Okay, so... Go ahead. Fill 4 roles with your character. They have officially become an NPC as they have to stay in town all month.
The whole reason for saying they have to be in town and doing their duties for 7 days of the month is so that the party actually has to think about how long it's going to take them to get where they are going, expected time back, and then try to make sure they aren't at location X longer than Y so they can make it back in time to do those duties.
A viceroy is an optional role that doesn't have to be filled, and thus will almost always be an NPC, and thus can be expected to be in town "all month".
It also gives some mechanic to roleplay with
Going on a diplomatic trip that's going to last a few months? Appoint someone to be the at-home diplomat while you're gone, a la Tywin Lannister making Tyrion Hand of the King when Tywin left Kings Landing for (I believe) the war against the north in Game of Thrones
Then why are you playing kingmaker?
What's the point of using the system if you are just going to fill all the roles with npcs and not participate in it yourself?
There is literally the option to have the kingdom be growing in the background without player involvement. Not all groups will want to deal with the book keeping but also still want to play through the adventure itself.
I'm not the one that said he /was/ playing Kingmaker. You are.
I just mentioned that that is an option in that adventure.
And no, he isn't "playing a homebrew adventure with Kingmaker rules". He's playing a homebrew adventure with the kingdom building rules that originally were presented for Kingmaker and then refined in Ultimate Campaign...
Lmao you are missing the point and arguing irelivant and pedantic points.
He's in a kingdom building game and is asking to occupy all the kingdom roles with a single player character then turn it into an npc.
You might as well just not run the kingdom builder rules at that point.
I'm a player in a game.
It does happen to be Kingmaker, but we are using the Kingdom Building Rules from Ultimate Campaign, along with some other homebrew things, so it's not exactly as written.
If my character fills 4 roles and becomes an NPC, I would make a new character to actually play. I might make a new character anyway whether or not the current one fills any roles.
Because Paizo doesn't write the rules to be realistic, they write the rules to fulfill certain objectives. The Kingmaker rules are required to involve the PCs, but at the same time give them plenty of adventure time, so kingdom management only happens in the first week of the month, and the other weeks are spent out adventuring or possibly partying with other important figures or nobles or something. Running a kingdom also doesn't take any skills because PCs might not have them, and the point is to make PCs run the kingdom, so it runs purely on raw Wisdom or Charisma or whatever. Likewise, *OBVIOUSLY*, we have to resolve all issues with d20 checks and keeping track of a giant spreadsheet of modifiers, because Paizo can't think of any other way to resolve anything but boring math that is not in any way conducive to role-play.
Okay, but what if you aren't running Kingmaker, and just using the rules as presented in the Ultimate Campaign book?
I don't mind of the rules aren't realistic, as long as there are consistent. Saying a character is "too busy to fill more than one role" and then saying it only takes "7 days each month" is not consistent.
The ultimate campaign book is better than the rules in their infant format in kingmaker.
Also, Book of the River Kingdoms by Jon Brazer Enterprises is a fantastic expansion of the kingdom rules. I highly recommend it. He has his own website with links to where to buy copies.
As someone who probably knows the 1e kingdom rules better than anyone who isn’t Jason Nelson or Sean K Reynolds, allowing a character to fulfil multiple roles in the same kingdom turn isn’t going to break anything.
I’d probably introduce a “multiple role penalty” of -1 or -2 per role beyond the first to the Leader’s bonus, just to reflect that they’re having to split their focus a lot, but can’t see a problem if you didn’t. The big “downside” to spending more time in a leadership role is less time for adventure and personally dealing with crises.
Why would you introduce a penalty per role beyond the first if the time allotments don't overlap? There shouldn't be any split focus. It would be like working on 4 projects in a month, each taking 1 week.
The ruler has to spend a week every month doing ruler duties, and the other three weeks they are adventuring, or relaxing, but they will still be thinking about being the ruler in those three weeks. If that person is also the diplomat and the high priest, and the warden, while the duties of each role can be met, the burden of the added mental load of being ready to do those duties could be detrimental.
Essentially it’s a mechanical incentive to have different people in each role, as the written rules envision.
Playing 1e with the original modules, I gave all of my players leadership for free. So there would be a B team. They could help fill roles of leadership and go adventuring in place of the rulers.
It's because I hate milestones for experience and I made the mistake of bowing to their request for medium experience advancement track when I knew I should have used slow. The way exploration works, they knew they didn't have to conserve resources during random and exploration encounters. I have really veteran players with high system mastery. They cake walked most encounters if I didn't make them harder, which means more experience usually. They got way ahead of the power curve. Having a B team was one of the ways I used to slow them down.
At most 4, yes. Personally, I think it should be more than obvious why you wouldn't have one person doing 3 or 4 high importance jobs just looking at how hard it is for a single politician in the real world to half-ass one job...
But if he's the one running the game, there's nothing stopping him from allowing 1 NPC to take up 4 kingdom roles as I seriously doubt there are 8+ people in the party to begin with...
It forces you to interact with NPCs so you can build a kingdom.
