Where I talk about how my mind has changed a bit about #dnd domain mechanics.
#ttrpg #OSR

Yeah, the best domain rules I've seen are really @amacris 's ACKS rules. Keep a running tab of how many families labor under your lordship and how productive the land is ("economic power") and how much you spend on your armies to keep the peace ("military power"). Then the other PCs get "drafted in" as magistrates and factota of the ruler PC, if they don't have their own domains to rule (in which case they can probably set up an alliance bloc to help one another).

The more abstract rules in the Old School Companion seem to be more for the kind of party who's supposed to be dungeon delving even when they're in the top ten highest leveled in the kingdom, which in a Medieval Authentic setting doesn't make a terrible lot of sense: a high level character, even if he was originally a serf, will quickly discover that he was secretly the son of a mighty noble, since of course random serfs can't become great, so if they do then it's proof that they weren't random serfs from the beginning... And in any case they will probably be granted titles of nobility and a fief somewhere where there are monsters and they need to be cleared off and the land colonized.

I'm actually fond of the birthright rules for domain management.

Quote from: Slipshot762 on May 19, 2023, 07:04:48 PM
I'm actually fond of the birthright rules for domain management.

I love it too, but it cannot be used even in Aduria, let alone other campaign settings...

Meatball for Mascot!

The old BECMI domain management rules were pretty good. They can be found in the D&D Companion rules and the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. I used it for my AD&D 1e campaign.

For D&D (and similar RPGs), the best domain management rules are common sense, in my opinion. You don't need a whole hell of a lot to have a good campaign. Like Goldilocks, you want what is "just right." Not too many rules, not too few, but just right.

Obvious. Qualitative. Unhelpful. But there it is. Figure it out, dude.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on May 20, 2023, 02:12:23 AM
For D&D (and similar RPGs), the best domain management rules are common sense, in my opinion. You don't need a whole hell of a lot to have a good campaign. Like Goldilocks, you want what is "just right." Not too many rules, not too few, but just right.

Obvious. Qualitative. Unhelpful. But there it is. Figure it out, dude.

Agreed. I've never seen a set of codified mechanics do better at domain management for a single-player per PC style rpg* than an even middling GM winging it in response to what the PCs actually do in character.

A related issue is the most domain rules are extremely tied to various setting conceits... ACKS is very focused on conventional armies and medieval manoralism. Birthright is built around literal Divine Right that affects how well you can manage the land you are magically connected to (and has armies in the thousands, with the mass combat system treating 200 men as a single unit on the battle map).

And because those systems are so detail focused for those settings, their rules are not going to be well suited for domain management in, say, a post-apocalyptic world where your small cluster of walled citadels housing just a few tens of thousands and surrounded by monster haunted wilderness are the only point of civilization for a hundred miles and where armies of at most hundreds consist of wyvern cavalry, warcasters, dwarven cyborgs and airships vs. Legionary orcs with glaive-rifles, maledictor priests, living siege engines, and winged goblins.

Pundit is pretty much on point with his comments that there is no "one size fits all" set of domain rules that are going to work for every campaign... even in the same setting... and that without complete table buy-in (everyone has their own aspect of a domain they control... a la Birthright's Law/Fighters, Faith/Cleric, Magic/Wizard, and Commerce/Thieves) you're probably better off with a more abstracted system that can handle things with a few occasional rolls so all the non-nobles aren't left on the sidelines for large swaths of time.

And nothing is more "abstracted" than the GM just using common sense (and maybe some guidelines for how to handle PC combat within a larger mass combat situation). It's also the only thing really flexible enough for all the kinds of gonzo elements fantasy campaigns might have.

* codified domain rules work better for a "each player runs an entire noble house" or similar bigger scope campaigns. The domain rules are your resolution mechanics for your action list in the same way normal mechanics are for attack, move, cast spell, open lock, sneak, etc. for individual PCs.

Yeah, I've played in a campaign where a middling GM tried to wing domain management. It wasn't particularly good, and the GM was the first person to admit it.

You're right, ACKS domain rules have certain premises which may not always hold; the same thing with the Fantasy Companion, which is why Pundit wants to change it for his Polish game. That doesn't mean that we simply must throw up our hands and say "GM Fiat." This is how we get to the idea that RPGs are all about the combat system (since I have never heard someone say "do combat using the GM's common sense") and the dungeon delving procedures got sidelined in AD&D 2E and following in favour of "GM common sense."

Quote from: Wtrmute on May 20, 2023, 09:41:36 AMThat doesn't mean that we simply must throw up our hands and say "GM Fiat." This is how we get to the idea that RPGs are all about the combat system (since I have never heard someone say "do combat using the GM's common sense") and the dungeon delving procedures got sidelined in AD&D 2E and following in favour of "GM common sense."

As an aside, this is part of the reason why I favor/insist on some type of skill system in TTRPGs I play, and also some type of "Feats" or perks/advantages as well. "GM Fiat" doesn't really cut it for me when it comes to determining whether a character actually knows something or how good they are at it, as well as whether they have certain quirks that might grant them some type of in-game benefit (such as being Attractive, Ambidextrous or whatever).

