Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 9:39:03 GMT -6
I saw that talysman had a blog post on Support and Upkeep. I hope he doesn’t mind me sharing the link to the article. It’s another approach to consider. Nine and Thirty KingdomsI still would like to hear a well reasoned suggestion for why Support and Upkeep only ceases when building in the wilderness, yet it continues if a player would build on an empty town lot. To me, the reason is clearly because the player can skimp on providing men-at-arms for his stronghold. Instead, he can rely on the town or city militia. So, he must continue to pay the tax to support the existing army that aids in his defense in a territory not under his control. No. You're thinking in 21st century terms. Building a castle in the wilderness meant you were building it in UNCLAIMED land. Unclaimed. Nobody has claimed it. You build in land somebody has claimed, whether it's in town or country, you're paying taxes to whoever has claimed that land. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 9:43:55 GMT -6
derv, I read you. But what if, as PCs progress, they stick together at each play lvl. By so-called "end game," they share the marches along the boarder lands, coming to each other's aid and rallying against the demon hoards, the undead throngs. Etc. Treasure gets bigger. NPC encounters get bigger. But the party stays together. Have an NPC bribe one of the PCs to help him attack another PC. Have an NPC tell PC 1 that PC2 bribed the NPC to attack PC1. Or PC3. Have an NPC hire an assassin to kill PC4 and tell the assassin the NPC is working for PC1. Essentially, that's such a boring situation that I'd do anything in my power to break it up as referee, not to mention incredibly ahistorical. And as a player, I'd probably start a war just for the hell of it. No, I lie, I'd start a war to take over land, because land means wealth, power, and prestige. I'd leave such a game fairly soon if it didn't change. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 26, 2015 11:50:44 GMT -6
Interesting take, mr Mornard. To me, the static endgame sounds like a moment to say, "and they lived happily ever after. The end. Roll up a new level 1 party."
|
|
randyb
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 92
|
Post by randyb on Mar 26, 2015 12:50:04 GMT -6
Interesting take, mr Mornard. To me, the static endgame sounds like a moment to say, "and they lived happily ever after. The end. Roll up a new level 1 party." Who's to say you can't do both? |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 26, 2015 13:09:22 GMT -6
The only issue is that as the rules were developed, the optimal play style was 1:1 or 1:2. The idea of the "large party" was a by product of its popularity in relation to those who knew how to play the game. Much of the early play reports aren't about "nuclear parties" of 3 fighters 1 cleric 1 MU, 1 thief. It's about Gygax's adventure with robilar and Otto or whomever. Ad&d and the convention modules distort the play style the original rules were written for. There may have been 9 players-characters in the campaign, but they didn't all adventure together at the same time. Okay, I read you on this. I guess I am not interested in attempting an historical reenactment of how 0e was once played. I just want to use the rules to play it the way my group and I like to play it now. My group is a bunch of goody-goodies that like the whole "keep the party together" kind of feel to things. Me too! I was just trying to describe a way to keep the whole party together at every level of play for those folks who like that aspect of the game. I like the social dynamic that a party of different classed characters creates. It is part of the fun for me. I like solo adventure too. But not as much. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 26, 2015 13:15:41 GMT -6
Have an NPC bribe one of the PCs to help him attack another PC. Have an NPC tell PC 1 that PC2 bribed the NPC to attack PC1. Or PC3. Have an NPC hire an assassin to kill PC4 and tell the assassin the NPC is working for PC1. Essentially, that's such a boring situation that I'd do anything in my power to break it up as referee, not to mention incredibly ahistorical. And as a player, I'd probably start a war just for the hell of it. No, I lie, I'd start a war to take over land, because land means wealth, power, and prestige. I'd leave such a game fairly soon if it didn't change. Well, @gronanofsimmerya, I will certainly remember not to invite you when we get to that level of play! ;) Seriously, though, I read you. You are a long-time war-gammer and that stuff is fun for you. Cool. I like war games too, and I would have fun in a campaign like you describe if I entered into it at that level, that is, as a war game proper. But I just don't have fun feeling like I am back-stabbing my buddy that was one of the reasons why I now have a name lvl wizard, or whatever. It just doesn't work for me. The camaraderie, both in-game and out, is part of the fun for me. I was imagening a way to keep it fun without the back-stab aspect of it. If folks can have fun working together to raid a dungeon, subdue a dragon, divide a treasure, can't they also have fun forming an alliance against the undead and demon axis that is about to invade? That lifts it to war-game but the enemies are NPCs. I can see at the session assigning some of the NPCs to players to play, but keeping the PCs still basically allied. Couldn't that be fun too? Anyway, it sounds fun to me and I am looking forward to giving it a try. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 14:08:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 26, 2015 15:05:35 GMT -6
I saw that talysman had a blog post on Support and Upkeep. I hope he doesn’t mind me sharing the link to the article. It’s another approach to consider. Nine and Thirty KingdomsI've got no problem, but I didn't link it ere myself because I think it's not completely related to the this thread. The gist of the dicsussion here seems to be "what was the intention of the upkeep rule, and how was it actually used?" I was writing about what I've decided the rule ought to be, and coming up with some details. Because, whether it's taxes or cost of living or both, you have to pay for it in a town, whereas you are mostly self-sufficient and an authority in and of yourself when you are in the wilderness. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 26, 2015 15:14:01 GMT -6
Building a castle in the wilderness meant you were building it in UNCLAIMED land. Unclaimed. Nobody has claimed it. You build in land somebody has claimed, whether it's in town or country, you're paying taxes to whoever has claimed that land. Thank you Michael, ultimately that is my point- Support and Upkeep is a tax paid to those who control the territory. I was trying to support this fact from the view point of a player, as well as suggest what the players motive might be, and explain why the ruling on Support and Upkeep needed to specify this. Maybe I did not state it clearly. I was trying to build on my original post. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 26, 2015 15:30:10 GMT -6
[I've got no problem, but I didn't link it ere myself because I think it's not completely related to the this thread. The gist of the dicsussion here seems to be "what was the intention of the upkeep rule, and how was it actually used?" I was writing about what I've decided the rule ought to be, and coming up with some details. I guess you're right that this thread has more to do with what the original intent was. Though, I think everyone can appreciate how different people use this ruling in their campaigns. Some might even choose to adopt you're perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 28, 2015 8:27:21 GMT -6
Derv. Download the pdf of treasure hunters and look at chapter 4. It's all there and it runs like a Rolex. The key is to do much of it away from the table. I took some time to check out your rules in chapter 4. They appear well thought out and thorough. There's certainly much that a person could glean for their own games. Since they are uniquely written for Treasure Hunters, there's a number of design decisions that you made that may or may not translate to an OD&D game depending on the setting and the level of detail a GM might want in their game. For instance, you've adopted a silver standard. There is also limits established on costs and time reductions (I know similar rules exist in the DMG). You also made an interesting choice to base the time of construction on total costs. This is a very practical solution. Overall, it seems that you have drawn on a number of sources to come up with a workable solution for this part of a campaign. How long would you say it took you to compile and develop this part of Treasure Hunters, to your satisfaction? Overall, nicely done. Others should take a look at Scotts efforts. This is an area most clones overlook and generally do not include at all. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 28, 2015 8:45:36 GMT -6
.... My group is a bunch of goody-goodies that like the whole "keep the party together" kind of feel to things. Me too! I was just trying to describe a way to keep the whole party together at every level of play for those folks who like that aspect of the game.... I think you are imagining a problem where there isn't one. If your players want to stay together and cooperate, then the will. Nothing is stopping them. Several of the Blackmoor players did exactly that BiTD. They helped each other build thier stronghold, helped each other defend their lands, helped each other investigate dangers and attack rivals. Just because a character has gained lands and titles doesn't make them a loner. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 4, 2016 10:10:08 GMT -6
I just wrote a 'blogpost related to this topic I thought I should mention here linkI also thought it might be fun to revisit Derv's table, using the XP values from the Dalluhn/BTPbD draft mss. - reason being that treasure values and prices in the draft are pretty close to those of the published work but XP required is generally lower, so it makes for a bit friendlier taxes, which might or might not appeal to you.  Equivalent tax in gold for PC classes by level: Fighter: Magic-User: Cleric: 1st- 0 0 0 2nd- 10 10 5 3rd- 25 50 15 4th- 50 90 35 5th- 100 140 70 6th- 250 240 120 7th- 500 400 240 8th- 900 600 500 |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 18, 2020 4:16:35 GMT -6
In my Social Status system if you have high social status you have to pay double (2%) to maintain that upper class life style, while if you have low status you only pay half (.5%) because you hang out in dives and don't spend a lot on fancy clothes. But, there are other advantages to social status so it all balances out to some degree. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on May 20, 2021 12:10:55 GMT -6
Session to session
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 20, 2021 17:13:18 GMT -6
In my Social Status system if you have high social status you have to pay double (2%) to maintain that upper class life style, while if you have low status you only pay half (.5%) because you hang out in dives and don't spend a lot on fancy clothes. But, there are other advantages to social status so it all balances out to some degree. That's easy and makes a lot of sense. I like it. |
|
