| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My characters hired a mentor from Restov to teach them how to be good rulers. I don't want to show them the kingdom building rules, but I want them to have a clear idea of how to interact with the system. This is the guide I am giving them, so I thought I'd share it.
Gregor Diemen’s Guide to Running a Kingdom
At the beginning of the month, there is a four-step process:
1) Upkeep Phase
Once you get a country, this is basically the “find out what you lost” phase. How much food the peasants ate, how many supplies they consumed, and figure out just how much unrest there is in town. It’s also your opportunity to set your agenda: manipulating tax rates, scheduling festivals, etc.
If, Abadar forbid, you should need to alter the seats in government, or realign the country’s agenda (alignment) this is when you would undertake such a change. Be warned that the people do not respond well to such disruptions. This is also when you’d discover the shock to your populace for you not being in there to lead them. Please, sirs, do not get captured in a dungeon or otherwise take leave: it would crush the morale of the people; you need to spend at least one week a month in a city in your kingdom in order to effectively govern. If you need to schedule an extended absence, I would suggest assigning a steward.
However, before you get a country, this is your opportunity to give inspirational speeches to try and keep morale up. Otherwise you’ll start bleeding resources as people give up and go home. I estimate the people have no more than a season’s appetite for camping, so try and build homes for them all in the first three months, or else they could start deserting.
2) Construction Phase
First things first: we have to get land! It’s not enough to have a map of a place: you have to Claim it. You can only Claim plots of land that you’ve fully explored. Claiming land means you set up regular patrols through it, and you’re letting people go off and settle their own small villages and farms in it. Claiming it makes you responsible for it.
But who cares about “small villages”? We’re here to make cities! You don’t have much control over the hamlets that will start sprouting up in your claimed plots of land, but you directly control exactly what is built in your royal cities.
Most buildings can only be built in a “city district.” So first things first: you have to clear the land, pack down the soil, and otherwise make ready for stuff to be built. You don’t want your royal cities on soft foundations. How long this takes depends on what’s around you: I feel sorry for the Sword Envoys: preparing city districts in the swamp is quite a different thing from plains! A district can hold a fair number of buildings, but once you outgrow it, you’ll have to create new ones, so plan ahead!
We only have enough coordination at this point to oversee the construction of one building at a time. Once our kingdom gets a little bit more established, we’ll be able to oversee more construction projects at once. The exception is houses: if we give people the go-ahead and assign them a location for it, they can make those on their own. Still eats up our resources, and still limited to one-a-month, but we don’t have to watch over their backs while they do it.
Anything else you’ll want to “create” goes on in this phase. Things like the farms, roads, watchtowers, or other “non-city” creations happen now. (Again, the people will generally be creating all manner of small trails and self-sufficient farms on their own, but these are the royal farms that will feed your cities, and the royal roads that will connect your kingdom!)
3) Economy Phase
As rulers of the kingdom, you have a responsibility to keep an eye on the economy. The various shopkeepers should send you a monthly list, letting you know what their wares are. We don’t really do anything with this list, but it keeps them accountable. I guess if they ever find a magic sword, that might particularly interest you. But be warned: there is an implicit trust between merchant and ruler, and if you take advantage of that relationship too often, it might damage that relationship.
If you feel the need to personally apply any economic stimulus (and let’s face it, what else are you going to do with a dragon’s horde?) this is when you would do so.
4) Event Phase
We typically take care of the first three phases all within the first few days of the month, and know the results immediately. This phase is the exception. This is where the fickle hand of fate determines what strange curses or blessings may befall our kingdom over the course of the next month. More often than not, nothing will happen at all. Or perhaps fate only deals us a light hand. Whatever the outcome, it will be revealed to us later.
The favor of certain deities can forestall particular unlucky events that they have purview over. The exact nature of these blessings is certainly beyond my realm of expertise: I encourage you to ask the priests about that.
However, I would exhort you not to rely upon the gods, but your own presence. You mean the world to these people, and only you can shepherd them through these previously Stolen Lands.
Let me know if you require anything else my lords. I am your humble servant,
Gregor Diemons
I guess I should mention the things I changed, since that might be confusing:
- the country's alignment is changable (at the expense of unrest)
- changing ruler positions is done in the upkeep phase, and generates unrest
- "fill vacant magic items slots" happens during the economy phase (it seemed fit better there)
Mostly my goal was to give a "feel" for things, and try to preemptively explain away some of the confusion over why the PCs are making the decisions that they are, what BP is, etc.