That being said, a lot of this depends on how important that sort of detail is to your campaign. And when it comes to domain management, that's the sort of thing that only matters if you're even gonna deal with it in your campaign. And how detailed or involved domain management is depends a lot on the setting or how important it is to your campaign or your group. So there's way less of a "one size fits all approach" that can be used when dealing with it than with stuff like skills or feats.

In my case I've never really dealt with domain management because it's almost never come up in any game I've played. And the few instances that it has, the GM invariably "GM Fiat" it based on what they were willing to put with to handle it, as well as the specifics of their campaign. But 99% of the game still focused on personal adventures without keeping tract of armies of followers or your kingdom's finances.

In my own campaigns, players don't normally even remember that they have animal companions as it is. They'd be all excited about having a dire wolf mount, or whatever, then completely forget that the animal is supposed to have a bite attack till halfway through combat. Imagine adding armies and farmlands to the stuff they get to forget to keep track of.

Chris24601,
I'm responding to your post but before I do, I caveat by saying I don't expect to change YOUR mind. I'm actually responding for those who might read your comments and (had I left them unanswered) wrongly think that ACKS is somehow tied to "conventional armies" "medieval manorialism" or can't handle gonzo, none of which is true.

I know I won't change your mind because the last time we chatted you said that my game Ascendant wasn't well-designed; it had too many rules for things that you thought the GM should just handle by GM Fiat, and you didn't see any advantage in its attempts at realism or simulation. I'm sure you'd say the same of ACKS if you read it. I conclude that you and I are on the FAR OPPOSITE ends of what we expect from a game design. A game that requires GM fiat for key aspects of gameplay is a game I think is poorly designed which I won't play. I don't think I'd play a game designed by you any more than you'd play one designed by me. But, disagreement over philosophy of game design aside, you are wrong on the facts about ACKS and so I need to correct that.

QuoteA related issue is the most domain rules are extremely tied to various setting conceits... ACKS is very focused on conventional armies and medieval manoralism. Birthright is built around literal Divine Right that affects how well you can manage the land you are magically connected to (and has armies in the thousands, with the mass combat system treating 200 men as a single unit on the battle map).

Your comment on ACKS is more than 10 years out of date. The current ACK system (available in the AUT and AX product line of books and now being consolidated into the three books of ACKS II, kickstarting this summer) can and does handle anything from empires to points-of-light, manors to freeholds, oligarchies to senatorial republics. The army system can scale from platoon (1 unit = 30 men) to brigade (1 unit = 1,920 men). The entire economic engine has had the "hood lifted" and can be customized to taste. It is far more customizable than Birthright, Battlesystem, or anything else that's ever been released.

QuoteAnd because those systems are so detail focused for those settings, their rules are not going to be well suited for domain management in, say, a post-apocalyptic world where your small cluster of walled citadels housing just a few tens of thousands and surrounded by monster haunted wilderness are the only point of civilization for a hundred miles and where armies of at most hundreds consist of wyvern cavalry, warcasters, dwarven cyborgs and airships vs. Legionary orcs with glaive-rifles, maledictor priests, living siege engines, and winged goblins.

ACKS's systems are explicitly not focused on any one setting. Few ACKS judges use the "default" setting and some of the settings they use them for are very gonzo. Read about Dubzaron by the BROSR. The rules support dwarven cyborgs and airships, wyvern cavalry, guns, living siege engines, all of it. ACKS even has three alternative magic systems with rules for customizing the magic, too. ACKS can handle all of the above, and GMs running it are doing so now. I'm not talking "in theory it could," I mean, actual play is doing it. Anyone who wants to talk to ACKS players about it is welcome to come to our Discord and see.

QuotePundit is pretty much on point with his comments that there is no "one size fits all" set of domain rules that are going to work for every campaign... even in the same setting... and that without complete table buy-in (everyone has their own aspect of a domain they control... a la Birthright's Law/Fighters, Faith/Cleric, Magic/Wizard, and Commerce/Thieves) you're probably better off with a more abstracted system that can handle things with a few occasional rolls so all the non-nobles aren't left on the sidelines for large swaths of time

I don't think this is a real objection to domain rules because there is no such thing as "one size fits all" for any RPG system, and you always need player buy-in. Consider the difference in player buy-in for combat between OD&D and D&D 5E. In the former you "buy in" to the idea that your mage will mostly do nothing until he wins one encounter with sleep, or your thief will be busy during exploration but avoiding danger during combat. In the latter you "buy in" to the idea that everyone contributes to every fight, etc. 

QuoteAnd nothing is more "abstracted" than the GM just using common sense (and maybe some guidelines for how to handle PC combat within a larger mass combat situation). It's also the only thing really flexible enough for all the kinds of gonzo elements fantasy campaigns might have.

