TLDR: I got Strongholds and followers awhile ago, about a year after the PDF came out and was so disappointed that I'm nervous about looking into this new pdf. Once bitten and all. Should I get it?
Full:
So, Kingdoms and Warfare was announced a little bit ago as having the PDF launch. I've always been fascinated by Kingdom Building and Societal management in RPGs and the promise of freedom that D&D brings to the table makes me salivate with anticipation. When I bought the PDF I had looked at several different reviews that all seemed quite positive. While I knew the book wasn't a full Kingdom Building ruleset (as the next book already had its Kickstarter launch and succeed) from what I had heard there was enough to build armies, have wars, and manage a microcosm of a society. I. Was. Stoked. I bought the PDF + Hardcover and the first RED FLAG appeared, it mentioned, several times, that various aspects of the rules would be done in the next book. Like, WHAT? Why even bring it up? What if the Kickstarter had failed or you never released the other book. It made me feel like I was reading the Alpha notes to a full game that I had paid full price for. Especially when the rules themselves were so simplified that it was clear roleplay was to do most of the heavy lifting anyway, but then provides next to no examples in the book on how a DM should manage this. Matt Coleville, for all his YouTube success, had I think one short series on this ruleset and no side videos to expand or assist for this cliff notes-feeling-product.
I felt like I had wasted my money, and a campaign was ended partially due to the unclear rules for soldier management, seemingly pathetic low entry costs, and frustratingly overlooked rules ("Hey! Let's not go into the dungeon, lets just have our soldiers clear it out!"). It felt like despite its simplicity, the structure was rigid that everyone at the table had to agree to ignore creative freedom with the system that is inherent in 5E, and instead use the system strictly for its intended use in its very limited scenarios. In short, it sucked.
A year later, Matt Coleville agreed apparently! In a Kickstarter update he announced complete reworks of the army combat, citing a few of my own grievances. Now, this shows promise, but with how hollow Strongholds and Followers was, I'm terrified about investing $30 without first reading through an "Extended Preview" PDF online.
What do y'all think I should do? Should I get it? Wait for an "Extended Preview" PDF to appear online first?
P.S. Yes I have discovered and read through Baltimore's Guide to Kingdom building. I have not played it yet but I enjoy that it feels more designed with the inherent freedom of RPG's, gives DM's a way to have players affect and command troops, as well as answers logistical questions to make "Hey, just have our army stamp out the Dragon!" less of an immediately viable option.
My first thought is, don't let some internet stranger tell you what to do. Only buy it now if you want to. If you are willing to have the same issues as before. Then yeah, go ahead and buy it. If not, don't buy it, wait.
Having said that, I would wait. I would see what everyone else is saying, see if it has the same problems as before, read and watch reviews, does it have what you need. And one of the first reactions I had from your post is you are unsure, err on the side of caution, its not going to run out of stock, its a PDF. Don't rush to buy it if you aren't sure about it, sleep on it, think about it, see what others are saying.
But, do what YOU want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game" - Dungeon Masters Guide
People speak of Colville as some great mind, but the products he has put out has been hilariously broken or just mechanically dense. Illrigger is a great example of this.
I'd wait it out and see what the public perception is first before you give your money to what essentially is the beta test.
I've bought both Strongholds & Followers and Kingdoms & Warfare. Here's my take:
The Good
The organisation system is interesting, they're like classes but for your entire party
Intrigue is like a combat encounter but on the political scale
The new warfare rules are much more tactical, almost like a board game, and involve your PCs more
The Bad
Doesn't really connect to Strongholds & Followers, it's almost like the first book doesn't exist
All the stuff in S&F that said "this'll be explained in Kingdoms & Warfare"? It's not, because the warfare system is complete rebuilt and incompatible
It's not really a kingdom management ruleset, it's more like a very high level narrative approach
It's a lot of dense text, and if you want examples you have to read through the adventure
Monsters aren't as good as S&F
The layout isn't great for all the handouts it expects; organisation sheets are spread around. The new warfare cards appear on random pages and you don't get a blank template.
Ultimately my take is that it seems interesting, but it's a little bit of a bait and switch from what was anticipated in regards to being a sequel/expansion to S&F, and impressively seems to be both all sizzle and no steak andimpenetrable crunch. I would say if you're on the fence and felt burned by S&F, don't get it.