I guess I should mention the things I changed, since that might be confusing:
- the country's alignment is changable (at the expense of unrest)
- changing ruler positions is done in the upkeep phase, and generates unrest
- "fill vacant magic items slots" happens during the economy phase (it seemed fit better there)
Mostly my goal was to give a "feel" for things, and try to preemptively explain away some of the confusion over why the PCs are making the decisions that they are, what BP is, etc.
I thought James or some other official said changing rulers has no affect on unrest, and I did not see it in the book.
@ the OP: Some buildings are prereqs to other building. How do you expect the players to get around that, and city planners(engineers) in real life have similar knowledge available when they plan cities. They don't just put cities in random places. I am not saying your idea won't work, but it will require more input from you, just trying to save you some time in the long run.
That's fantastic work, and a great idea!
@ the OP: Some buildings are prereqs to other building. How do you expect the players to get around that, and city planners(engineers) in real life have similar knowledge available when they plan cities. They don't just put cities in random places. I am not saying your idea won't work, but it will require more input from you, just trying to save you some time in the long run.Though you may be right regarding modern urban development and a few examples in history (such as after the great fire of London) I believe Erik is trying to avoid his players having complete control over how their kingdom develops. I for one only intend to give the players some information and control (and BP) and exercise my power as GM to have the populace build things as well. For example the players will have to choose to build parks and other public works but slums will spring up by themselves.
Oh, ok. That is different then. Maybe his players will surprise with profession(City Planner). :)
Honestly, I find it slightly bizarre that a decent fraction of GMs don't want their players to know the city building rules. To me, it makes about as much sense as not letting them know the effects of feats before choosing them. Who knows, maybe that's commonplace, too.
Nicely written, though!
-Kle.
I toyed around with the idea of not letting mine know at first, but in the end knowing the rules is the best way for them to run it properly. Even then they were not doing that great so I suggested they focus on building that make magic items. They are doing quiet well now, and should have the BP need to raise an army when it is needed.
Honestly, I find it slightly bizarre that a decent fraction of GMs don't want their players to know the city building rules. To me, it makes about as much sense as not letting them know the effects of feats before choosing them. Who knows, maybe that's commonplace, too.
Yeah, I have no intention of hiding the kingdom building rules from the players. If they start abusing something (i.e. tons of graveyards or some such) then I will simply have their choices have some form of reaction. I really don't think I will have much trouble with my group though, in fact I think they will find it more fun to *know* the rules and that they would only find it quite frustrating to not know them.
Honestly, I find it slightly bizarre that a decent fraction of GMs don't want their players to know the city building rules. To me, it makes about as much sense as not letting them know the effects of feats before choosing them. Who knows, maybe that's commonplace, too.
Nicely written, though!
-Kle.
I think there's two main reasons for withholding the rules:
1. Believing one (or more) of the players will be unable to resist min/maxing the rules to the point where kingdom building is a simple exercise in math, rather than any sort of challenge or roleplaying experience.
2. Not knowing whether sharing or not sharing the rules is the better way to go. The problem is that the players can't 'unlearn' the rules if you later decide you made a mistake sharing them. Thus, not sharing them at first and seeing how it goes is the only choice.
Personally, I want to be able to share the rules with my players, but sadly I have one who is constitutionally unable to prevent himself from optimising to the nth degree. He'd calculate the exact BP-per-Loyalty cost of every building and only build the cheapest combination of buildings required to crank the Kingdom's stats into the stratosphere. As a result, I plan to give them only a list of buildings & costs and "Sid Meier's Civilization II"-style 'advice' from various NPC position-holders.
Honestly, I find it slightly bizarre that a decent fraction of GMs don't want their players to know the city building rules. To me, it makes about as much sense as not letting them know the effects of feats before choosing them. Who knows, maybe that's commonplace, too.
Nicely written, though!
-Kle.I think there's two main reasons for withholding the rules:
1. Believing one (or more) of the players will be unable to resist min/maxing the rules to the point where kingdom building is a simple exercise in math, rather than any sort of challenge or roleplaying experience.
2. Not knowing whether sharing or not sharing the rules is the better way to go. The problem is that the players can't 'unlearn' the rules if you later decide you made a mistake sharing them. Thus, not sharing them at first and seeing how it goes is the only choice.
Personally, I want to be able to share the rules with my players, but sadly I have one who is constitutionally unable to prevent himself from optimising to the nth degree. He'd calculate the exact BP-per-Loyalty cost of every building and only build the cheapest combination of buildings required to crank the Kingdom's stats into the stratosphere. As a result, I plan to give them only a list of buildings & costs and "Sid Meier's Civilization II"-style 'advice' from various NPC position-holders.
