Jump to content

Nation Building [Pathfinder]


Nyrath

Recommended Posts

A parting thought:

,,

Why don't you guys simply remove Leadership as a free feat? By forcing people to be one character a nation, it is going to have a chilling effect on the game as people are forced to micromanage on a routine basis.

,,

The simplest solution is to simply not make Leadership free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

With EM/Myrra out, did have Abyss as going to build a magus or wizard as Magister, but I'm sort of in agreement with Murakami..

,,

As to the other, Revenant.. what did you expect? That's just the way she thinks about the matter, he's someone she's 'willing to work with' for the 'greater good' and 'good of her people', his ruthlessness is appalling, but his honor makes him somewhat redeemable.. that doesn't mean she'll see him as anything more special then anyone else out there..after all, he's just a sorcerer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with making everyone a ruler.

,,

I have a ruler concept I can use.

,,

I can grasp the complaint that holdings with more than one PC have an advantage. It's a valid point...especially if the intent is for PC holdings to compete with one another...which does seem more or less inevitable, be it through direct means or diplomatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A parting thought:

,,

Why don't you guys simply remove Leadership as a free feat? By forcing people to be one character a nation, it is going to have a chilling effect on the game as people are forced to micromanage on a routine basis.

,,

The simplest solution is to simply not make Leadership free.

,,

Doing that is still going to penalize people who aren't signing up to serve another ruler, I think. I'm not sure it addresses the possible imbalances I'm seeing; you're going to need Leadership to run a kingdom, so that means you shift a feat around to get it. Your PC "cohorts" don't have to buy Leadership at that point- you still get them for free, in addition to any servants you get for having a Leadership score, their skills apply to your cabinet/kingdom and gain you benefits. Lone rulers sink a feat into Leadership and have to spend more of their resources on acquiring bodies to fill the needed roles. If we're essentially playing Risk, and we're creating alliances and rivalries, my preference would be a more level playing field at the outset. I'm fine with rulers forming confederacies or what have you during play, but the ability to essentially have PC cohorts and cabinet members in addition to the standard plethora of minions and hirelings (even if it's not intended to garner an unfair advantage) makes playing a leader without those advantages rather unappealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I considering proposing something. Each holding should have something that all the other holdings could prosper from. For example, Azure's holding is right on coast of the southern deserts built on the mouth of the only river that leads through the desert lands, like Alexandria on the Nile in today's Egypt. That would make his holding a very popular trade route for anyone. Securing a treaty with Azure would be a great way to boost the economy of other holdings due to the import/export possibilities.

,,

Azure on the other hand is in the middle of the desert, while fresh water and such isn't a problem there are things his people just can't get very easily like wood, fabrics, certain livestock, etc. His people have plenty of spices, glass, stone, etc. to offer.

,,

I mean honestly, if no other kingdom is really going to bring anything to the table, why would we bother with each other? Frankly Azure would see Astrid as a decent ally, since she could supply him with frothing illiterates to throw them selves on swords in his name when taking over some of the southern settlements. Best part is, those uncouth barbarians fuck like bunnies so she'll always have more to send to him! See? Everyone's happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, actually, I have a suggestion for this.. if you want to play a non-ruler, the ruler can set up roles avalible, but only the ruler's cohorts and followers double up on roles, other pc's and their cohorts may only fill one slot in the kingdom, their cohort essentially helping them cover it... this still does give a bit of an advantage to a kingdom with multiple pc's, but less of one then before..

,,

I also like Dave's idea, personally I am planning on going with a region further north, far enough for a temperate climate, that should have a good bit of forest and plains, things I can only get from Azure's kingdom.. glass, as it's melted sand, hopefully I'll have coastal regions, but beach sand isn't always the best choice for glass making.. furthermore, deserts also tend to have a lot of mines, for metals, so I imagine I will be doing some trade for metals.. maybe in exchange for pine or furs, he doesn't have much wood or fur covered animals down there, though if I can find groves of darkwood, plenty of options there.. although, Dave is more likely to find adamatine, mythril or silver deposits in his kingdom.. also, plenty of stone and sand though.. if I need a good quality of stone and glass, may need to open diplomatic negotiations with him.

,,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

,,

On a different note

,,

Kingdom: Seran (named for the Royal family from which Caitlynn came)

Capital: Veras - Location: Temperate Forest Zone - Alignment: Neutral Good

,,

If I get what I would like: Veras is the capital of Seran, found where the mighty river Kyrn feeds into the sea, a forest that reaches only for hundreds of miles can be seen in all directions from the highest point of the city, and distant snow covered peaks can be seen, but are difficult to reach, hundreds of miles of forest are between here and them..