Personally, I got both S&F and K&W to bring political intrigue and mass warfare to my campaigns. It was pricy for what I wanted but I backed them both to also support his livestream, The Chain, and for the mini adventures in the books.
I loved S&F. So I intend at some point to get K&W, even though I can't realistically use it in my current campaign. I want to buy it because it sounds interesting and because I want to support Coleville and what he's doing.
However, that said, if I'd bought S&F and been unhappy with it, I would absolutely never consider buying K&W.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It's $30 USD just for the PDF. Unless you plan on getting a lot of use out of it I definitely would not buy it. Especially if you weren't satisfied with his earlier book.
The pdf and the Hardback I think are still available for $40 for early adopters, though shipping in the U.S. seems to put it over 50, so you're back in regular hardback territory.
I was ok about S+F. It seemed like a decent port of the old keep or fief rules in AD&D including the troop tables. I thought it was going to be all Strongholds and followers, not 1/3 S+F and then 2/3 miscellany of MCDM (some of which was neat). I think I'll wait to hear more about K+W review wise, but Davyd's impressions seem in line with what I was anticipating. Nerd Immersion's review focused on "villainous action" with is another type of action I guess but instead of legendary actions is something they can do at certain points in the encounters overall arc. I dunno, I think villains can have plans within an encounter (which can adapt to what the players actually do) weather than have something integrated into the stat block.
As to the OP's question, I think it's a bit much to ask a "should I or shouldn't I" just a couple of days after release. Unless MCDM issued some sort of "lessons learned" after S+F, I don't know why you'd expect something remarkably different in the follow up qualitatively. And again, anything you're hearing now is at best via a read through. MCDM particularly boasts to be aware that what's "written down" in his products may seem a bit off in reading, but he encourages people to actually play the material to see the stuff at work "and that's how you see his genius." Or so was the argument behind the Illrigger against those who were saying it was just a variety of Oathbreaker Palladin (personally I think Illrigger to Oathbreaker or Vengeance Palladin as Blood Hunter is the Gloomstalker to mention the other Matt). I don't know, I think it's a little odd for someone who comes from a writing background to make a claim like that about their writing, but he has his fans that though the prior book and this one too are genius.
Thank you Davyd for actually giving a proper breakdown of what the book is compared to the other. From the sounds of it my Red Flags were correct, and unless you're really into the Strongholds 1/3rd of the book the rest is a complete waste of money. Matt Coleville seems like a nice guy, but from YouTube comments to even a few posters here, it seems his fanbase thinks he can do no wrong, just be "misunderstood". With what's been described here I think my opinion is pretty firm. S+F was a waste of money and should never have been published. Matt should have completed K+W with S+F as one book and published the system properly instead of selling people a half-baked alpha system that was mostly thrown out. Unprofessional of someone wanting to be an official publisher of RPG supplements. But thank you again for your succinct breakdown.
While I wouldn't say S&F was a waste of money myself (I got reasonable use out of the strongholds and lots of value from the monsters), I don't disagree that S&F could've been combined into K&W to produce a single, cohesive product. Reasonably speaking you could take the stronghold and retainer rules from S&F and combine that with the warfare and intrigue rules of K&W to produce a singular experience. The monsters and magic items could then have reasonably been combined into a more coherent product based on the setting Matt runs his games in.
I however wouldn't call Matt unprofessional for releasing S&F as he did. It was a big undertaking that I think mostly delivered what he said it would, but not necessarily what people wanted it to deliver. Also I don't think there's really any need to lay blame or accusations at the fanbase saying they think he can 'do no wrong'. Naturally people are part of a fanbase of a content creator such as Colville if they agree with and like what he produces, ergo they're going to defend and laud it.
Ultimately I'd say S&F and K&W are good products, albeit niche and not at all revolutionary. They're very 'Matt Colville' in their design, but your mileage may vary on if that's a good or bad thing.
I thought it was going to be all Strongholds and followers, not 1/3 S+F and then 2/3 miscellany of MCDM (some of which was neat).