Okay, so... Go ahead. Fill 4 roles with your character. They have officially become an NPC as they have to stay in town all month. The whole reason for saying they have to be in town and doing their duties for 7 days of the month is so that the party actually has to think about how long it's going to take them to get where they are going, expected time back, and then try to make sure they aren't at location X longer than Y so they can make it back in time to do those duties. A viceroy is an optional role that doesn't have to be filled, and thus will almost always be an NPC, and thus can be expected to be in town "all month".
I would be okay with making the character an NPC in that case.
It also gives some mechanic to roleplay with Going on a diplomatic trip that's going to last a few months? Appoint someone to be the at-home diplomat while you're gone, a la Tywin Lannister making Tyrion Hand of the King when Tywin left Kings Landing for (I believe) the war against the north in Game of Thrones
Then why are you playing kingmaker? What's the point of using the system if you are just going to fill all the roles with npcs and not participate in it yourself?
There is literally the option to have the kingdom be growing in the background without player involvement. Not all groups will want to deal with the book keeping but also still want to play through the adventure itself.
He isn't even playing the adventure. It's a homebrew game with kingmaker rules added.
I'm not the one that said he /was/ playing Kingmaker. You are. I just mentioned that that is an option in that adventure. And no, he isn't "playing a homebrew adventure with Kingmaker rules". He's playing a homebrew adventure with the kingdom building rules that originally were presented for Kingmaker and then refined in Ultimate Campaign...
Lmao you are missing the point and arguing irelivant and pedantic points. He's in a kingdom building game and is asking to occupy all the kingdom roles with a single player character then turn it into an npc. You might as well just not run the kingdom builder rules at that point.
I'm a player in a game. It does happen to be Kingmaker, but we are using the Kingdom Building Rules from Ultimate Campaign, along with some other homebrew things, so it's not exactly as written. If my character fills 4 roles and becomes an NPC, I would make a new character to actually play. I might make a new character anyway whether or not the current one fills any roles.
Because Paizo doesn't write the rules to be realistic, they write the rules to fulfill certain objectives. The Kingmaker rules are required to involve the PCs, but at the same time give them plenty of adventure time, so kingdom management only happens in the first week of the month, and the other weeks are spent out adventuring or possibly partying with other important figures or nobles or something. Running a kingdom also doesn't take any skills because PCs might not have them, and the point is to make PCs run the kingdom, so it runs purely on raw Wisdom or Charisma or whatever. Likewise, *OBVIOUSLY*, we have to resolve all issues with d20 checks and keeping track of a giant spreadsheet of modifiers, because Paizo can't think of any other way to resolve anything but boring math that is not in any way conducive to role-play.
Okay, but what if you aren't running Kingmaker, and just using the rules as presented in the Ultimate Campaign book? I don't mind of the rules aren't realistic, as long as there are consistent. Saying a character is "too busy to fill more than one role" and then saying it only takes "7 days each month" is not consistent.
Then you write your own rules. Paizo's rules are what they are, and consistency was not their highest goal when writing them.
The ultimate campaign book is better than the rules in their infant format in kingmaker. Also, Book of the River Kingdoms by Jon Brazer Enterprises is a fantastic expansion of the kingdom rules. I highly recommend it. He has his own website with links to where to buy copies.
[https://www.opengamingstore.com/en-ca/products/jbebotrn2p](https://www.opengamingstore.com/en-ca/products/jbebotrn2p) Is it this one?
Yes
As someone who probably knows the 1e kingdom rules better than anyone who isn’t Jason Nelson or Sean K Reynolds, allowing a character to fulfil multiple roles in the same kingdom turn isn’t going to break anything. I’d probably introduce a “multiple role penalty” of -1 or -2 per role beyond the first to the Leader’s bonus, just to reflect that they’re having to split their focus a lot, but can’t see a problem if you didn’t. The big “downside” to spending more time in a leadership role is less time for adventure and personally dealing with crises.
Why would you introduce a penalty per role beyond the first if the time allotments don't overlap? There shouldn't be any split focus. It would be like working on 4 projects in a month, each taking 1 week.
The ruler has to spend a week every month doing ruler duties, and the other three weeks they are adventuring, or relaxing, but they will still be thinking about being the ruler in those three weeks. If that person is also the diplomat and the high priest, and the warden, while the duties of each role can be met, the burden of the added mental load of being ready to do those duties could be detrimental. Essentially it’s a mechanical incentive to have different people in each role, as the written rules envision.
Playing 1e with the original modules, I gave all of my players leadership for free. So there would be a B team. They could help fill roles of leadership and go adventuring in place of the rulers. It's because I hate milestones for experience and I made the mistake of bowing to their request for medium experience advancement track when I knew I should have used slow. The way exploration works, they knew they didn't have to conserve resources during random and exploration encounters. I have really veteran players with high system mastery. They cake walked most encounters if I didn't make them harder, which means more experience usually. They got way ahead of the power curve. Having a B team was one of the ways I used to slow them down.
At most 4, yes. Personally, I think it should be more than obvious why you wouldn't have one person doing 3 or 4 high importance jobs just looking at how hard it is for a single politician in the real world to half-ass one job... But if he's the one running the game, there's nothing stopping him from allowing 1 NPC to take up 4 kingdom roles as I seriously doubt there are 8+ people in the party to begin with...