,,

Roles: Doubling up as Nyrath said we could, the Princess hopes to reduce roles in time, but these roles are nessary, and she and her oldest friend have taken up the roles that they can until other's can manage them.

Caitlynn(Aasimar - 8th Level Cleric of Sarenrae): Ruler, Grand Diplomat

Kearan (Elf - 6th Level Fire Elemental Wizard - Caitlynn's Cohort): Roles: Treasurer, Spymaster

Ciel (Abyss is creating a Half-Elf - Magus as the Kingdom's Magister)

???? (Fashtar (tenatively if he desires) is creating a Cavalier as the Kingdom's General - Race Unknown)

,,

Needed roles: Councilor, High Priest, and Warden (I can fill these with followers if I must, but I know I will cover the above roles as so)

Possible: Consort, Heir (I intend to start with neither of these, but if someone can come up with a convincing argument for either role, and really wants them.. I'll listen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested in seeing what Nyrath has to say about it, since the doubling up on roles and so forth is being permitted (which actually means the imbalance between potential kingdoms is more pronounced than I'd originally thought when I posted- your solution, Krul, is what I thought was already the status quo). I'm becoming less and less sure that this game is a good fit for me. I'm not asking to be convinced or coddled, mind you, just explaining my thought process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krul, the more you are building your realm, it would seem more likely that my cavalier would join your kingdom. I have no intention of being a ruler myself, having set on becoming a General myself. So if it is possible, I'd like to become that General for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would be welcome, I have need for a faithful general to protect and guard my people and to head up my military..

,,

----

,,

V: Here's another thought, perhaps kingdoms with smaller numbers of PC's should get more initial Build Points to construct their kingdom, this could potentially bring the imbalance back up a bit, and as I think about it, could make it much more fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'd certainly hand any newcomers extra build points. Currently I'm looking at handing anyone with less PCs than the highest number among the kingdoms in play NPCs equivalent to PCs in competence, and only handing Leadership for free to actual Rulers. These NPCs would be essentially loyal and can be treated more or less like Cohorts (apart from individual competence) but would also have a somewhat greater degree of personal ambition and goal setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my suggestion:

,,

The positivies:

PC non-rulers may but do not have to exchange out Leadership for another bonus feat.

PC non-rulers and their cohorts/followers can fill roles and even double up, just like PC rulers.

,,

The drawback:

A certain number of Build Points, fairly significant, should be removed from the BP for a country that has PC non-rulers filling positions by the number of positions.

So, lets say kingdoms begin with 80 BP.

For each position filled by a non-ruler PC, subtract 4 BP.

For each position filled by a non-ruler PC's Cohort, subtract 2 BP.

For each position filled by a non-ruler PC's Follower, subtract 1 BP.

,,

This lets countries that don't have non-ruler PCs start with the full 80 BP and those that do have non-ruler PCs are exchanging BP for the usefulness of filling their kingdom positions with the more powerful full PCs (and the larger pool of available Cohorts and Followers over generic NPCs).

,, ,,

The Example:

So, right now if Max doesn't switch over to a ruler PC, Murakami would have at least two non-ruler PCs. At most, the country will be built on 72 BP. If Jer and Max's PCs fill two roles each, that drops to 64. If their Cohorts also fill rolls, the would take it down to 60 (one Cohort each taking up one position), or 56 (one Cohort each taking up two positions). The benefit to me as the player of the ruler-PC is that I've got more powerful characters adding bonuses to my kingdom, but the balancing drawback is that I'm starting out with less BP to build the initial kingdom.

,, ,,

Does that sound fair? I have no idea on the exchange rate with the BP's, but 4/2/1 (PC/Cohort/Follower) seemed like good numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not concerned with it. A settlement with 1,000 people in it doesn't need all of positions filled right out of the gate. Those of you who have a ton of people working for you, you have to pay those people. They're not just commoners and experts, you have to pay them as 6th and 8th level characters.

An 8th level character can make anywhere from 1,920 to 2,400gp a month plying their trade (adventuring, performing shows, spell casting). If you have 3 characters in your employ plus their cohort, that's 9,000 - 12,600 a month just to have them around in positions you probably dont need filled. Plus you have to pay their followers too, which can be another 10,800 a month (give or take, I guesstimated at round 90 followers). Plus, it also means a majority of your population are people that already work for you!

