Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

On strongholds

SwiftCrack

Arcane
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
1,836
BG2 perfected it (as far as static 'assigned' strongholds go) and others tried to replicate it.

It works best in TES/3D Fallout games where you can just take a house/castle/tower/whatever imo.
 

markec

Twitterbot
Patron
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
45,656
Location
Croatia
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Dead State Project: Eternity Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
I would like to see something like Raven Rock from Bloodmoon but on a greater scale. Taking control of a small village and making decisions that would impact it while it grows into a city. What kind of industry will it focus on, making allegiances and trade deals with neighbors, crushing or making deals with criminal underground, will you be a benevolent or cruel leader? All decisions would change the appearance of the settlement and add quests and events based on your decisions. As you stand on a balcony of your mansion overlooking the sprawling city which streets are filled with traders, artisans, beggars, peasants, blackjack and hookers you remember the humble beginnings and the obstacles you needed to overcome to reach this point. At that moment you stop and think, is there any kind of loverslab mod to make this more fun.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,756
Ruling a dominion was the implied endgame of Dungeons & Dragons from the beginning, but being an endgame means being the focus of play, not a tacked-on system.

Morrowind in the base game had strongholds only to a limited extent in that if you joined one of the Great Houses and rose sufficiently in rank, you would be able to construct and expand a fortified settlement in three stages with a few, brief quests involved. This wasn't well connected in terms of gameplay, but it did tie into the setting, as three Great Houses were expanding from the mainland onto Vvardenfell and competing over territory. And it wasn't at all complex, so it wouldn't have diverted much-needed resources from other aspects of the game during development.

If an RPG is going to bother with a more complex stronghold system, it should be non-optional and integrated into the main quest. Rather than being just a place to store items, in the manner of a housing mod, the player-character should serve as leader of the stronghold, making important decisions regarding its expansion and defense, tying the stronghold to other settlements through political and economic arrangements, and connected in some manner to the main part of the story.
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
Or you could see ruling a dominion as a way of gracefully retiring too powerful characters because no one would want to bother with the spreadsheet'y aspects of it for a longer time. No one thinks first of "ruling a dominion" when hearing about DnD. As a teenager, it's cool to rule a "kingdom" ("I'm a king") and maybe steamroll your neighbors, but I think it loses its luster after than a hex crawl.

This kind of stronghold necessarily comes at a power level when I'm already bored with the game.
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
If they're familiar with the BECMI Frank Mentzer version of D&D, ruling a dominion would be the third thing they would think of. +M

I have no idea about the US pen and paper scene, but how many people really play those power levels (and higher)? Because they tend to morph into strategy game / city builder / manager sim area when you have to accumulate and spend "Build Points" and "Lots".
 

v1rus

Arcane
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,253
Jumping on the "Crossroad keep was actually great" bandwagon. Loved how it tied tons of secondary characters, the mini arcs and the rest. Such a shame it didn't have bigger consequences on the actual game.

Normandy was decent I guess, but lets not forget _teh_rpg_ship - Ebon Hawk. Imho, that's how you do this kind of shit. Some additional micro-management (upgrading/diplomacy/etc) would be welcome additions, but Ebon Hawk fulfills the core idea rather nicely.

And yes, I think "companion dumping ground" should be an obligatory thing. If your companions stay spread across the world, not only would you have harder time switching between 'em, but you also wouldnt feel much companionship with them, would you?
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
1,350
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Or you could see ruling a dominion as a way of gracefully retiring too powerful characters because no one would want to bother with the spreadsheet'y aspects of it for a longer time. No one thinks first of "ruling a dominion" when hearing about DnD. As a teenager, it's cool to rule a "kingdom" ("I'm a king") and maybe steamroll your neighbors, but I think it loses its luster after than a hex crawl.

