Because you are the one defending a system that says come Level 5 characters are automatically entitled to land and property and labour.
That a wizard can now learn a new spell is not at all comparable to a wizard can now have a servant.
One shows how more time and experience leads to their learning more; the other is rewarding that wizard with the labour of another.
How can you not see how this mirrors how privilege operates?
With regard to all three—land and property and labour—it is pretty much how the worst of corporations that are guilty of colonial practices in the Global South operate: 'We have so much power and influence now. It's our right.'
More involved domain play rules can be found in other iterations of the game that don't make it sound as if characters have just earned the labour of others because of their level. Having tied it to XP—and even to character class—it reeks of class.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Do you have a better suggestion that doesn't require the DM and players to put a lot more effort into managing loot economy so that it remains "realistic" or whatever your ideal quality is? Gaining something like a base of operations and secondary facilities is character progression, and thus tied to the single game component that tracks such progression in 5e.
Why is it necessary that it be contingent on arriving at a certain level?
That is why it is problematic. They have reached Level 5 ... so others have no choice but to now work for them?
Why in a 1979 module—ranked one of the greatest adventures of all time by a dungeon design panel—intended for characters of Levels 1-3 did characters receive a 'base of operations' but it is just inconceivable today for this to occur without having arrived at Level 5?
Why couldn't a character or party obtain a home base before reaching Level 5?
What if wizards have enough gold at their disposal to buy or build seclusia before reaching Level 5?
I could go on.
Bastions to me seems to want to gamify something that does not need to be gamified to the extent it is and it is gamifying things in a way that is poorly thought out given it is basically just saying characters reaching a certain level 'deserve' the labour of others.
I have already mentioned some of the things that would make it more 'realistic'—or less problematic rather. Give CHA and characters' actions a role in whether or not retainers will remain or even perform labour for them in the first place. Why is how powerful they have become the determinant for whether or not people want to work for them? Have resource management be more specific instead of just hand-waving this and saying the location makes enough coin to pay what is really nothing more than a monolith of abstract hirelings. I will stick to having my players negotiate with and pay individual NPCs to do anything for them. Will make them truly earn the labour they expect from others instead of its just being a 'right' they now have ... because Level 5!
It is not at all realistic that every party of adventurers comes into land and properly and labour having simply earned a number of XP. Can no party of adventurers of Level 5 and above be skint? Why not?
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
If you want to run your table differently you can, that's what Rule 0 is for. If you want an explanation for why Bastions as a potential system for every possible 5e game that might be played use levels as their initial baseline, I covered my analysis of it in some detail here.
A group of charactersin the same game run according to these Bastion rules are going to reach Level 5 and get the land and property and labour they now 'deserve.' Hurrah! Consistency and balance have been maintained ... because? Because... another group of characters? ... in the same game? ... will also get land and property and labour upon reaching Level 5?
As you said people can run their tables differently. The balance 'argument' begins and ends at any given table.
It begins and ends with how any given campaign is run. If at all it even matters.
If what you mean is that some players will come to tables and expect to get these things when their characters reach Level 5 because they did in other games then that isn't 'balance.' That is something else. And it is one of the reasons the hobby is facing a DM shortage.
It makes no sense for something like a home base to even require rules to make it balanced. It's not a class feature. It's not a spell. Who cares if some characters receive awards earlier or later than others? Who cares if characters have accumulated enough gold to buy or build themselves a "bastion" before Level 5? That is the nature of a game in which the story that unfolds will or will not reward individual characters for their actions. Are some players really so hung up on the idea that a party's wizard might have a seclusium of its own while their characters have to sleep in a guesthouse? Do they also get hung up on another player's character having found romance? Do they expect there to be rules in place that ensure their characters will get that too by virtue of nothing more than their having reached this or that level? If you want an analogy to show just how problematic it is for players to expect NPCS to do things for their characters just because they reached Level 5.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
No, tying it to XP- which it isn't even, given that milestone leveling exists and is very prevalent- is indicative of finding some way to distill the concept down into a simple user-friendly system that a new DM without any prior experience of how to to manage soft systems can pick up and run without having to do a bunch of back end work, and a bunch of players on their first characters can all enjoy without the FOMO of trying to decide if magic items or facilities would be better for them.
