Any other DM's out there that have run into their PC's kingdom being WAY to powerful? Currently we are making the transition from book 4 to book 5 and the PC's are building fourteen, yes FOURTEEN medium size (100 troops) armies. I still need to get what CR each army will be but I know for certain that it will be way over the proposed size of a CR 11 army overall.
Now. Some of this is my fault. I didn't keep tremendous tabs on what exactly happened each month during the kingdom stuff, but that is because I was concentrating on the story provided in the books and adding my own flair here and there.
I have a player who was and still is extremely excited about building the kingdom so he has pretty much done it on his own with minimal input from the other players. They have never shown much interest at all. Sure they will do some kingdom rolls now and then, talk about what buildings they would like to see, but that is it. Nothing to the extent of what this one player does.
In book four, part one, where Drelev attacks Tatzlford, I had to make a few things happen to make it so that the attack could even happen. First off, Tatzlford was already built out to a comprise a full district, which equates to a population of roughly nine THOUSAND people. For a reference, Pitax's population is just shy of six thousand per book five. This is just one of roughly 6-7 cities that are like this at that point in the game, with the capital being even larger. Gives you an idea of how crazy the kingdom is.
For a brief story about what happened to Tatzlford look here : http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kfk2&page=4?Blood-for-Blood#196
I figured that having a city such as Tatzlford burn to the ground would mean the kingdom would have a terrible time doing anything for the next LONG while. Here is where another mistake comes in on my part, and the player who is controlling the kingdom either read something wrong, or just plain out cheating since he thought it was b!!@&~%!, or he didn't want his baby compromised, what have you. Having a city like Tatzlford burn to the ground at the size it was at equaled 184 unrest points, which according to the player meant that kingdom checks would just have -184 to each check, which is what was done, and the kingdom was STILL able to make checks and continue building things to deal with the unrest. According to the actual RULES, anything over 20 unrest means the kingdom devolves into anarchy, and the PC's have to do something or a string of somethings special to earn the trust of the kingdom back.
I wish this is what had happened. It makes the MOST sense to me. Why have a city like Tatzlford with a population of 9,000 people, and not REALLY protect it. There was no standing army there, and IIRC the only defensive buildings were city walls, and possibly a barracks. There was a custom story driven DM and player constructed militia there comprising of fifty or so NPC's with minimal skills, but that is hardly what a city like Tatzlford should have.
Essentially. They built way to quick, and built buildings and hex improvements that only helped with the kingdom roll checks, and nothing else. AKA power gaming the kingdom, which then bit them in the ass, or at least I wish it had if the rules had been followed...
So here we are, closing out book four, eight months have passed since Tatzlford burned to the ground and the kingdom according to my kingdom player has recovered. This is setting up any mass combat in book 5 to be a joke, roflstomping Pitax's standing army into the ground.
What suggestions do you have to fix this? I appreciate your input! My game is in a downward spiral from my perspective!
Their enemies are sneaky types. Can you think of any reasonable ways for them to sabotage the players' war efforts? Ambushes and fighting dirty might also work, and might make for some interesting stories.
How have the PCs treated their NPC allies in the kingdom? Certainly, they don't hold EVERY position of power themselves, in a kingdom that large. If they've mistreated anyone, now might be the time for those individuals to "get even" - turning coat, and possibly taking a portion of the kingdom's funding or armies with them.
KwwB wrote: Currently we are making the transition from book 4 to book 5 and the PC's are building fourteen, yes FOURTEEN medium size (100 troops) armies. Ok, if the PCs have way more troops than they ought to, you can add some extra forces to the enemies (not necessarily to Pitax). By book 4, your players have probably offended the clergy of Gyronna, that's a small group of undead climbing out of the water in an inconvenient location. There's a pretty good chance either kobolds or centaurs didn't end up on good terms with the players. If you have the Guide to the River Kingdoms you will know that goblins haunt the region south of the Stolen Lands, certainly a manipulative background force could motivate a goblin incursion. Getting a few of the kingdom armies running to the SE will even the odds for Pitax. Keep track of time for marching.