This kind of stronghold necessarily comes at a power level when I'm already bored with the game.
A lot of the games that took D&D ideas to heart are the ones that are mentioned the most in this thread. At level 9 (at least in AD&D) you start the process of beginning your stronghold. That was definitely a core idea built into the game across multiple generations of D&D for mid-to-late game activities. So things like crossroads keep from NWN2 and the different strongholds in BG2 are the places where this idea excelled the most because they chose to actually follow a system that has been built upon for decades.
 

Zanzoken

Arcane
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
3,557
I think it's beneficial to have a dedicated place to rest and get organized in between missions. It's about proper pacing and giving players a break from the action at times, which is something good game designers recognize as important.

That doesn't have to be a full-fledged Stronghold(TM) though. Usually the quests and upgrades and such associated with that are dull and lifeless.

But an RPG that made base-building a core mechanic -- like in X-Com for instance -- might be able to achieve some interesting results.
 

Mozg

Arcane
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
2,033
I vaguely remember old D&D having pages where you learn how expensive it is to make crenelations and how much it costs to hire castellans and seneschals; it was all part of the large dose of medievalism of old D&D along with spetums and ranseurs. It's also the payoff for playing fighters and other mundane types - it was a fait accompli that the fighter would be the one that ended up a focus of events playing a King Conan type of game.
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
The Crossroad Keep is the best stronghold I played, much better than Baldur's Gate 2.
- You can have multiple interactions showing that YOU the player have affected the world and the keep: talking with characters, appearance of characters, appearance of shops.
- You can affect the Keep in building shits and choosing shits: choosing the wizard tower instead of the NWN Tower for example. It's basically a grand miniquest and help you dispose of the huge chunk of loots and money you can gather AND you can get back your investment if you like. And they are very big investment we are talking about: If you want to finish the building to the extent that game story allow, you would need to scrape together like a miser and exploit shits. Basically it's another miniquest in its essence.
- There are major battles associated with the stronghold, making it a vital place to the story. And the building things above do have results in affecting these battles.
- You can have the illusion of really command an army. By changing option in the parts above you can increase or reduce the number of troopers appear. You can even arrange to command troops somewhat in battles.

If you like BG2 strongholds than NWN2 Keep, it just show you like its story background. NWN2 Keep is plainly better in game mechanic and execution.
 

Agame

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
1,702
Location
I cum from a land down under
Insert Title Here
Doll's houses. You need to get a bit of that elusive women gamer demographic.

Actually I think its more about guys exploring their feminine side, eg. playing with barbie dolls when they were little kids.

Maybe this is the reason for all of these bullshit mechanics: house building shit, crafting shit and character builders where you can spend 20 hours tweeking your cheekbone size and eyelash color...
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,756
I have no idea about the US pen and paper scene, but how many people really play those power levels (and higher)? Because they tend to morph into strategy game / city builder / manager sim area when you have to accumulate and spend "Build Points" and "Lots".
From the very beginning of D&D in 1974, 9th level (later termed "name level") was considered the point at which player-characters (both fighting-men and clerics, though not necessarily magic-users) would be expected to build their own strongholds and become engaged in aspects of ruling territories, such as clearing the surrounding area of monsters and investing in local infrastructure. It's a lofty aspiration for a 1st level PC, to be sure, but not particularly high level, considering levels in OD&D are unbounded. This expectation about name level carried over into both AD&D and later versions of D&D, with various tweaks and refinements. Similar systems can be found in recent takes on the D&D formula, such as the "Adventurer, Conqueror, King" RPG.

I vaguely remember old D&D having pages where you learn how expensive it is to make crenelations and how much it costs to hire castellans and seneschals; it was all part of the large dose of medievalism of old D&D along with spetums and ranseurs. It's also the payoff for playing fighters and other mundane types - it was a fait accompli that the fighter would be the one that ended up a focus of events playing a King Conan type of game.
Right, the original "brown book" 1974 version of D&D included rules on castle construction, hiring of specialists and men-at-arms, and stronghold upkeep, though they were brief and tucked away on pages 20-24 of the "Underworld & Wilderness Adventures" booklet. The first detailed rules for this level of play appeared in the Companion "Green Box" Set of 1984, part of BECMI D&D.
 