And consider this is all an optional system, so there is no reason you can't just can it all and run your game your way if you'd prefer. Frankly, you want to talk privilege? Perhaps you should consider that not everyone is so privileged as to have the time/experience/skill to eyeball these things, and so a system that runs all the logistics of getting a building and staff in place behind the black is more accessible than dumping half a dozen tables for buying land, having buildings constructed, hiring workers, and paying upkeep in their laps and telling them to figure something out for their table.
Experience Points. Level. Call it what you will. It is problematic because the characters reach a point when their players now believe those characters are entitled to the labour of others. No one has actually addressed that. Which is what my chief concern actually is. All you keep doing is explaining why you believe the system is the way it is. It goes nowhere towards addressing my chief concern.
And none of what you have just said addresses what I have just said about individual characters:
Are some players really so hung up on the idea that a party's wizard might have a seclusium of its own while their characters have not yet obtained a place of their own and must pay for lodging?
Do they also get hung up on another player's character's having found romance and wed the NPC in question?
Do they expect there to be rules in place that ensure their characters will get that too by virtue of nothing more than their having reached this or that level?
If you want an analogy to show just how problematic it is for players to expect NPCs to do things for their characters just because they reached Level 5.
Do you think as kids playing at domain level in the early '80s we struggled to do any real resource management? It was just too much for us?
Is the 'privilege' afforded to those who have the time to do resource management any worse than that among those who have the time to spend hours reading rules and 'optimizing' their characters? Or arguing here for that matter?
I am talking about how the concept of being rewarded with the labour of others for hitting some milestone is problematic.
How isn't it?
Can you answer that question?
Instead of trying to make this about how people spend their time to again deflect from my chief concern?
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
There is only a problem because you make it one. You could easily say they acquire the "Bastion" at level 3 by saving someones home or whatever. Than they have to spend time and money to make it usable as more than just a place to stay and sleep, so at level 5 they have acquired enough money, and spend enough time to also have some extra benefits. In order to get these benefits they have also put down a post to ask for hirelings. Who are getting paid by what they do in that special facility.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"grandpa" Salkur, Gnome Arti/Sorc: Forged in Chaos | Pepin, Human Arti/Cleric: Goblin horde | Mixtli, Volc Genasi Arti: Champions of the Citadel | Erix Vadalitis, Human Druid: Rising from the last war |Smithy, Human Arti: Night Ravens: Black orchids for Biscotti | Tamphalic Aliprax, Dragonborn Wizard: Chronicles of the Accursed | Doc, Dwarven Cleric (2024): Adventure at Hope's End | Abathax, Tiefling Illriger: Hunt for the Balowang | Gorin Mestel, Human Arti: Descend into Avernus
The notion that character class is synonymous with social class and therefore anything tied to level progression is inherently classist is probably one of the most hilarious takes I've heard in a while. "Class" can have multiple meanings and right now the wrong meaning is being applied. When talking about character class, we're not using class as a synonym for "quality" or "standing", but role.
Then there's the fact that in game you can play a character of any social standing with any class at any level. There are zero mechanics that tie a characters mechanical package of abilities based on a role associated with a cultural heroic trope [class] with their position within the strata of unequally distributed wealth and social power [class].
Bastions are awarded based on the party reaching a point in their journey as a hero where they would be encountering bastions as something they might find abandoned, retake from a villainous force, or be awarded with. Also bastions are entirely optional. So there's no entitlement based on social class, that's a nonsensical take so absurd I can but laugh. How the bastion comes into a players possession is a discussion between DM and player:
You and the players can decide together how these Bastions come into being. A character might inherit or receive a parcel of land on which to build their Bastion (see “Marks of Prestige” in chapter 3), or they might take a preexisting structure and refurbish it. It’s fair to assume that work has been going on behind the scenes of the campaign during a character’s early adventuring career, so the Bastion is ready when the character reaches level 5.