KwwB wrote: In book four, part one, where Drelev attacks Tatzlford, I had to make a few things happen to make it so that the attack could even happen. First off, Tatzlford was already built out to a comprise a full district, which equates to a population of roughly nine THOUSAND people. For a reference, Pitax's population is just shy of six thousand per book five. This is just one of roughly 6-7 cities that are like this at that point in the game, with the capital being even larger. Gives you an idea of how crazy the kingdom is. 9000 is the capacity, but is the population? Ultimate Campaign from Paizo, Book of the River Nations from Jon Brazer Enterprises and Ultimate Rulership from Legendary Games could have helped, but it looks like you might be a bit past that. If the players have seven cities like that, I'd say you let too much time pass before saying "stuff happens" in books 2-3. A late save for you could be to say that Irovetti did the same thing in Pitax, build up the city, and add a line of fortresses to the Pitax borderlands.
KwwB wrote: I figured that having a city such as Tatzlford burn to the ground would mean the kingdom would have a terrible time doing anything for the next LONG while. I'm not sure I get why the Drelev forces burned Tatzlford in your game, it sound like a better place to live than Fort Drelev.
KwwB wrote: I wish this is what had happened. It makes the MOST sense to me. Why have a city like Tatzlford with a population of 9,000 people, and not REALLY protect it. There was no standing army there, and IIRC the only defensive buildings were city walls, and possibly a barracks. There was a custom story driven DM and player constructed militia there comprising of fifty or so NPC's with minimal skills, but that is hardly what a city like Tatzlford should have. Those fifty-odd people were a third of the city at the time, gathering to defend their home in the face of destruction. Why did the 9000 people in your game allow four trolls and a score of mercenaries to burn their homes down with them inside? The AP gives rules and ideas, yes, but they are not meant to be treated as rigid commandments.
KwwB wrote: Essentially. They built way to quick, and built buildings and hex improvements that only helped with the kingdom roll checks, and nothing else. AKA power gaming the kingdom, which then bit them in the ass, or at least I wish it had if the rules had been followed... I took two approaches to getting building variety. First, I made the buildings function as requirements for logical other things (fletcher before you make ranged armies, a fortress, barracks or garrison per army for housing, etc.)
Second, the Councilor position functions as liaison to the people, thus allowing the people (you, the GM) to make requests, which can become demands if the city stays dreadfully unbalanced. This function can still be introduced in your game, though it is a little late in the game for it.
You say "if the rules had been followed..." Why weren't they? Kingmaker takes a lot of winging it to be interesting, but as GM the final say is yours, not an upset player.
Another point. The Developers have said on more than one occasion that the
populations given in the AP are not the same as the populations you'd get
if you followed the kingdom building rules.
As an example, Tatzleford (the AP version, not yours) only has a hundred &
something people, but if you built it per the number of buildings they list
it would be 10 times that - or more...
So - do the same to Pitax - as suggested above... The numbers are guides -
not a holy book.
Your PCs have built a functioning kingdom - so has Pitax.
If your PCs have gone big - so has Pitax...& they have been doing it for
longer...remember...
We moved beyond the detailed mass combat elements quite quickly. The mass combat actually goes on in the background - so just increase the CR of the opposing Armies until they make a good background war. Describe the battle as going on for as long as you need while your principles (ie the party) are dealing with the designated leaders. Then, when the players have beaten (or driven off) the enemy leaders, let them cast a few spells and go ape on a load of low level fighters. Soon the enemy army morale breaks, and they run away.
Roll the survivors back into the next army your troops come across.
If your party don't attack the leaders, - have the enemy leaders peel off and decimate one of your nations armies. Or perhaps send a flight (or six) of Wyverns to take out one of the individual units before it gets to join up with the rest of the army.
Teleport a company of (large ) trolls behind one of their units :)
Borrow a dragon from somewhere. Or have an Advanced Roc (perhaps the same one from earlier if it was driven off) start picking out members of your army and dropping them from a great height.
Oh - and rule that there aren't hundreds of high level fighters available - but they can have loads of L3 warriors in heavy plate :) Rocs, Wyverns and Dragons like tinned food. It keeps well.
JohnB wrote: Oh - and rule that there aren't hundreds of high level fighters available - but they can have loads of L3 warriors in heavy plate :)
Lacking a good source at the time, I made up that training troops up a level requires time=months*targetlevel^2. Thus, you can make civilians into warriors in a month, but must spend four months to tag a second level on them. Looking at real-world militaries (alas, instead of convenient levels, they use a confusing "rank" system), five months from civilian to lvl 2 seems about right, and it puts an inherent dampener on the ability of the kingdom to just pay-to-win. Of course, real combats still stack up experience, so the PCs have the option of playing win-to-win.
Recent threads in Kingmaker
|