Rahdulan

Omnibus
Patron
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
5,104
Best strongholds was in Suikoden series.

People today would probably complain there's not enough customization and things to do because it's really the characters you recruit that matter for the latter.
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
From the very beginning of D&D in 1974, 9th level (later termed "name level") was considered the point at which player-characters (both fighting-men and clerics, though not necessarily magic-users) would be expected to build their own strongholds and become engaged in aspects of ruling territories, such as clearing the surrounding area of monsters and investing in local infrastructure. It's a lofty aspiration for a 1st level PC, to be sure, but not particularly high level, considering levels in OD&D are unbounded. This expectation about name level carried over into both AD&D and later versions of D&D, with various tweaks and refinements. Similar systems can be found in recent takes on the D&D formula, such as the "Adventurer, Conqueror, King" RPG.

Thank you. There's a rulebook for PF as well (Ultimate Campaign), but that's where you juggle with "build points" and "lots".
 

SausageInYourFace

Angelic Reinforcement
Patron
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
3,858
Location
In your face
Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit. Pathfinder: Wrath
I feel player housing and managing a stronghold may be similar in some ways (eg. offering you a place to rest, store your stuff etc.) but not strictly the same. They feel different and should be discussed seperately or at least one should keep a distinction in mind.

Player housing is useful in simulationist games where they can help with the immersion in the game world by giving you a place to 'live in'. (I don't think there is a need for that in party based isometric games.)

Strongholds are connected to some kind of 'managerial' or 'ruler' mechanic and make you feel more powerful by offering the possibility of large scale decisions. In order to make them work the player needs to feel and see the impact of these decisions. Thats why the spreadsheet stronghold in PoE was so boring for example, it failed at making me feel as a ruler who makes important decisions (speaking pre patch here, dunno how much they improved it by now).
 

Kayerts

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
883
As others have come pretty close to saying, strongholds are in some respects a vestigial feature from early D&D. One major motivation for strongholds there was that eventually, players would get too powerful for any sane world to keep throwing challenging encounters at them, so they shift their focus to regional and global goals, toward which end holding territory is a logical component. It's part of the same mentality that said there could only be one 14th level druid per region (and later, one 15th level in the world). CRPGs have resolved this conundrum by creating insane hellscape worlds populated by implausible concentrations of high-level enemies with brain dead AI, so the player can defeat them, and we agree to ignore implications on the ecosystem. (More or less every CRPG that lets you get high-level does this; the later Might and Magic games had fun examples: "Wait, all these red goblins are kings? Where are their kingdoms? Did I just destablize goblin geopolitics by casting sparks?") BG2's Athkatla and its suburbs have two dragons, a full hive of beholders, and like seven high-level liches, all just waiting for you to bumble in so they can fight you to the death. All these enemies are supposed to be superhumanly smart. If there's a human GM controlling enemies that are supposed to be smart, this shouldn't regularly happen, and certainly not at sufficient frequency to let you regularly level up.

Similarly, the reason old D&D thought you needed to be involved at a political level to influence regional or global events is that those events tend to attract the attention of allied regional and global powers, and it's silly to think that their best response to a threat would be to send 4-6 bad dudes to punch their way through an army and then punch the enemy leader in the face. Again, CRPGs resolve this with the genre convention asserting that this is a totally smart thing to do. (If you want to focus on the political or global level, you can play a 4X game.)

So strongholds are in some ways solutions to problems that we nowadays just handwave over, and most games that have strongholds still rely on the CRPG standard method for dealing with major threats. Dragon Age 3 is a good example: you're commanding a paramilitary organization with multiple fiefs, you're allied with several heads of state, you have armies, squads of mages, and other powerful characters working for you, and the final sequence is still you and three of your bros running out to punch the final boss. Even in NWN2, everyone's example of a stronghold done well, what happens at the end? You successfully defend your stronghold against the evil armies . . . then four of you teleport into the final boss's lair and kill everyone in it. Your army, powerful allies, and indeed most of your party members sit around back home, braiding each other's hair and telling scary stories about the time they saw a goblin. ("He was red! Probably a king!")