I would just place limit on that building type. Any business type in any civilization gets to saturation at some point even in real life. Let them know this up front.
|
I would just place limit on that building type. Any business type in any civilization gets to saturation at some point even in real life. Let them know this up front.
True. Good point. But by limiting the amount of knowledge available to the players at the onset, prevents the need for such arbitrary restrictions.
I gave an overview to the my players about the phases and what transpires. I gave a summary of each building type and classified them into cost categories (in regards to BP) as either minor, moderat, or major (1, 2, 4 squares) and gave a BP range to typically these.
They hired a city foreman to give suggestions to fill needs. Such as "we need to bolster our economy and we only have 10 bp now....any suggestions..." They also use their wizard's extensive Knowledge Engineering skill to determine a more accurate cost in BP. "The barracks is much more extensive than a mill....you feel it's near the equivalence of the tavern you built."
They have not failed. Like life and other things, no one can predict exactly the way things will work out - by providing all the math rules etc ahead of time it promotes more meta-gaming thinking and robs the ability to be suprised and have roleplaying experiences as they discuss among themselves (and NPCs) about the next logical step etc. It's been far more rewarding to us all than having the lure to just do math and make it a Mini's game.
Robert
|
|
So, what's the exact problem with optimization?
Nothing - in moderation.
If all the players like it, then I don't really see a problem with the players enjoying their hyper-optimized kingdom.
True. But he did say "one" player was the culprit here - perhaps he/she is only one who would truly enjoy it. The others could have no preference, or prefer not.
Obviously it's important to let the players have their fun - but the DM has to be enjoying himself to. I for one do not enjoy super min/maxing "builds" of character, or that mindset - which would carry over to the city building too.
Unless I'm getting Paid to DM (which I have never been), there has to be a level of enjoyment for me as well, or I won't bother with preparing and hosting a game each week.
My players understand that - and currently maybe two of the 7 would do this - but they're also just as good with not doing it and going the route that I've established and much better roleplaying and fun has ensued IMO. Otherwise it's just a "card" game.
It just seems to me that the city building part of the game is a lot more analogous to leveling your character than it is to an in-game RP opportunity, because of the degree of abstraction with which it has been treated. YMMV (and seems to).
-Kle.
I agree that it can be - but don't agree that this is the only way to approach it. It's just as plausible to assume that the characters are not master city-builders, they have never owned their own kingdom before, there's no reason to assume automatically that they should be entitled to an omnisicent perspective. It breaks verisimilitude for me at least. For our group; the mystery and trying to decipher the most logical course of aciton to take to help what they're needing help with has been part of the fun. And like all things in real life, they are learning as they go, learning from their mistakes, and becoming better at predicting the outcome of their choices.
Robert
FWIW - I don't plan on hiding things indefinately. What I told my players is that book 2 is all about "figuring out how kingdom building works." By the time they start book 3, I expect them to have it 90% figured out on their own. If there's anything left to learn at that point, I'll be sure to hand out the info more clearly (so by the time book 4 is out, they know it perfectly).
Then once mass combat hits in book 5, I plan on doing the same thing all over again. They spend book 5 figuring it out (and softballing them commersurately) and then they've mastered it by the end. I plan on running "versus Brevoy" as book 7, and when they play that out, they'll have full knowledge of the rules. (and making good use of Robert Brambley's rules expansions in the process)
As for my reasons for doing this? Multiple:
- James Jacobs explicitly said this was his suggested and preferred way, and I generally respect his GMing instincts
- once the cat is out of the bag, you can't put it back in without rewriting the rules from the ground-up
- the characters don't know how it works, so why should the PCs?
- dumping a ton of new rules on top of the player's heads would not go over well: they're still having trouble with what triggers an AoO
- I know my players enough to know that they will enjoy interacting with the rules through an in-game-interface rather than a talk-to-the-GM interface, at least at first while it's small
- it allows me to fudge things and houserule more
- unlike character sheets, where there is a sense of "being underpowered" or "it sucks taking the wrong feat at first level", that simply doesn't correlate to a kingdom-building excercise, as no opportunity is ever truly lost
I make no attempt at convincing people that my way is better. Only to provide resources to those that already happen to think this is a cool way to do things.
|
|
Then once mass combat hits in book 5, I plan on doing the same thing all over again. They spend book 5 figuring it out (and softballing them commersurately) and then they've mastered it by the end. I plan on running "versus Brevoy" as book 7, and when they play that out, they'll have full knowledge of the rules. (and making good use of Robert Brambley's rules expansions in the process)
That sounds like fun.