If I had one piece of advice, it would be to not comment further on bastions until you've actually read the rules on them for yourself. Oh, and maybe brush up on the concept of homophones too.
Do they expect there to be rules in place that ensure their characters will get that too by virtue of nothing more than their having reached this or that level?
I am talking about how the concept of being rewarded with the labour of others for hitting some milestone is problematic.
How isn't it?
Can you answer that question?
Instead of trying to make this about how people spend their time to again deflect from my chief concern?
The bastion rules are a fairly simple chapter, front loaded with all the information you need about creation. It would probably take five minutes for you to read it - something you have admitted to not having done. Literally every single “concern” you have raised in this thread is explicitly addressed by the guidance in the rules.
Your most recent imagined concerns can be addressed under the very clear heading of “Creating a Bastion.” The rules literally say that DMs and players should work together to figure out a sensible reason for the bastion to come into being, with the implicit goal making the bastion feel like it naturally grew out of the campaign up to that point.
Your problems with the system are imaginary and born of your self-admitted decision to remain willfully ignorant (not used in an insulting way - in the technical definition of “no knowledge of” manner). As it is, you are basically making a bunch of flavor complaints…. About a system where the rules frequently tell DMs “please work with your players to come up with flavor that works for the campaign and makes the bastions feel like a natural element of the game.”
That is not a real complaint, and the fact you keep doubling down on it despite multiple quotes of the rules and explanations from multiple people… combined with the fact you are complaining about a system you admit you have not bothered to read, leaves very little room to assume you are posting in anything other than bad faith.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
The bastion rules are a fairly simple chapter, front loaded with all the information you need about creation. It would probably take five minutes for you to read it - something you have admitted to not having done. Literally every single “concern” you have raised in this thread is explicitly addressed by the guidance in the rules.
Your most recent imagined concerns can be addressed under the very clear heading of “Creating a Bastion.” The rules literally say that DMs and players should work together to figure out a sensible reason for the bastion to come into being, with the implicit goal making the bastion feel like it naturally grew out of the campaign up to that point.
Your problems with the system are imaginary and born of your self-admitted decision to remain willfully ignorant (not used in an insulting way - in the technical definition of “no knowledge of” manner). As it is, you are basically making a bunch of flavor complaints…. About a system where the rules frequently tell DMs “please work with your players to come up with flavor that works for the campaign and makes the bastions feel like a natural element of the game.”
That is not a real complaint, and the fact you keep doubling down on it despite multiple quotes of the rules and explanations from multiple people… combined with the fact you are complaining about a system you admit you have not bothered to read, leaves very little room to assume you are posting in anything other than bad faith.
Are characters or are characters not awarded the labour of others just because they have reached Level 5?
However you skin it is beside the point.
It is the concept alone that is problematic.
Or do you believe it would be okay for players' characters to obtain romantic interests or even spouses when they reach certain levels?
That there could not be anything problematic about that?
It wouldn't matter whether or not it was skinned in a way that was appropriate. It is the conceopt alone that a milestone means someone 'deserves' such a thing that is gross.
And that's twice now you have replied to me without yet having addressed how you misrepresented what is written in the 1e DMG:
It's also a bit rich of you to to be telling me to read into things before making what might be a false claim. Given you claimed the 1e DMG said using grids and miniatures was a 'more accurate' way to play D&D. It says no such thing; it says using a grid and not just drawing it up on paper will give a more accurate representation of how someone or something in flight can make turns. In a section that isn't even the combat section of the book.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Characters that reach Level 5 are awarded the labour of others.
... and some here cannot see how this might be seen as problematic.
If they were awarded servants that performed labour of an intimate nature when they reached a certain level would that also be fine?
Would that not be problematic from a feminist perspective?
Then why isn't it problematic from a perspective of labour to generally award characters the labour of others?
No talk of how this stuff is dealt with 'in-game' has any bearing on how ugly it looks to some.
Not when a player's character only has to reach a certain level and the character just gets it.
It is extraordinary how unfamiliar or uncomfortable people are with labour theory just because they can never see anything wrong with what is just a product. Like those who produce it have a direct line to some divinity out there and so can never do anything wrong.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
But why is it an issue they gain labour of others who are getting payed just fine?
If you are gonna say those Hirelings are obliged to work for you, than sure that might be a problem. But if you say the Hirelings applied to work for you than why is that an issue? It's all about how you explain it, nothing in the rules specifies this and is in any way problematic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"grandpa" Salkur, Gnome Arti/Sorc: Forged in Chaos | Pepin, Human Arti/Cleric: Goblin horde | Mixtli, Volc Genasi Arti: Champions of the Citadel | Erix Vadalitis, Human Druid: Rising from the last war |Smithy, Human Arti: Night Ravens: Black orchids for Biscotti | Tamphalic Aliprax, Dragonborn Wizard: Chronicles of the Accursed | Doc, Dwarven Cleric (2024): Adventure at Hope's End | Abathax, Tiefling Illriger: Hunt for the Balowang | Gorin Mestel, Human Arti: Descend into Avernus
As I said it could be skinned in a way to avoid that baggage.
But that is beside the point.
Would you make the same argument for a system that awarded players' characters with partners?
No.
Because whether or nor it was handled okay through role-play is beside the point.
The idea that a character has reached some milestone and this now entitles the character to another person in any way is gross.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Characters that reach Level 5 are awarded the labour of others.
... and some here cannot see how this might be seen as problematic.
Except this isn't what happens. No more than if you get hired as a manager of a store you're being "awarded the labour of others". Nothing about the Bastion rules says the hirelings are present against their will. It is simply the case that building or starting a Bastion includes the process of finding people to work there. This is all very silly, bordering on disingenuous. It does smack of the all too common trend of trying to prop up a subjective and personal dislike of something through intellectually dishonest moralising.
As an aside, class (role) and class (social position) are very much homophones, not homographs. Homophones are two words pronounced the same but with different meanings, whereas homographs are words that are spelled the same but not necessarily pronounced the same and with different meanings. Class (role) and class (social position) are homophones, lead (to guide) and lead (a toxic metal) are homographs.
You're injecting a load of preconditions that aren't grounded in the reality of the text in order to support your faux-outrage.
Your character reached Level 5? So? Maybe people don't want to work for that character.
Then those aren't the people working as hirelings in the bastion. Nothing in the rules suggest, implies, says, or supports the notion that any single hireling in the bastion is unwilling in any capacity. All the rules say is that the player gets the bastion (the structure) and it's assumed its staffed with hirelings required to run the bastion. You are the one injecting without grounds, rationale, reason, or logic the notion that those hirelings are somehow being mistreated, coerced, enslaved, or otherwise oppressed when literally nothing supports that. That's why you completed ignored my analogy of a new manager joining a store.
As for this
If they were awarded servants that performed labour of an intimate nature when they reached a certain level would that also be fine?
How would that not be problematic from a feminist perspective?
They're not being awarded that, so this point is irrelevant. If they were, that would be disgusting, but it's not the case so that's a non-issue. And the two scenarios are not comparable, so it's doubly moot.
I'm genuinely curious why you think that people working in the Bastion are any different from the party themselves? Because both depend entirely on others "gaining the benefit of their labour." Townsfolk or guilds hire the party to do a job, the party then spends it's money in taverns (gaining the labour of bar staff) spends it on new weapons and equipment (gaining the labour of the blacksmith) and in this case possibly have a Bastion (gaining the labour of the people in there)
Is your problem just that the Bastion didn't require you to role play the job interview for the staff? Because unless you're running your table as an egalitarian collective the whole game is pretty much built on the exchange of gold for goods or services
Because you are the one defending a system that says come Level 5 characters are automatically entitled to land and property and labour.