I think some or most of this is a product of Kickstarter - these were probably stretch goals or features that the early adopter types requested, and Matt complied. I don't think all the MCDM stuff was necessarily in the original design, but I could be wrong.
In terms of K&W, one thing to keep in mind is that Matt had a group of people heavily play-testing his designs. So if things varied from the S&F system more than what was expected, it is probably due to the playtesting. For example, although I like, and have used to good effect, the unit combat rules in S&F, they can become tedious, because most units will "hit" less than half the time, and then if they hit, they do "damage" again less than half the time (statistically), which means that a unit only actually damages another unit about 20-25% of the time. If units have high size (d8, d10), this can turn into a giant "slap fight" that feels like it will never end.
Now, I think to some degree this is partially deliberate. The intention of S&F is not to have a war simulation, but rather, to have those units fighting each other while the party individually fights bad guys (with each player controlling their character and also an S&F unit). S&F says that if the party wins their combat, we are to assume that the unit battle is resolved in their favor, so it makes sense that the unit combat would resolve more slowly, to give the party time to win their fight. The party fight is where the drama is (think Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader and the Emperor on the Death Star while the rebel fleet is dogfighting TIE fighters in outer space).
If you use it that way, the unit combat is fun, because it lets the players do a little something extra during combat and the DM can narrate the ebb and flow of battle each round as the party is fighting the BBEG or what have you. But it's not as great if you do just unit combat.
My guess is, this was the feedback Matt and company got, so it would not surprise me that they redesigned how units and unit combat work so that the warfare itself is more fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I haven’t done a lot with S&F yet and nothing at all with K&W, but most of it seems best used to flesh out stuff in the background. I doubt it’d be very interesting or fun to use these books for forefront campaign facets. What BioWizard points out regarding unit combat is an excellent example of this: if you’re going to use unit combat to adjudicate how conflict is resolved it’s going to fall flat, but if you use it as a feature to complement the PCs individual actions in combat you can still focus on what should be important - what the player characters do - while the unit combat adds something extra. Just my opinion, but I think if you’re hoping to run a kingdom management campaign or something like that using these books you’re likely going to be disappointed a bit. If you run a regular campaign but polish it up a bit with kingdom management aspects on the other hand, things will probably work out better. As such, expectations matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Besides what’s been said the rules using kingdoms and warfare alone aren’t worth it.
Basically you get what I’d say is about 80% of a system out of it. The unit creation rules are non existent in warfare because his “system” for creating units was basically “play a lot until I got stuff I like” which means you have no way of actually creating your own units in a consistent way without doing the work that, frankly, should have been done before the book was published.
You can’t really reverse engineer the units in the book because there’s no consistency between them, and there’s not enough variety because, guess what, you have to pay another 15 bucks for a “deck” of special units that might help you do so.
In addition the units are heavily geared towards his personal campaign and thought process, not a neutral one so that means more work for you.
The domain rules are also lacking, and it’s frankly too abstract if you actually wanted to use this to world build. I wish I hadn’t bought the book via Kickstarter. It’s a waste of cash. My recommendation is to just find 2nd edition birthright books and just port that over. It’ll be about the same amount of work (though different types of work) and it’ll save you money and IMO work better.
I felt the same way about S&F. And I know we arent the only ones to say this. It was very much a 1/3 book of what was promised, and the stretch goal argument just isnt a good argument for it. Imagine there were no stretch goals? The S&F wouldnt be a complete book at all. Lots of things were just a joke. And then the "wait for the next book" argument put a really bad taste in my mouth. Im waiting to see the book before I even consider buying it. I like some of Matt's videos, but im sorry, this just was not a professional way of doing things. I very much regret doing the S&F kickstarter, which is why i didnt do the K&F kickstarter.
See ing whats been written about K&F makes me feel vindicated.