The rules expansions you speak of....? Is that in reference to the army management/building?
Robert
I would just place limit on that building type. Any business type in any civilization gets to saturation at some point even in real life. Let them know this up front.
True. Good point. But by limiting the amount of knowledge available to the players at the onset, prevents the need for such arbitrary restrictions.
I gave an overview to the my players about the phases and what transpires. I gave a summary of each building type and classified them into cost categories (in regards to BP) as either minor, moderat, or major (1, 2, 4 squares) and gave a BP range to typically these.
They hired a city foreman to give suggestions to fill needs. Such as "we need to bolster our economy and we only have 10 bp now....any suggestions..." They also use their wizard's extensive Knowledge Engineering skill to determine a more accurate cost in BP. "The barracks is much more extensive than a mill....you feel it's near the equivalence of the tavern you built."
They have not failed. Like life and other things, no one can predict exactly the way things will work out - by providing all the math rules etc ahead of time it promotes more meta-gaming thinking and robs the ability to be suprised and have roleplaying experiences as they discuss among themselves (and NPCs) about the next logical step etc. It's been far more rewarding to us all than having the lure to just do math and make it a Mini's game.
Robert
I don't think everyone should have to suffer( could not think of a better word even though I think the word "suffer" is exageratting)for one person. I would let them have the rules so they can do it like they want to. They may never have another chance to do something like this. I would however explain the saturation issue up front.
If they have the rules it is also less work on your part.In real life we have city planners. It makes sense to plan cities and nations. It seems random to us, but the relation of location between the residential area(houses in KM), and business areas(shops in KM) are not random so it is not really metagaming, just smart planning.
So, what's the exact problem with optimization?
It gets taken to the extreme and shortly thereafter the PCs kingdom has a monthly income of thousands of BPs and only fails checks on a natural 1 even with a -50 modifier to the roll. In other words, "kingdom building [becomes] a simple exercise in math, rather than any sort of challenge or roleplaying experience."
If all the players like it, then I don't really see a problem with the players enjoying their hyper-optimized kingdom.
Not all the players like it. DMs are players too, and my enjoyment is as important as any of theirs.
If all the players don't enjoy it, then wouldn't they just rotate the building decisions, or vote on them, or something?
No, they wouldn't. I have on player who's flat-out not interested in learning new rules, one who's so new to D&D he has no confidence in himself keeping track of anything, two or three who would probably enjoy the kingdom running aspects, but not if they have to argue every decision with the Optimiser, and the Optimiser who is always the first volunteer ('stake his claim' might be more accurate) for any sort of record-keeping task.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to tell you how to play. It's your game, your rules. Doing things the most enjoyable way for your particular group seems the way to go.
Which brings me back to the point that if you don't know which way will be more enjoyable, your only choice is to not share the rules (at first) and see how it goes, since you can't 'unshare' them if you try that first and it doesn't work. You can play the Kingmaker AP a thousand times, but you can only learn the kingdom rules once.
It just seems to me that the city building part of the game is a lot more analogous to leveling your character than it is to an in-game RP opportunity, because of the degree of abstraction with which it has been treated. YMMV (and seems to).
-Kle.
I think the choices you make when levelling your character have a much greater - and more personal - impact on your enjoyment of the game than whether or not your capital city is medieval-realistic or acres of monuments & graveyards.
In any event, I have a crazed min-maxer who will make the game less fun for everyone (except possibly himself) if he has access to the rules (and I'm not interested in an arms race of optimisation and counter-optimisation house-rules) and since you can't unring a bell, I am choosing not to share the mechanics of the kingdom building rules (beyond name, size, & cost of buildings).
I don't think everyone should have to suffer( could not think of a better word even though I think the word "suffer" is exageratting)for one person. I would ...
I suspect Robert Brambley knows his particular group's dynamics a million times better than you could ever hope to.
More people on Paizo's boards would do well to remember this little tidbit.
|
|
In real life we have city planners. It makes sense to plan cities and nations. It seems random to us, but the relation of location between the...
True. City planners were not always around, and they were not always perfect. Like everything in life, they had to learn from the mistakes made before them.
The aquaducts seem to be the cat's meow for it's time - wouldn't the Romans have loved to know what we know now - that it's transport of lead into the water supply would be a major downfall for such a mighty empire.
No one is suffering. None of my 7 players are an "optimiser" that must have his min/maxed way. 2 of them are historic society players and have a good knack for such mindsets, but they're just as interested in a good roleplaying experience; so we're quite happy with the way things are working now.