That a wizard can now learn a new spell is not at all comparable to a wizard can now have a servant.
One shows how more time and experience leads to their learning more; the other is rewarding that wizard with the labour of another.
How can you not see how this mirrors how privilege operates?
With regard to all three—land and property and labour—it is pretty much how the worst of corporations that are guilty of colonial practices in the Global South operate: 'We have so much power and influence now. It's our right.'
More involved domain play rules can be found in other iterations of the game that don't make it sound as if characters have just earned the labour of others because of their level. Having tied it to XP—and even to character class—it reeks of class.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Do you have a better suggestion that doesn't require the DM and players to put a lot more effort into managing loot economy so that it remains "realistic" or whatever your ideal quality is? Gaining something like a base of operations and secondary facilities is character progression, and thus tied to the single game component that tracks such progression in 5e.
Why is it necessary that it be contingent on arriving at a certain level?
That is why it is problematic. They have reached Level 5 ... so others have no choice but to now work for them?
Why in a 1979 module—ranked one of the greatest adventures of all time by a dungeon design panel—intended for characters of Levels 1-3 did characters receive a 'base of operations' but it is just inconceivable today for this to occur without having arrived at Level 5?
Why couldn't a character or party obtain a home base before reaching Level 5?
What if wizards have enough gold at their disposal to buy or build seclusia before reaching Level 5?
I could go on.
Bastions to me seems to want to gamify something that does not need to be gamified to the extent it is and it is gamifying things in a way that is poorly thought out given it is basically just saying characters reaching a certain level 'deserve' the labour of others.
I have already mentioned some of the things that would make it more 'realistic'—or less problematic rather. Give CHA and characters' actions a role in whether or not retainers will remain or even perform labour for them in the first place. Why is how powerful they have become the determinant for whether or not people want to work for them? Have resource management be more specific instead of just hand-waving this and saying the location makes enough coin to pay what is really nothing more than a monolith of abstract hirelings. I will stick to having my players negotiate with and pay individual NPCs to do anything for them. Will make them truly earn the labour they expect from others instead of its just being a 'right' they now have ... because Level 5!
It is not at all realistic that every party of adventurers comes into land and properly and labour having simply earned a number of XP. Can no party of adventurers of Level 5 and above be skint? Why not?
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
If you want to run your table differently you can, that's what Rule 0 is for. If you want an explanation for why Bastions as a potential system for every possible 5e game that might be played use levels as their initial baseline, I covered my analysis of it in some detail here.
Consistent and balanced for whom?
A group of characters in the same game run according to these Bastion rules are going to reach Level 5 and get the land and property and labour they now 'deserve.' Hurrah! Consistency and balance have been maintained ... because? Because ... another group of characters? ... in the same game? ... will also get land and property and labour upon reaching Level 5?
As you said people can run their tables differently. The balance 'argument' begins and ends at any given table.
It begins and ends with how any given campaign is run. If at all it even matters.
If what you mean is that some players will come to tables and expect to get these things when their characters reach Level 5 because they did in other games then that isn't 'balance.' That is something else. And it is one of the reasons the hobby is facing a DM shortage.
It makes no sense for something like a home base to even require rules to make it balanced. It's not a class feature. It's not a spell. Who cares if some characters receive awards earlier or later than others? Who cares if characters have accumulated enough gold to buy or build themselves a "bastion" before Level 5? That is the nature of a game in which the story that unfolds will or will not reward individual characters for their actions. Are some players really so hung up on the idea that a party's wizard might have a seclusium of its own while their characters have to sleep in a guesthouse? Do they also get hung up on another player's character having found romance? Do they expect there to be rules in place that ensure their characters will get that too by virtue of nothing more than their having reached this or that level? If you want an analogy to show just how problematic it is for players to expect NPCS to do things for their characters just because they reached Level 5.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
No, tying it to XP- which it isn't even, given that milestone leveling exists and is very prevalent- is indicative of finding some way to distill the concept down into a simple user-friendly system that a new DM without any prior experience of how to to manage soft systems can pick up and run without having to do a bunch of back end work, and a bunch of players on their first characters can all enjoy without the FOMO of trying to decide if magic items or facilities would be better for them.