All in all you are spending 6BP a month in funding a force of people when your settlement might not even generate that level of income right away. The book assumes you're hiring Average Joe Experts, not PCs with class levels. Powerful kingdoms can afford to employ 12th level Rangers and 14th level High Priests. 1,000 person settlements simply shouldn't have the resources to support that many PCs.

And, no, you shouldn't be allowed to work for free to off set the costs either.

Besides, I'd rather loose my Average Joe Spymaster than my 8th level PC Spymaster. I can replace replace average Joe, the PC guy I have to listen to him whine and complain that the assassination of his character was cheating... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was unaware of the literal cost of having PCs and Cohorts. That does seem actually rather balancing, especially as you point out, Dave, that it can make it difficult to keep the Economy up to supporting them early on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens when the PC ruler another PC serves under can't pay their position? With the way things are going with this no nation, no character. So does this take a PC out of play? I would think the concept of PCs taking a position is something where a PC agreed due to some debt or a willingness to assist. Not being paid in of itself to do it.

,,

I'm going to be honest, why are you guys using all the nation construction rules at all, when all this can be roleplayed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are rules for being negative in the Treasury of the kingdom. Those would go into effect if the ruler can't pay.

We're using the rules because that's the part that makes this a game that Nyrath is running as opposed to a large collaborative fiction. That's the reason you use the rules in any game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't you quit?

Not being paid represents no funding to that aspect of your settlement and seat is considered unoccupied for that month. A lack of income also causes unrest.

I wasn't saying it was a balancer, or that I don't feel you guys should still be penalized in some way for having what is essentially all your bases covered for maximum success right out of the gate. To each their own, its just not my style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev - Your logic seems fairly circular. The PCs are "paid" by the ruler PC. They then turn around and use their newfound resources (whether measured in BP or GP) to invest in the kingdom that pays them. (Same reason that many moons ago Microsoft employees took stock options over Christmas bonuses and now make up the largest concentration of millionaire secretaries in the world). Moving resources back and forth isn't going to mean anything in the long run, particularly if we're talking about moving BP's around. The other option is having BP's disappear into the ether, at which point the PC "employee" is, in fact, working for free, and we're back at the beginning.

,,

Honestly, i'm of the mind that unless the goal of this game is going to be global domination, overcoming the other PC's and taking their stuff, balance isn't really that big of a thing. Much the same reason that we don't worry overmuch about the fact that in 3.5 there is a fairly average monk in adventuring party along with a highly optimized cleric. If the goal isn't to "win" then frankly I'm of the mind that we do whatever is most fun for the players :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. As fun as I have doing this, if it's going to be an actual game, competition between the countries seems a natural part of it. And a more interesting part than all the PC-nations being on the same "team" against only NPC nations/groups/whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll talk with Nyrath about it. As far as I know, competition between PC nations is optional. We're probably going to fight over needed resources and such, but I have it on first-hand authority that Nyrath thought of having NPC enemies that would make more sense for us to fight, than each other. He's discouraging, but he's not outright banning wars between PCs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Max says, competition doesn't automatically equate to being martial enemies. Politics, whether intra-national, inter-player, or inter-continental even are all sure ways of conflict. Trade and economic rivalry are other time-honoured pursuits. But, in the end, this game doesn't come with a pre-labelled win condition as is the case with nearly all RPs. So if you're looking for that rather than communal fun, I suggest booting up a copy of Civ or the like.

,,

Oh, and Dave, stop acting like you're running this and establishing mechanics and setting details. If you want to start in the desert? Fine, have all the sand you want. Hope you can dig deep cause rivers aren't plentiful and water sources are already occupied by the bloody natives. And all that industry? Hope you can make do with glassblowing since the only thing you're guaranteed to have is sand. Players going out and claiming this is how it is without checking with me tends to get irritated. [No, this isn't set in stone. But if I was simply assigning starting positions now that's more or less how it'd go.]

,,

Secondly I'd like to see your bloody source for those numbers, even if I will likely disregard minutia for this as I have no intention of trying to run it like it was Victoria 2 or the like. A lot day to day costs are going to simply be subsumed into the Economy stat and the like. I'm not about to hand an advantage to those who're anal enough to account for every copper piece in their OOC budget. (Having an accountant do that IC is another matter, good accountancy is part of the bonus to Economy from such people after all).