Again I don't think this is a real objection to domain rules, because this argument could be just as well applied to any game mechanic someone dislikes -- combat, role-play, exploration, whatever.

If domain play isn't important to you, then, no, you don't need domain rules. You also don't need netrunning rules in D&D or magic rules in Battletech, because those aren't important to you when you play those games. If, on the other hand, domains are important to you, then you need domain rules. And if you need domain rules, the ACKS II domain rules are, by far, the most comprehensive and flexible on the market.

QuotePundit is pretty much on point with his comments that there is no "one size fits all" set of domain rules that are going to work for every campaign... even in the same setting... and that without complete table buy-in (everyone has their own aspect of a domain they control... a la Birthright's Law/Fighters, Faith/Cleric, Magic/Wizard, and Commerce/Thieves) you're probably better off with a more abstracted system that can handle things with a few occasional rolls so all the non-nobles aren't left on the sidelines for large swaths of time.

I've lurked for a while but this needed a response. As an ACKS DM, this is true but ACKS also accounts for it. In my present game, there are civilized domains ranging from a manor in the wilderness to a continent spanning empire, barbarian clanholds, chaotic domains of beastmen, elven and dwarven settlements, thieves' guilds, various religious advisors to the above in Imperial/pagan/demonic traditions, sorcerers in their towers drawing strength from sites of magical power, and I'm looking forward to adding nomadic domains soon. Those distinctions are mechanically rigorous, and meaningful because they're not abstracted away. Running a domain of nomadic horsemen should be mechanically distinct from running one of orcs, or one of settled lands under the protection of the Imperial legions. Abstracting that away removes a lot of meaningful distinctions that make the gameworld more complex and interesting; having the DM handwaive it leaves it open to arbitrariness and caprice, and I saw that as the DM, because I'm confident I wouldn't have the time to do the detailed research into historical nomadic societies to build a rigorous economic model for them from the ground up.

Lost me at "abstract."

I'll sort of echo that D&D "domain" play is best done through common sense. With the context of, actually AD&D 1E provides a vast amount of detail for doing this sort of thing. I don't think "winging it" is an accurate characterization of what's being offered there.

Usually when it comes to adding rules, I expect there to be a bit of a tradeoff. Like more rules may mean more work, but also you get something more out of it, like more detail. And naturally opinions and preferences will vary when it comes to striking that balance. But to propose abstract domain management mechanics, that's more rules and less details. That's giving me less bang for more buck. Sorry. Hard pass. Don't even have to think about it. There aren't even pros and cons to weigh out here.


I think when it comes a lot of things in RPGs, gamers ask the wrong questions. They'll ask which games have X (in this case, "domain management") or if a particular game has X when they should be asking HOW the RPG handles X. And for some X's and for some RPGs, sure, the answer might be convoluted or have to just make shit up. In those cases, it may be fruitful to add new rules that do X. But if you're asking how old school D&D handles the various aspects of domain management, there actually are clear answers that can be given that make use of direct application of existing core material. This is not an instance where new rules are needed. Pro tips for using what's already in the game would be more appropriate.


That's my take on this, anyway.

Quote from: VisionStorm on May 20, 2023, 10:34:17 AM
In my case I've never really dealt with domain management because it's almost never come up in any game I've played. And the few instances that it has, the GM invariably "GM Fiat" it based on what they were willing to put with to handle it, as well as the specifics of their campaign. But 99% of the game still focused on personal adventures without keeping tract of armies of followers or your kingdom's finances.

I believe you, but I have played AD&D and oWoD then D&D for twenty years and my group never once tried to do commerce, until we tried a Traveller campaign in 2018. Now, Traveller does have trading rules which the players can interact with, and suddenly the players were interested in commerce (even though only one of them owned a starship). So the interest in trading play came as a consequence of the rules being there, not the other way around. And anecdotal evidence I've collected lends further credence to the hypothesis that "if you build it, they will come" (with apologies to Kevin Costner).

And after all, nothing forces the players to engage with a system. If you have a system for extemporaneous magic and another for rigid, Vancian-adjacent magic, the players can always ignore one, the other, or both by simply not making casters of either or both systems. Or the dungeoneering procedures by limiting themselves to wilderness or urban adventures. That doesn't mean that the system should not be there. It is simply another option.

Quote from: amacris on May 20, 2023, 02:21:59 PMThe entire economic engine has had the "hood lifted" and can be customized to taste.

I'm curious how the system models economics when simulating anything that's not 100% grounded in reality. And wouldn't that still at best be just an estimate and ergo GM-handwaving?
I agree with some of your sentiment, but how do you apply narritivanium conventions to real-world physics/economics?

I get choosing the complexity level you have fun with, and you clearly prefer more, but economic models in real life struggle painfully to simulate things accurately, so Im not sure how they could simulate worlds where the price of grain can drop on harvest festivals when "The Peoples faith for the Goddess Zaluka is pure, but only if she succeeds pushing away the Darkmoore horde in the heavens that quadlunar cycle".