From a narrative perspective, I like strongholds that ground my character's place in the world; giving the character some contested territory (MM7) or putting them in the path of the plot (NWN2) are good ways to do this. From a gameplay perspective, I like strongholds that are more like strongholds in strategy games with RPGlike elements, i.e. where building them out gives me some unique benefit that won't be eclipsed by mid-tier loot. PoE is an interesting example because pre-expansion, it got almost everything wrong, and a large number of these were fixed by the expansions: the location wasn't central to the action, investing in the stronghold didn't unlock any interesting bonuses beyond the bounty quests, the stronghold wasn't relevant to the main plot or indeed any subplots.
 

Freddie

Savant
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
717
Location
Mansion
For what I can recall from my days being a DM and struggling with keeping game going with relatively high level party (lvl 5-8 IIRC, AD&D 2nd ed.) and failed (fucking mages, must be careful what spells you give to them) Stronghold serves the best if it have strategic meaning, like others posters wrote.

Stronghold in question was actually a small keep where players kept their stuff, had a parties and served as part of defence in town they were decided to settle. From gaming experience point of view it served mostly need to have some sort of impact in game world, some sort of element that symbolised their success by providing service to town even when they kept adventuring and of course immersion. I think best equivalents from PC games would be mix of CIV II throne room and ... City wall, also from CIV, it was so abstract.

From players point of view I understand it. In early campaign there is home, be that village or city, but part of exploration of game world and adventure are all those inns along the road or even places where party sets up camp. One thing I recall storyfags and character sheet fags had in common was that we weren't interested maintaining such thing as castles. Mages can have their towers, clerics can build a temple but having a castle just was too much of effort to be considered interesting. I think good DM might make it interesting though, but it should serve the campaign.


For cRPG's I like the idea of several locations that may serve different purposes. Some are for resting and storage and then there is sort of hub stronghold, like in Fallout NV. I think Shadowrun Dragonfall and Hong Kong's idea is pretty good. Base is stable construct, but there's possibility to make impact to game world via other means, meta-human shelter in Dragonfall and Nightclub in Hong Kong. They also avoid obvious trap for having a huge garrison and staff and player wondering why they can't be used in battle.

A cool stronghold mechanic would be a nomad warband/caravan
I like this idea a lot.

A stronghold should only be there if it serves a logical purpose when it comes to gameplay. It has to be more than a glorified spreadsheet. An example of this done right comes from a game that's really shit, but it introduced a change which now I deeply miss in the rest of the franchise: The Bureau, that shitty XCOM shooter, allowed you to send your rookies into secondary missions, which would allow them to level up and not be scrubs. If your good soldiers are killed, you don't have to resort to meatshields anymore, since you had your backup.
Totally forgot this. I liked this aspect of game very much.

There are other ways. I don't think I'm going to get Fallout 4, but idea that player can begin some sort of restoration project in the wasteland and influence the environment that way is very interesting. I mean when I browsed F3 and F:NV mods, I noticed that there were many interiors mods for safe houses. But who stays in those when adventure is elsewhere? Having influence to environment may make much more sense if devs were trying to solve the impact and immersion problem.
 

oneself

Arcane
Shitposter
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
9,502
Location
A minority-white, multicultural hellscape
best stronghold

free-stronghold-crusader-hd-desktop-wallpaper.jpg
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
Fallout New Vegas implanted it in a good way. You could add various crafting machines in your base, store your companions and put all your junks there. It was also easy to access.

Anything more than these in a base is absolutely unnecessary.
Not really. I'd like it to be a traffic node with some caravan going through. I once spawn a bunch of caravan npc at the central map safehouse, but they get wiped once exiting game I think.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom