Adventures you'd like to see

[The Heretic]

Also I should add that domain rules were part of the Companion set of the BECMI rules. I wonder if it would be worth scavenging through those rules as well.

There should DEFINITELY be a random monster/Potential Shitshow table to keep things interesting.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

So, what have you got for us, ideawise?

Domain Scores
A domain score which would track the strength of your domain (compared to other relevant ones) - this will determine the chance of success for winning an open conflict with a rival, and can be increased (or an opponent's can be decreased) through missions like recruiting mercenaries, diplomatic undermining, acts of sabotage, etc. It also means the domain can defend against attacks on it's own rating by way of counter-missions - stop the assassin, catch the spy, crush the resistance cell, etc. If the domain score margins are too close for a decisive victory, players can design their own missions to get the edge (we could either let DMs determine the domain score value of such actions, or have a table with entries like "Posion an army's supplies: -5 domain score" or whatever.

If you wanted a bigger dichotomy between war and peace, you could have two domain scores: Civil Score and Military Score, or something like that. Too low on the civil score means peasant rebellions and rioting (which would also adversely affect Military Score) - this opens the campaign up to subterfuge missions to incite uprisings in the enemy capitol or strengthen a local resistance group or something. Taxes would likely be rolled into that in an abstracted way: instead of worrying about gold, taxes are represented by modifying domain scores (higher taxes means a better Military Score but weaker Civil Score if all the money is used to raise an army, or vice versa if the money is spent on hospitals and schools and whatnot. Either way, more people means a higher overall Domain Score because of tax wealth).

Military
I have already shared my rules for running mass combat on these forums, but if players aren't into it you could just compare opposing Military Scores and devise some formula for figuring a victor (and a table of consequences for military wins/losses). Military missions can also be devised (gathering superweapon parts, or befriending a dragon or whatever), which allow players to quest while still seeing a direct benefit to their realm for doing so.

Diplomacy
I guess a subsystem tracking faction feelings towards one another and likelihood of helping/hindering would have to be included somewhere, though the DM could just as easily simplify this with "the Barbarian Nations don't like you so they won't help when called upon, and the Eastward Counties are friendly but Count Figaro has betrayed you in the past and might again, etc." I'd nix the nitty-gritty stuff like trade goods, immigration, cultural influence and all that other stuff from a Civilization game... it's too much.

Spending
Players can influence their domain score by spending (military or civil), but they should also trust that their underlings know where to put money. Can potentially spin off missions like capturing an embezzling defector, or the new hospital is out of medicine and needs a trade path cleared, or the swords you bought for your army are brittle and you need restitution for being swindled, etc. Basically, sometimes the group spends on their domain but a hiccup means there's a problem to solve before the bonus is applied to their Domain Score. Could also include long-term spending that needs further investment - building a fort, for example, takes months and would probably spawn resource gathering missions or defend the build site missions.

Event
Big old table of random, civilization-scale events. Epidemics, freak droughts, visit by a major religious figure, etc.

Anywhoo, just a starting basis really. I'm thinking in general, you've got maybe three or four numbers to track and then a bunch of missions to generate. As leaders, some missions can be delegated to underlings, so it'll probably need a brief formula to determine the success of an underling at any given mission.

 

[Beoric]

I'm not sure that domain play really needs a lot of new rules, actually. Especially since every time I see suggested rules they tend to involve excessive simulation that does not really drive play - usually in the form of a lot of revenue-and-expense bookkeeping, but also in terms of other number driven valuations that become their own minigame but do not, in their structure, make players want to do something domain-related. I include DP's suggestions above, and probably some of my comments from early in this thread fall into the same trap.

I think domain play needs rules less than procedures. Gygax's game used little more than the cost of building a castle and hiring servants and soldiers, along with per-peasant income generation and rules for clearing an area. That seemed to work for him, so I think the 1e rules are sufficient and can be adapted to most other systems. The reason I think it doesn't seemed to have worked outside of his game is (a) al lot of his players already played wargames, so they were already in a "macro" headspace, and (b) Gygax probably had procedures that he never wrote down and may not have even been aware of.

To introduce it to a crowd that does not have conquest, politics or estate building as part of their play goals, you need to introduce an incentive to engage in domain play rather than adventuring. So you need hooks, which I talked about above. But you also need procedures to determine how long a turn is, and what happens in a turn, how many things can a player do in a turn, how do you know if the player failed or succeeded, and how do you know if his proxies failed or succeeded. And with respect to PCs, those procedures have to account for player creativity, rather than just being a dice-rolling exercise. And with respect to NPCs, it needs to make a determination without accounting for creativity ie. it should be a completely neutral dice rolling exercise that does not require much DM discretion, like reaction rolls and morale. Which could be as simple as rolling under an ability score.