I know this is an old thread but I wonder if anybody can relate to my situation. I Purchased S&F and absolutely loved the stronghold rules but the fact that they were strongly tied to army's meant the book didn't include everything I needed. So I was excited to get K&W and even if I didn't use all of it, pull what I needed to really get a fully fleshed out stronghold system as my players really want to build a base. But then I find the rules in S&F are totally incompatible with K&W. I like the K&W rules but they don't really talk about how they interact with Stronghold buffs and soldier upkeep and the like, but I REALLY like the stronghold rules but they feel mostly incomplete. I am going to have to do a bunch of homebrewing to synergize the two systems if I'm going to do both, and I paid this much BECAUSE I wanted to minimize homebrew and have some solid rules I could count on.
my primary gripes with both books is the fact that they are so heavily and obviously placed in Colevilles world, that its really jarring and difficult to get it to work in anything EXCEPT his world. but, with that said, the warfare system in K&W provides a definite improvement over S&Fs warfare, but boy is it not without its flaws, namely how to create your own units, besides "git gud." the kingdoms aspect is fun in theory, and can be interesting if you do some work yourself. as for the backwards compatibilty, theres hardly none. I would love for them to do a S&F revised edition that goes in and edits all those horrendously annoying "thisll be talked about in my next book" to actually make sense and be implemented properly, and give the units the old codices summon some actual oomph rather than conjuring a bowl of wet noodles from the ether. and make it so your buildings actually can be fully utilized in warfare, not just vaguely mentioned
I bought S&F Hardcover. I'm happy I did. I wanted the content and to support Matt.
I don't think I am going to buy K&W, but I haven't ruled it out. My understanding is it isn't compatible with S&F and the warfare stuff had to be overhauled to make it work better.
I hope that I have a table that wants to try S&F someday, but that hasn't happened yet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I bought S&F Hardcover. I'm happy I did. I wanted the content and to support Matt.
I don't think I am going to buy K&W, but I haven't ruled it out. My understanding is it isn't compatible with S&F and the warfare stuff had to be overhauled to make it work better.
I hope that I have a table that wants to try S&F someday, but that hasn't happened yet.
It's 100% incompatible with Strongholds & Followers. The warfare systems are completely different, there's no way to include your stronghold in any part of the kingdoms system, and there are a lot of rules promised to be clarified/expanded upon in K&W that simply aren't.
I spent a fair bit of time writing a compatibility document for my home game so the two books can work together, but it feels a bit kludgy and the amount of work kinda makes it not worth it.
I kickstarted this on day one, and just received my hard copy yesterday. This is a super crunchy product with great art and frustrating information flow. The “cards” and “party sheets” are much too busy in terms of visual design IMHO. Also there are no blank templates at the end of the book, but placed solely and squarely in the middle of text and art in each section.
It is frustrating that there is almost no interface with STRONGHOLDS & FOLLOWERS as was promised IN PRINT
I am still attempting to grok the combat system and am wondering how easily it will interface with my campaigns.
So far not really digging this (except for the art, which, again, is really quite beautiful and epic).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
TLDR: I got Strongholds and followers awhile ago, about a year after the PDF came out and was so disappointed that I'm nervous about looking into this new pdf. Once bitten and all. Should I get it?
Full:
So, Kingdoms and Warfare was announced a little bit ago as having the PDF launch. I've always been fascinated by Kingdom Building and Societal management in RPGs and the promise of freedom that D&D brings to the table makes me salivate with anticipation. When I bought the PDF I had looked at several different reviews that all seemed quite positive. While I knew the book wasn't a full Kingdom Building ruleset (as the next book already had its Kickstarter launch and succeed) from what I had heard there was enough to build armies, have wars, and manage a microcosm of a society. I. Was. Stoked. I bought the PDF + Hardcover and the first RED FLAG appeared, it mentioned, several times, that various aspects of the rules would be done in the next book. Like, WHAT? Why even bring it up? What if the Kickstarter had failed or you never released the other book. It made me feel like I was reading the Alpha notes to a full game that I had paid full price for. Especially when the rules themselves were so simplified that it was clear roleplay was to do most of the heavy lifting anyway, but then provides next to no examples in the book on how a DM should manage this. Matt Coleville, for all his YouTube success, had I think one short series on this ruleset and no side videos to expand or assist for this cliff notes-feeling-product.
I felt like I had wasted my money, and a campaign was ended partially due to the unclear rules for soldier management, seemingly pathetic low entry costs, and frustratingly overlooked rules ("Hey! Let's not go into the dungeon, lets just have our soldiers clear it out!"). It felt like despite its simplicity, the structure was rigid that everyone at the table had to agree to ignore creative freedom with the system that is inherent in 5E, and instead use the system strictly for its intended use in its very limited scenarios. In short, it sucked.
A year later, Matt Coleville agreed apparently! In a Kickstarter update he announced complete reworks of the army combat, citing a few of my own grievances. Now, this shows promise, but with how hollow Strongholds and Followers was, I'm terrified about investing $30 without first reading through an "Extended Preview" PDF online.
What do y'all think I should do? Should I get it? Wait for an "Extended Preview" PDF to appear online first?
P.S. Yes I have discovered and read through Baltimore's Guide to Kingdom building. I have not played it yet but I enjoy that it feels more designed with the inherent freedom of RPG's, gives DM's a way to have players affect and command troops, as well as answers logistical questions to make "Hey, just have our army stamp out the Dragon!" less of an immediately viable option.
My first thought is, don't let some internet stranger tell you what to do. Only buy it now if you want to. If you are willing to have the same issues as before. Then yeah, go ahead and buy it. If not, don't buy it, wait.
Having said that, I would wait. I would see what everyone else is saying, see if it has the same problems as before, read and watch reviews, does it have what you need. And one of the first reactions I had from your post is you are unsure, err on the side of caution, its not going to run out of stock, its a PDF. Don't rush to buy it if you aren't sure about it, sleep on it, think about it, see what others are saying.
But, do what YOU want.
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game" - Dungeon Masters Guide
People speak of Colville as some great mind, but the products he has put out has been hilariously broken or just mechanically dense. Illrigger is a great example of this.
I'd wait it out and see what the public perception is first before you give your money to what essentially is the beta test.
I've bought both Strongholds & Followers and Kingdoms & Warfare. Here's my take:
The Good
The Bad
Ultimately my take is that it seems interesting, but it's a little bit of a bait and switch from what was anticipated in regards to being a sequel/expansion to S&F, and impressively seems to be both all sizzle and no steak and impenetrable crunch. I would say if you're on the fence and felt burned by S&F, don't get it.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Personally, I got both S&F and K&W to bring political intrigue and mass warfare to my campaigns. It was pricy for what I wanted but I backed them both to also support his livestream, The Chain, and for the mini adventures in the books.
I loved S&F. So I intend at some point to get K&W, even though I can't realistically use it in my current campaign. I want to buy it because it sounds interesting and because I want to support Coleville and what he's doing.
However, that said, if I'd bought S&F and been unhappy with it, I would absolutely never consider buying K&W.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It's $30 USD just for the PDF. Unless you plan on getting a lot of use out of it I definitely would not buy it. Especially if you weren't satisfied with his earlier book.
The pdf and the Hardback I think are still available for $40 for early adopters, though shipping in the U.S. seems to put it over 50, so you're back in regular hardback territory.
I was ok about S+F. It seemed like a decent port of the old keep or fief rules in AD&D including the troop tables. I thought it was going to be all Strongholds and followers, not 1/3 S+F and then 2/3 miscellany of MCDM (some of which was neat). I think I'll wait to hear more about K+W review wise, but Davyd's impressions seem in line with what I was anticipating. Nerd Immersion's review focused on "villainous action" with is another type of action I guess but instead of legendary actions is something they can do at certain points in the encounters overall arc. I dunno, I think villains can have plans within an encounter (which can adapt to what the players actually do) weather than have something integrated into the stat block.
As to the OP's question, I think it's a bit much to ask a "should I or shouldn't I" just a couple of days after release. Unless MCDM issued some sort of "lessons learned" after S+F, I don't know why you'd expect something remarkably different in the follow up qualitatively. And again, anything you're hearing now is at best via a read through. MCDM particularly boasts to be aware that what's "written down" in his products may seem a bit off in reading, but he encourages people to actually play the material to see the stuff at work "and that's how you see his genius." Or so was the argument behind the Illrigger against those who were saying it was just a variety of Oathbreaker Palladin (personally I think Illrigger to Oathbreaker or Vengeance Palladin as Blood Hunter is the Gloomstalker to mention the other Matt). I don't know, I think it's a little odd for someone who comes from a writing background to make a claim like that about their writing, but he has his fans that though the prior book and this one too are genius.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Thank you Davyd for actually giving a proper breakdown of what the book is compared to the other. From the sounds of it my Red Flags were correct, and unless you're really into the Strongholds 1/3rd of the book the rest is a complete waste of money. Matt Coleville seems like a nice guy, but from YouTube comments to even a few posters here, it seems his fanbase thinks he can do no wrong, just be "misunderstood". With what's been described here I think my opinion is pretty firm. S+F was a waste of money and should never have been published. Matt should have completed K+W with S+F as one book and published the system properly instead of selling people a half-baked alpha system that was mostly thrown out. Unprofessional of someone wanting to be an official publisher of RPG supplements. But thank you again for your succinct breakdown.
