot to go on.
By not providing all details, it adds a little to the believability that no such novices could create a kingdom flawlessly without some concern or possible trial and error. And it also provided more mystery, surprise and good feelings of success by not gift-wrapping everything. But provided enough that they could extrapolate a well thought out plan and not set them up for failure.
With that in mind - my players are pretty crafty and smart and they were able to determine for the most part which bldgs they needed for what and what they could afford. The wizard has made a couple of Know-engineering to figure out how much materials one bldg that they're considering to build costs in comparison to one they already built. By using deductive reasoning and common sense wisdom, they have been quite clever at figuring things out. I feel it has added more dialogue and strategic planning as a group because it wasn't all spelled out for them, and has removed alot of the easy to abuse min/max tendencies some groups may suffer from if/when the player have access to all rules.
So I disagree that the rules are without a doubt all meant to be disclosed in entirety. I think that DMs can use some personal judgement and discretion especially if he feels comfortable that the group won't hang themselves.
That all being said - the dischord in the OPs group is running rampant at this point from what it sounds, and I believe the OP is doing nothing to help - in fact hurt it even more, and by all reckoning the kingdom and the campaign will fail if there isn't some pulling in on the reins done and some discussions and compromises between players and DM quickly!
Robert
|
|
I have played in campaigns where 3/4 of the time the GM spent out of the room with 1-2 players, and it was glorious. The problem here is not the play style. The problem here is that not all the players are looking for the same type of play. I for one love to be in a campaign where everyone is keeping secrets from eachother waiting to stab others in the back, and nothing prevents you from doing that in Kingmaker and succeeding.
Sounds like you would enjoy the game Paranoia as much if not more than your Pathfinder games.
Personally I like both games - so I generally keep them seperate - if we're wanting a stab you in the back conspiracy game, we'll play Paranoia.
D&D (or Pathfinder) is for hero groups working together. At least that my (and my players) preference.
But you're right - there's no wrong way to play the game; so long as everyone agrees on the style and having fun while doing it.
Robert