,,

Thirdly I'll be charitable and assume you acting like a smug, arrogant ass is being In Character. In which case I see you have few points in Diplomacy and can't have grasped what being actually Charismatic implies and will likely rile up the natives. Seriously, you're about as smooth as sandpaper. Sorry if I come off as rough, but I've had a slowly mounting degree of irritation at how you're acting and I had a rough day at work.

,,

Vivi & Tommy, sorry if this has turned out to not be your game after all. Door's still open if you want in though.

,,

As for the issue of Multi-PC vs Single PC nations, if no one's going be objecting to the solution I put forward I'll go with that.

,,

With that out of the way, I can do a post on mechanics at least. Should be done within in the hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nyrath, I think it's a bit unreasonable not to expect players to try to hash out setting details for a game world comprised of various kingdoms if no canon setting info has been provided and there's no map. Instead of assuming people are trying to run your game, or dictate what the world is like, try to consider the fact that they're engaged and interested enough to try taking some initiative in designing their kingdom despite a lack of GM-given info. Getting upset about that would be sort of like telling players off because they picked classes or feats you planned to prohibit- sure, you have an idea of what you want the setting to be, but the players don't know what that vision is yet. :) Just my 2 copper pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and Dave, stop acting like you're running this and establishing mechanics and setting details. If you want to start in the desert? Fine, have all the sand you want. Hope you can dig deep cause rivers aren't plentiful and water sources are already occupied by the bloody natives. And all that industry? Hope you can make do with glassblowing since the only thing you're guaranteed to have is sand. Players going out and claiming this is how it is without checking with me tends to get irritated. [No, this isn't set in stone. But if I was simply assigning starting positions now that's more or less how it'd go.]
,,

My source is a Piazo developer, since he just recently fielded a question about smaller settlements vs. large kingdoms and why player shouldn't just bring in 10th level Experts and Aristocrats to handle all their business with incredibly high skill rolls. The answer was pretty simple, the mail room vs. the board room. You might have two people with the same skills but you don't pay the guy in the mail room the same as you pay the guy in the board room. The mail room guy might be an expert, but 1st level and trying to get his start in the company. The board room guy is 10th level and he's established his credentials and practiced his 10th level skill set for years. That's why they pay him more. Same applies to settlements. When you place a bunch of high level people in positions, your settlement is expected to pay for that sort of professional taking the helm for you.

,,

I wasn't trying to run your game. I was trying to show your players that it might be a good idea to worry more about enriching their small communities at first and then worry about placing resources into incredibly expensive hirelings and armies (which essentially what all those extra followers amount to, a small army and they need to be fed and paid). What people do is their business, I was just trying to open their eyes to the facts that powerful people require more resources to support and in smaller communities that makes it difficult to work towards getting some of the stability you might need in the beginning.

,,

I think I'll sit this one out, having already been systematically targeted for persecution. You guys have fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, PC & Cohort details, and a few minor equipment thingies.

,,

You start with 61.000xp (aka lvl 8 and a bit) and 40.000 gp worth of equipment & disposable funds allocated however you want. I may veto singular items though if I feel that they're too out of place or overpowered for your level & budget. If you have an Item Crafting feat (or more) then you may simply pay the crafting price for any item you could make (within reason, just cause a nat 20 would let you make the skill check doesn't mean I'd let that pass).

If you have the Rich Parents trait you start with an additional 5000gp, that you may trade in for Build Points if you so wish at a 1000gp = 1 BP ratio.

,,

Early Firearms are available (as Eastern, Gladiatorial & Primitive Weapons). The Cost of Early firearms is halved due to their increasing abundance, but still count as Exotic Weapons & Advanced Firearms may not be purchased.

,,

There is an armor called Munitions Plate (essentially mass-produced half-plate). Being made in several predetermined sizes these suits can be produced more cheaply (costing around 400 gp) and adjusted to fit the wearer (as long as he or she is of a close enough fit) easily enough with just the straps. Unfortunately it's got a worse check penalty (-9) and spell failure (50%) than actually fitted half-plate. Still, it can be stored for years if need be and used to outfit soldiers an-mass. (This mostly for background, I expect all of you to wear better stuff than this which can't even be found in masterwork quality).

,,

Spears (not long-spears or half-spears, I'm talking the basic thing) can be wielded onehanded as a martial weapon. The historian in me is sick to see the most widespread fighting style in history being impossible to implement.

,,

Leadership is free for Rulers, non rulers get to satisfy themselves with purchasing it if they want cohorts and basking in the increased prosperity their kingdom enjoys under the capable guidance of their Rulers boosted influence.

,,

Cohorts are generated using a 20 point buy, and are subject to a maximum level of Your lvl -2 (baring unusual circumstances, such as a class ability stating otherwise). if you desire more than one cohort you can split the XP needed for that maximum level (provided your leadership score is high enough), at this point that'd be 23.000, between 2 or more cohorts. (No trying to cheese it and getting 11 lvl 2s though).

A feat called Increased Cohorts is available for those who have Leadership and raises the level from which you can split the XP to your lvl +1 (75.000xp at this point) and distribute as before.

Cohort Equipment is set as the standard for a PC of their level (16.000 for a 6th lvl one). If you, or the cohort, possess an Item Crafting feat applicable to their gear, use the crafting cost as with your own gear.

,,

Kingdoms with less than the highest number of PCs will get assigned equivalent NPCs to make up the difference. Unless they refuse such of course. I.e if Ayame's kingdom's got the most PCs at 4 and Hyoseph sits alone in his he's entitled to 3 NPCs made to PC standards.

,,

Each Kingdom starts with a budget of 80 Build Points (plus any from Rich Parents or other modifiers negotiated with me) and four turns "backlog" to have spent however much or little they want of it (no upkeep or income for these turns).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vivi, it's not the world building that I'm objecting to. It's the fact that its put forward as a statement of fact rather than a request or a suggestion.

,,

And Dave, I'm honestly kind of sorry to see you go. While I may have been a bit coarser in my language than necessary you have been slowly getting on my nerves with how you frase your injections. A simple "according to [source]" before those statements would have gone a long way here. That bit about follower and cohort cost & possible income? Given that its stated nowhere in the SRD that I can find at a glance makes it the kind of thing you might have wanted to preface and provided a link to the source before stating it as haughty fact. And an a mid-low level character making thousands a month? In a system where carpenters are stated up as 4th level experts? Either 1st level characters start destitute or there's a horrible, horrible inbalance in how that was worked out given that the average wage is a miniscule portion of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to have to step back from the game myself. My mental health and emotional stability are precarious at best and so far the game has produced a high level of stress and negativity, and we're not even actually playing yet. I love the concept, but the mix of people or something just isn't healthy for me.

,,

Max, Jer, MM, I'm sorry to yank out on you like this, but I have to put my health first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a simple "Hey, Dave, where'd you get that info?" would have sufficed as well. So I've been getting on your nerves, fine, I do that. People get on mine too, it happens. One thing however, is that no matter how pissed off anyone on this board has made me, I never, ever, target their characters and take my ire out on them. That's just bad form all the way around.

,,

If you have an issue with me, you pull me aside in a PM, you talk to me in chat, hell you can even throw up a "Dude, WTF is your problem?" post right here in the thread and I'll certainly get back to you. I'm hardly as unreasonable as you think.

,,

Again guys, I hope you all have fun and I'll be watching this thread since I'm curious to see how all these mechanics work in a campaign. Best of luck ruling the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nyrath... I went over that post twice, with regards to what you said to Revenant.. balanced response, to be fair to both individuals?

,,

One, that was uncalled for, if you had an issue with Revenant as a player, or with regards to his attitude, first step was to address it to him privately, calling him out like that was completely uncalled for, and alienated more then one of your potential players... maybe all of them, right now.. I'm not feeling great about it either... I love the concept, and I rather like the character I had in mind, but I'm not interested in playing the only kingdom on the map.. and the drama going on as of late regarding a game that hasn't started yet, isn't making me happy either.

,,

Two, to be fair... Revenant, you can come across as arrogant at times, I generally assume it's not intentional, or that other factors are in play, but it's sometimes rather annoying, and for some folks, it rubs them really wrong, like trying to pet a porcupine..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a note, I'm not out.. I've just a few reservations at this point.. and I'm not sure where to go from here.. and I really, really don't want to be the only nation on the map.. in a kingdom building game, that seems a bit dull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ny. Before you even consider folding, consider this: If we can't do the nation building, why not change the theme of the game to one nation versus a unexplored, vast, and possibly hostile in parts continent? If there ends up being one nation this could be the way to keep this game afloat.

,,

You can use the nation building mechanics to construct friendly and hostile NPC nations for us to deal with.

,,

I think at this point, I think everyone needs to step back from their guns and put a few thought cycles on this problem. Some of you got characters done or near done. PF is a harder D&D breed of game. I don't think everyone should just toss that away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know that we're out Max.. but with so many folks bailing out.. well.. we'll see how it goes...

If N continues to press forward, I'll stick with it... it's up to Nyrath at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...