While I wouldn't say S&F was a waste of money myself (I got reasonable use out of the strongholds and lots of value from the monsters), I don't disagree that S&F could've been combined into K&W to produce a single, cohesive product. Reasonably speaking you could take the stronghold and retainer rules from S&F and combine that with the warfare and intrigue rules of K&W to produce a singular experience. The monsters and magic items could then have reasonably been combined into a more coherent product based on the setting Matt runs his games in.
I however wouldn't call Matt unprofessional for releasing S&F as he did. It was a big undertaking that I think mostly delivered what he said it would, but not necessarily what people wanted it to deliver. Also I don't think there's really any need to lay blame or accusations at the fanbase saying they think he can 'do no wrong'. Naturally people are part of a fanbase of a content creator such as Colville if they agree with and like what he produces, ergo they're going to defend and laud it.
Ultimately I'd say S&F and K&W are good products, albeit niche and not at all revolutionary. They're very 'Matt Colville' in their design, but your mileage may vary on if that's a good or bad thing.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I think some or most of this is a product of Kickstarter - these were probably stretch goals or features that the early adopter types requested, and Matt complied. I don't think all the MCDM stuff was necessarily in the original design, but I could be wrong.
In terms of K&W, one thing to keep in mind is that Matt had a group of people heavily play-testing his designs. So if things varied from the S&F system more than what was expected, it is probably due to the playtesting. For example, although I like, and have used to good effect, the unit combat rules in S&F, they can become tedious, because most units will "hit" less than half the time, and then if they hit, they do "damage" again less than half the time (statistically), which means that a unit only actually damages another unit about 20-25% of the time. If units have high size (d8, d10), this can turn into a giant "slap fight" that feels like it will never end.
Now, I think to some degree this is partially deliberate. The intention of S&F is not to have a war simulation, but rather, to have those units fighting each other while the party individually fights bad guys (with each player controlling their character and also an S&F unit). S&F says that if the party wins their combat, we are to assume that the unit battle is resolved in their favor, so it makes sense that the unit combat would resolve more slowly, to give the party time to win their fight. The party fight is where the drama is (think Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader and the Emperor on the Death Star while the rebel fleet is dogfighting TIE fighters in outer space).
If you use it that way, the unit combat is fun, because it lets the players do a little something extra during combat and the DM can narrate the ebb and flow of battle each round as the party is fighting the BBEG or what have you. But it's not as great if you do just unit combat.
My guess is, this was the feedback Matt and company got, so it would not surprise me that they redesigned how units and unit combat work so that the warfare itself is more fun.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I haven’t done a lot with S&F yet and nothing at all with K&W, but most of it seems best used to flesh out stuff in the background. I doubt it’d be very interesting or fun to use these books for forefront campaign facets. What BioWizard points out regarding unit combat is an excellent example of this: if you’re going to use unit combat to adjudicate how conflict is resolved it’s going to fall flat, but if you use it as a feature to complement the PCs individual actions in combat you can still focus on what should be important - what the player characters do - while the unit combat adds something extra. Just my opinion, but I think if you’re hoping to run a kingdom management campaign or something like that using these books you’re likely going to be disappointed a bit. If you run a regular campaign but polish it up a bit with kingdom management aspects on the other hand, things will probably work out better. As such, expectations matter.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
My recommendation? Don’t buy it.
Besides what’s been said the rules using kingdoms and warfare alone aren’t worth it.
Basically you get what I’d say is about 80% of a system out of it. The unit creation rules are non existent in warfare because his “system” for creating units was basically “play a lot until I got stuff I like” which means you have no way of actually creating your own units in a consistent way without doing the work that, frankly, should have been done before the book was published.
You can’t really reverse engineer the units in the book because there’s no consistency between them, and there’s not enough variety because, guess what, you have to pay another 15 bucks for a “deck” of special units that might help you do so.
In addition the units are heavily geared towards his personal campaign and thought process, not a neutral one so that means more work for you.
The domain rules are also lacking, and it’s frankly too abstract if you actually wanted to use this to world build. I wish I hadn’t bought the book via Kickstarter. It’s a waste of cash. My recommendation is to just find 2nd edition birthright books and just port that over. It’ll be about the same amount of work (though different types of work) and it’ll save you money and IMO work better.
I felt the same way about S&F. And I know we arent the only ones to say this. It was very much a 1/3 book of what was promised, and the stretch goal argument just isnt a good argument for it. Imagine there were no stretch goals? The S&F wouldnt be a complete book at all. Lots of things were just a joke. And then the "wait for the next book" argument put a really bad taste in my mouth. Im waiting to see the book before I even consider buying it. I like some of Matt's videos, but im sorry, this just was not a professional way of doing things. I very much regret doing the S&F kickstarter, which is why i didnt do the K&F kickstarter.
See ing whats been written about K&F makes me feel vindicated.
But he speaks so eloquently, surely we should believe everything he says?
Such as railroading the PCs towards the content you spent two week designing is taking away their agency and so you are the worst DM ever.
I know this is an old thread but I wonder if anybody can relate to my situation. I Purchased S&F and absolutely loved the stronghold rules but the fact that they were strongly tied to army's meant the book didn't include everything I needed. So I was excited to get K&W and even if I didn't use all of it, pull what I needed to really get a fully fleshed out stronghold system as my players really want to build a base. But then I find the rules in S&F are totally incompatible with K&W. I like the K&W rules but they don't really talk about how they interact with Stronghold buffs and soldier upkeep and the like, but I REALLY like the stronghold rules but they feel mostly incomplete. I am going to have to do a bunch of homebrewing to synergize the two systems if I'm going to do both, and I paid this much BECAUSE I wanted to minimize homebrew and have some solid rules I could count on.
my primary gripes with both books is the fact that they are so heavily and obviously placed in Colevilles world, that its really jarring and difficult to get it to work in anything EXCEPT his world. but, with that said, the warfare system in K&W provides a definite improvement over S&Fs warfare, but boy is it not without its flaws, namely how to create your own units, besides "git gud." the kingdoms aspect is fun in theory, and can be interesting if you do some work yourself. as for the backwards compatibilty, theres hardly none. I would love for them to do a S&F revised edition that goes in and edits all those horrendously annoying "thisll be talked about in my next book" to actually make sense and be implemented properly, and give the units the old codices summon some actual oomph rather than conjuring a bowl of wet noodles from the ether. and make it so your buildings actually can be fully utilized in warfare, not just vaguely mentioned
I bought S&F Hardcover. I'm happy I did. I wanted the content and to support Matt.
I don't think I am going to buy K&W, but I haven't ruled it out. My understanding is it isn't compatible with S&F and the warfare stuff had to be overhauled to make it work better.
I hope that I have a table that wants to try S&F someday, but that hasn't happened yet.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
It's 100% incompatible with Strongholds & Followers. The warfare systems are completely different, there's no way to include your stronghold in any part of the kingdoms system, and there are a lot of rules promised to be clarified/expanded upon in K&W that simply aren't.
I spent a fair bit of time writing a compatibility document for my home game so the two books can work together, but it feels a bit kludgy and the amount of work kinda makes it not worth it.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I kickstarted this on day one, and just received my hard copy yesterday.
This is a super crunchy product with great art and frustrating information flow.
The “cards” and “party sheets” are much too busy in terms of visual design IMHO. Also there are no blank templates at the end of the book, but placed solely and squarely in the middle of text and art in each section.
It is frustrating that there is almost no interface with STRONGHOLDS & FOLLOWERS as was promised IN PRINT
I am still attempting to grok the combat system and am wondering how easily it will interface with my campaigns.
So far not really digging this (except for the art, which, again, is really quite beautiful and epic).