I raised the issue in the thread - remember, we are discussing adventures we want to see, not rulesets we'd like to see - because I think a published domain adventure that had solved these issues could illustrate the necessary procedures.

I actually have some ideas about how I might do this. But they rely on some sort of core mechanic to make decisions about NPC actions - a skill system or roll-under-ability-score mechanic - which leaves squeen and EOTB out of the discussion if it doesn't just devolve into an argument about the great social evil that is skill systems. And I will never formally develop it, I will just wing it in my home game. And I will certainly never get around to publishing it. So I am hoping someone else does. Because Birthright does nothing for me, and ACKS have great ideas for variety of actions but looks terrible as a system, and I don't want to see a system so much as an adventure anyway.

 

[squeen]

Honestly, we seem to be heading in that direction, so if I stumble upon any missing pieces or things-that-worked, I'll let y'all know.
But I have no "vision" here --- the path ahead is Terra Obscura.

 

[The Heretic]

Anywhoo, just a starting basis really. I'm thinking in general, you've got maybe three or four numbers to track and then a bunch of missions to generate. As leaders, some missions can be delegated to underlings, so it'll probably need a brief formula to determine the success of an underling at any given mission.

That's a good place to start. Now for the more difficult question. What's in it for the players?

 

[The Heretic]

I actually have some ideas about how I might do this. But they rely on some sort of core mechanic to make decisions about NPC actions - a skill system or roll-under-ability-score mechanic - which leaves squeen and EOTB out of the discussion if it doesn't just devolve into an argument about the great social evil that is skill systems. And I will never formally develop it, I will just wing it in my home game. And I will certainly never get around to publishing it. So I am hoping someone else does. Because Birthright does nothing for me, and ACKS have great ideas for variety of actions but looks terrible as a system, and I don't want to see a system so much as an adventure anyway.

Even better would be a combat system for non-combat situations. Something with stakes. Randomness. Thrilling action. Beats me how you'd accomplish this.

The only two systems I've ever seen that have tried to do this were the Polyhedron Josie and the Pussycats d20 game and Pathfinder's social combat from Ultimate Intrigue. Unfortunately the social combat system in Ultimate Intrigue has a steep learning curve and was poorly described. Even once you get the social combat system down, you still have to figure out the stakes.

"If you successfully make a peace treaty with the Duke you'll get a +1 sword!"
"I bet we'd get more loot if we just stormed the Duke's castle. Let's go!"

 

[Beoric]

What I've been playing around with in my game is the idea of treating certain game elements like magic items. That is, if you build certain elements related to domain play, you get the ability to do something you couldn't do before, which might have a mechanical benefit attached to it. With the idea that players will covet those the way they covet magic items.

For example, if you clear an area, build a castle and start attracting peasants, you become a Marcher Lord, which affords you a certain status. This gives you a bonus to social skill checks reaction rolls in situations where social standing is relevant, and to loyalty rolls. If you get more land or increase your standing in some other way, the bonus increases.

Building a castle grants bonuses to morale checks of troops stationed in the area. Building a spy network opens up certain types of rumors, and also helps with certain types of knowledge checks can provide information like a sage with related fields of study. Building networks of domestic workers or street urchins open up other types of rumors and help with different kinds of knowledge checks provides information like a sage with different fields of study. Building a counterintelligence network prevents other spies from getting similar information about you.

Other lords can plot to reduce you standing, and thereby reduce your skill reaction roll bonus, by engaging in similar shenanigans. They might pretend to be bandits and raid your lands, stealing resources and causing famine, which lowers your standing and causes you to lose peasants. Or they might engineer or manufacture a scandal and turn the king against you, or sabotage your grain storage, or incite your peasants to revolt, or blackmail your castellan into stealing from you. The currency here is social standing, but unlike honour point systems the players have a reason to care about it because it gives them a mechanical benefit.

Wizards might not care about reaction rolls, but they get an effective bump to intelligence when in their towers with access to their libraries, meaning they have a better chance at learning spells, and can cast higher level spells when they are at home. Clerics may be interested in the reaction bonus, but may also get similar spellcasting advantages to the wizards from their congregations.

Rogues get improvements to reactions rolls from a combination of fear and respect in the neighborhoods they control.

Mass combat is simplified by treating a group of men at arms as a single creature. For instance, a group of 10 peasant militia worth 13 XP each are written up as a Large (15' x 15') 4 HD monster with 18 hp and worth 132 XP. They might also have certain other special features, which I can expand on if this idea appeals to anyone. Make the units big enough and you can have groups of solders interacting directly with individual PCs on the same battlefield, using the same rules, and you don't have to have roll a couple of dozen attacks for all the 0 level attacks against the fighter, and all the fighter's attacks on the 0 level soldiers.

All of the above I have been thinking about for a while. From this point on I am spitballing.

Experience is granted for any scheme that the PCs pull off, or for improving your status. A lesser amount of experience is gained if NPCs pull off a scheme concocted by the PCs.

Players can run their NPCs, but the NPCs may have to check morale, and fall under DM control in the event of a failure.

EDIT: if you have a skill system there are other things you can do with this. For example, the success of an attempted action can depend on the skills or abilities of the PC or NPC running the op. This creates a market for the best steward, spymaster, guard captain, etc., and creates a trade off since the PCs can't do everything, but they are usually higher level and have better abilities and can bring their creativity into play so they aren't just relying on the numbers. This doesn't work as well with a roll-under system, where level is irrelevant to skill, or to a system that uses neither skills nor ability checks.

You can use something like the Assassins Spying table, and apply it to activities other than spying. That table is relevant to level but gives no advantage to a smart NPC spy, or a charismatic NPC ambassador, or a reeve who is a druid or ranger instead of a fighter.

 

[Beoric]

Seriously, nobody has any feedback on this?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Sounds like a lot to keep track of, so I believe that mileage may vary.

But as with designing any rulseset of great depth, it's best to simplify where you can, and to try not to deviate from the roots of the game so much that it becomes something else entirely. After all, are we playing a game of D&D (or your preferred derivative thereof), or are we basically playing tabletop Civilization here?

 

[Evard's Small Tentacle]

Sounds like a lot to keep track of, so I believe that mileage may vary.

But as with designing any rulseset of great depth, it's best to simplify where you can, and to try not to deviate from the roots of the game so much that it becomes something else entirely. After all, are we playing a game of D&D (or your preferred derivative thereof), or are we basically playing tabletop Civilization here?

 

[Beoric]

Sounds like a lot to keep track of, so I believe that mileage may vary.

But as with designing any rulseset of great depth, it's best to simplify where you can, and to try not to deviate from the roots of the game so much that it becomes something else entirely. After all, are we playing a game of D&D (or your preferred derivative thereof), or are we basically playing tabletop Civilization here?

It is not meant to play like tabletop Civilization. If that is how it seems, either it isn’t doing what I want, or I haven’t explained it properly. It is intended to be much simpler than other systems I have seen which involve a lot of bookkeeping, by being a variation of systems that are already in the game.

At its core, you are writing up a handful of standard “magic items” in the form of social position, castles, spy networks, or whatever makes sense to you. The PCs try to get those items or improve them by taking actions. If they have subordinates, they can have those subordinates also take actions, which allows them to do more things in a round.

When the PCs take actions, you run encounters around it. When NPCs take actions, you adapt existing mechanics to resolve those actions. It is simpler if you have a skill system with a core mechanic so any action can be readily adjudicated, which I why I suggested AD&D mechanics that might achieve a similar result.

If each character only gets one action in a round (or two if you allow them to travel before taking an action), then the NPC side of things runs a lot like combat – some sort of initiative might even be appropriate.

The mass combat part was just adapting the swarm mechanic to earlier editions, which is a way simpler way to handle mass combat than the mechanics that come out of the wargaming side of the hobby.

Most of the detail I was giving wasn’t system, it was intended to be narration of the results coming out of the system, or examples of how the system might be used.

It does assume that the players want, at a minimum, to have a stronghold populated by something more interesting than unseen servants, and have a reasonable expectation that they will to have to defend it against some sort of actions by their neighbors. After that, it is up to the players how many underlings they want to delegate to, and I expect the players would do a certain amount of the work in tracking what their underlings are up to.

In other words, beyond the minimum level of complexity (have castle, do everything personally, react to whatever neighbors do), it is as complicated as the players decide to make it. But it does provide tools for the DM to handle these things if the players want to go in that direction. Without counting peasants.

 

[Malrex]

It does feel a little like Civilization or a game board because the actions cause the players to sit back and view the big picture. The "magic items" or bonuses you get makes some sense and I dig that. If I was running it, I'd want to zoom in and focus on a group of PC's (that may be players controlling NPC's) when they try to accomplish something (a short adventure) then zoom out and see the results of what other groups or shitshows that are occurring elsewhere (NPC failure, crops destroyed, or successes). I'd probably give 4-5 scenarios and let the PC's go through 1-2 of them and then rolls for success or failures for other stuff in the background...but for me, I'd need to zoom in further and throw in a adventure for a few sessions, before 'zoomin out' again (if that makes sense).