And consider this is all an optional system, so there is no reason you can't just can it all and run your game your way if you'd prefer. Frankly, you want to talk privilege? Perhaps you should consider that not everyone is so privileged as to have the time/experience/skill to eyeball these things, and so a system that runs all the logistics of getting a building and staff in place behind the black is more accessible than dumping half a dozen tables for buying land, having buildings constructed, hiring workers, and paying upkeep in their laps and telling them to figure something out for their table.
Experience Points. Level. Call it what you will. It is problematic because the characters reach a point when their players now believe those characters are entitled to the labour of others. No one has actually addressed that. Which is what my chief concern actually is. All you keep doing is explaining why you believe the system is the way it is. It goes nowhere towards addressing my chief concern.
And none of what you have just said addresses what I have just said about individual characters:
Are some players really so hung up on the idea that a party's wizard might have a seclusium of its own while their characters have not yet obtained a place of their own and must pay for lodging?
Do they also get hung up on another player's character's having found romance and wed the NPC in question?
Do they expect there to be rules in place that ensure their characters will get that too by virtue of nothing more than their having reached this or that level?
If you want an analogy to show just how problematic it is for players to expect NPCs to do things for their characters just because they reached Level 5.
Do you think as kids playing at domain level in the early '80s we struggled to do any real resource management? It was just too much for us?
Is the 'privilege' afforded to those who have the time to do resource management any worse than that among those who have the time to spend hours reading rules and 'optimizing' their characters? Or arguing here for that matter?
I am talking about how the concept of being rewarded with the labour of others for hitting some milestone is problematic.
How isn't it?
Can you answer that question?
Instead of trying to make this about how people spend their time to again deflect from my chief concern?
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
There is only a problem because you make it one. You could easily say they acquire the "Bastion" at level 3 by saving someones home or whatever. Than they have to spend time and money to make it usable as more than just a place to stay and sleep, so at level 5 they have acquired enough money, and spend enough time to also have some extra benefits. In order to get these benefits they have also put down a post to ask for hirelings. Who are getting paid by what they do in that special facility.
"grandpa" Salkur, Gnome Arti/Sorc: Forged in Chaos | Pepin, Human Arti/Cleric: Goblin horde | Mixtli, Volc Genasi Arti: Champions of the Citadel | Erix Vadalitis, Human Druid: Rising from the last war | Smithy, Human Arti: Night Ravens: Black orchids for Biscotti | Tamphalic Aliprax, Dragonborn Wizard: Chronicles of the Accursed | Doc, Dwarven Cleric (2024): Adventure at Hope's End | Abathax, Tiefling Illriger: Hunt for the Balowang | Gorin Mestel, Human Arti: Descend into Avernus
The notion that character class is synonymous with social class and therefore anything tied to level progression is inherently classist is probably one of the most hilarious takes I've heard in a while. "Class" can have multiple meanings and right now the wrong meaning is being applied. When talking about character class, we're not using class as a synonym for "quality" or "standing", but role.
Then there's the fact that in game you can play a character of any social standing with any class at any level. There are zero mechanics that tie a characters mechanical package of abilities based on a role associated with a cultural heroic trope [class] with their position within the strata of unequally distributed wealth and social power [class].
Bastions are awarded based on the party reaching a point in their journey as a hero where they would be encountering bastions as something they might find abandoned, retake from a villainous force, or be awarded with. Also bastions are entirely optional. So there's no entitlement based on social class, that's a nonsensical take so absurd I can but laugh. How the bastion comes into a players possession is a discussion between DM and player:
If I had one piece of advice, it would be to not comment further on bastions until you've actually read the rules on them for yourself. Oh, and maybe brush up on the concept of homophones too.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
The bastion rules are a fairly simple chapter, front loaded with all the information you need about creation. It would probably take five minutes for you to read it - something you have admitted to not having done. Literally every single “concern” you have raised in this thread is explicitly addressed by the guidance in the rules.