As I said - it's afforded a lot of good in-game roleplaying what with the city foreman (Who is Jubilost Nathropple by the way) and the wizard gets to really seem the genius w/ his Know- Engineering - a otherwise usually unheralded skill.
Robert
I don't think everyone should have to suffer( could not think of a better word even though I think the word "suffer" is exageratting)for one person. I would ...I suspect Robert Brambley knows his particular group's dynamics a million times better than you could ever hope to.
More people on Paizo's boards would do well to remember this little tidbit.
We were just having a discussion. I am sure he was aware I was not telling he was doing it wrong. Thanks for the input, but it was not needed.
|
|
That's basically what my question is - why would having the players know the rules spoil your enjoyment of the game?
It wouldn't and doesn't. having said rules be exploited would however. Not say they would. But once the genie is out of the bottle, it's hard to get it back in there. So start with a controlled amount and adjust.
Contrastly, just as it is questionable that I would or would not enjoy a game where the player know those rules, it is also questionable whether or not players would or would not enjoy the game without said dislosures.
Ultimately, we've learned that we are enjoying it. But if we weren't, they could be introduced. On the other hand if we had disclosed everything and it turned out not to be fun, it's too hard to "unlearn".
Sure.
OTOH, they are chartered by part of the government of an established kingdom, and BP represent an awful lot more than just wagons full of Legos. It isn't as though the PCs are building the cites themselves, by hand, and there's no reason to believe that their backers don't have a good idea of how to establish a successful settlement.
Oh absolutely. Which is why Rostland entrusted it to wise and seasoned "heroes" who can think for themselves, make wise decisions and have chutzpah enough to look for answers if they don't know, or use their various knowledge skills to find the answers that aren't readily apparent. In short, they are not a group of brainless pee-ons that cannot think for themselves, think outside the box, and must be led by the nose by superiorly intelligent NPCs telling them what to do. And Rostland was right to do so - cuz so far they've done quite well. Ultimately, they see it as a challenge, and they rise to such occasions. They don't need cheat codes.
Well, medieval-realistic isn't going to ever happen. FRPG-realistic is achievable,though.
That in no way should mutually exclude an opportunity to at least try adding in a bit more.
As for impacting your enjoyment... Really? seems like establishing a nation is the core goal of the AP, and that it would be pretty easy to have that goal implode several times if you don't know the rules.
True, and the core goal of playing the game is enjoyment. One's enjoyment is quite subjective. What we are enjoying is certainly not the way I expect everyone to enjoy things. I'm sure you're quite happy with whatever methods you are using and to that end, I congratulate you and only encourage you to continue.
If my players flat-out refused to play the game as I had intended it to work and were having a lousy time, I would definitely have failed as a DM, and would indeed seek an alternate approach.
Really? I don't think I've ever met many people who have played a given adventure more than once, and I've never met anyone that has played an entire Adventure Path more than once... Our group will probably take two or three years to finish Kingmaker, considering we only RP maybe 45 sessions per year, and we do other things as well.
Well, to be fair, your personal experiences being true to you does not make this a reality for everyone.
That being said, even if I or he plays it once, we can call an audible once into the campaign if we see our approach isn't working. It's never too late to make that adjustment. However, as I said, it's far more difficult to expect them to "unlearn" the mechanics, if the DM learns that his players are exploiting things. Mine wouldn't for the most part. But they also enjoy not knowing everything - the surprise and mystery of things and being genuinelys surprised at things is part of the fun for us.
Did you make all your players play their first characters without reading the rules first too, since that would be the only way to know if it was more fun? Seems like a weird philosophy.
Well that's a bit of hyperbole I think. I'm fairly certain I'm savvy enough to know the difference between revealing limited info on the mechanics for building the best empire, and revealing the rules and mecahanics for playing the game and running a personal player character.
However, I've still never revealed the rules of Paranoia to my players; and even if I feel they're catching on...I'll spontaneously change them to keep them on their toes :-)
It's beginning to sound to me like my RP group is a lot more easy-going, and gets along a lot better than most... Kind of surprising considering the intermittent bickering.
I have nothing bad to say about my group. I currently have the best group of 7 true veteran and enjoyable roleplayers I've ever had at one table in one campaign of mine - in over 25 years of DMing. But I think we all have a little bit of bickering from time to time - that's just the nature of creativity. Rock bands break up all the time due to creative differences. Well that, and someone in the band always showing up late and drunk to the gigs.
Robert