I feel like it would be more of a 1 on 1 game with a high level character and a DM.

The more I read about domain play...the more I just want to grab the boardgame Risk and refresh myself on its rules for mass combat.

 

[Beoric]

If I was running it, I'd want to zoom in and focus on a group of PC's (that may be players controlling NPC's) when they try to accomplish something (a short adventure) then zoom out and see the results of what other groups or shitshows that are occurring elsewhere (NPC failure, crops destroyed, or successes). I'd probably give 4-5 scenarios and let the PC's go through 1-2 of them and then rolls for success or failures for other stuff in the background...but for me, I'd need to zoom in further and throw in a adventure for a few sessions, before 'zoomin out' again (if that makes sense).

Yeah, that's what I'm going for, a procedure to do that. Wherever the PCs (or the "B" team of followers) are, and whatever they choose (are assigned) to do, that is the adventure. I guess procedurally you could think of the rest as background and complications, but it is background and complications that the PCs have some influence over.

If the players tell you what their orders are to their subordinates, and what they plan to do personally, you could probably manage all of the NPC turns between sessions. That then becomes background for actual play at the next session, and the sessions themselves aren't like a board game at all.

 

[squeen]

I do sometimes think it would be nice to have a companion computer simulation to run the mass combat. With VTTs becoming popular, I think it would be an easy in-game transitions from pen-and-paper/theater-of-the-mind D&D to a (hopefully) brief interlude into resolve the mass combat parts in a turn-based computer game.

 

[Evard's Small Tentacle]

I find it way too mechanical; what might make sense would be to layer on additional roles as class powers (I.e., arch mage, battle master, high priest, spymaster ) and then design encounters and adventures around these domain elements where smart use of their abilities (both player and character) are needed and there is a cause and effect, rather than domain on domain number crunching. Adventures could be something like: The Necrotic Plague or The Assassination of Prince Ferdinand or The Risen Atlantis etc.

 

[The1True]

What if everybody in the party wants to run their own demesne? It feels like the number crunching would get outrageous.

Cheers to Squeen's idea to run companion software. The risk there though is that people might start to ask why they don't just stay home and play the Civ clone instead... Definitely having something you can feed all the factors into and have it spit out the results for the DM to interpret sounds handy and allows for more simulation.
Otherwise, veer hard in the direction of hand-waving: Clearly warn players of risks. Allow them to tell you all the things they would like to do to stack the odds in their favour. Play out the bits that require role playing or adventure. Add it all up and decide if that leads to Advantage or Disadvantage. Have the player make a roll and relate the results.
Getting mired in peasant taxation sounds awful.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I know you OSR guys love reverting the game to it's origins, but this is getting out of hand.

Perhaps we should have each player control a batallion of men marching around Napoleonic Europe?

 

[Two orcs]

I played with a group who would regularly bring 30 proper characters with them on adventures. It was surprisingly smooth, once a new situation was encountered a task force with relevant skills (or relevant taste for risk) was assembled and they would take charge of the situation. I tell you dragon breath and cloudkill are different beasts when they kill several characters per round.

 

[Evard's Small Tentacle]

I know you OSR guys love reverting the game to it's origins, but this is getting out of hand.

Perhaps we should have each player control a batallion of men marching around Napoleonic Europe?

There are lots of App games that do it better

 

[squeen]

Seriously, nobody has any feedback on this?

Sorry Beoric. You deserve more feedback for putting yourself out there. My bad.

The quasi-skill system is indeed off putting to me, but the core conceit is I think sound: Build something in the world and get some sort of concrete benefit.

I think with Wizards and magical research its easy. They need a place to store their massive collection of spellbooks, and having that library makes it easier to create spells and magic items. They also attract some "special" friends.

I think with fighters the original notion was you get troops (and revenue). But I also like your idea of individual player attribute bumps in social situations. You are a Lord, and that carries some weight.

Clerics already have some social obligations for the church and the gods --- they also gain acolytes.

Theives --- head of a guild? That's tougher. Maybe they leave "theiving" behind and become politicians. (drum roll, snare)

The way in which your system differs is that the PC gains personal benefits. Player skill. And that seems to be a better motivator for most. Correct?

What I think has really been the major stumbling block for most in domain play --- is Short Attention Span Syndrome. Groups just don't stay together long enough to ever get there (or they get bored and "try another game").

Bottom line is that ANY system might encourage domain play. The original rules seem to fall a bit short there. You guideline might help move it along, but ultimately I am not sure folks want to "change the game", or play a sub-game. Arneson's D&D breakthrough idea was realizing people wanted to be a single character in the world, rather than a Master of Armies. Making domain-play seamless with that desire is a tough nut to crack.

My $0.02.