Your most recent imagined concerns can be addressed under the very clear heading of “Creating a Bastion.” The rules literally say that DMs and players should work together to figure out a sensible reason for the bastion to come into being, with the implicit goal making the bastion feel like it naturally grew out of the campaign up to that point.
Your problems with the system are imaginary and born of your self-admitted decision to remain willfully ignorant (not used in an insulting way - in the technical definition of “no knowledge of” manner). As it is, you are basically making a bunch of flavor complaints…. About a system where the rules frequently tell DMs “please work with your players to come up with flavor that works for the campaign and makes the bastions feel like a natural element of the game.”
That is not a real complaint, and the fact you keep doubling down on it despite multiple quotes of the rules and explanations from multiple people… combined with the fact you are complaining about a system you admit you have not bothered to read, leaves very little room to assume you are posting in anything other than bad faith.
You have completely misrepresented what I have been saying.
I have not been saying that at all.
The characters reach Level 5 and automatically others are required to work for them. The characters are awarded the labour of others.
If you need help understanding how problematic some might see that I think it's safe to say you have read little to nothing of labour theory.
I am well versed in homophones. Although class and class are more homographs. Provided they are spelled the same way and don't just sound the same.
I am an English teacher. I know the difference between class and class. It was you who imagined I had conflated the two.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Are characters or are characters not awarded the labour of others just because they have reached Level 5?
However you skin it is beside the point.
It is the concept alone that is problematic.
Or do you believe it would be okay for players' characters to obtain romantic interests or even spouses when they reach certain levels?
That there could not be anything problematic about that?
It wouldn't matter whether or not it was skinned in a way that was appropriate. It is the conceopt alone that a milestone means someone 'deserves' such a thing that is gross.
And that's twice now you have replied to me without yet having addressed how you misrepresented what is written in the 1e DMG:
It's also a bit rich of you to to be telling me to read into things before making what might be a false claim. Given you claimed the 1e DMG said using grids and miniatures was a 'more accurate' way to play D&D. It says no such thing; it says using a grid and not just drawing it up on paper will give a more accurate representation of how someone or something in flight can make turns. In a section that isn't even the combat section of the book.
If you really want to talk about bad faith.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Characters that reach Level 5 are awarded the labour of others.
... and some here cannot see how this might be seen as problematic.
If they were awarded servants that performed labour of an intimate nature when they reached a certain level would that also be fine?
Would that not be problematic from a feminist perspective?
Then why isn't it problematic from a perspective of labour to generally award characters the labour of others?
No talk of how this stuff is dealt with 'in-game' has any bearing on how ugly it looks to some.
Not when a player's character only has to reach a certain level and the character just gets it.
It is extraordinary how unfamiliar or uncomfortable people are with labour theory just because they can never see anything wrong with what is just a product. Like those who produce it have a direct line to some divinity out there and so can never do anything wrong.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
But why is it an issue they gain labour of others who are getting payed just fine?
If you are gonna say those Hirelings are obliged to work for you, than sure that might be a problem. But if you say the Hirelings applied to work for you than why is that an issue? It's all about how you explain it, nothing in the rules specifies this and is in any way problematic.
"grandpa" Salkur, Gnome Arti/Sorc: Forged in Chaos | Pepin, Human Arti/Cleric: Goblin horde | Mixtli, Volc Genasi Arti: Champions of the Citadel | Erix Vadalitis, Human Druid: Rising from the last war | Smithy, Human Arti: Night Ravens: Black orchids for Biscotti | Tamphalic Aliprax, Dragonborn Wizard: Chronicles of the Accursed | Doc, Dwarven Cleric (2024): Adventure at Hope's End | Abathax, Tiefling Illriger: Hunt for the Balowang | Gorin Mestel, Human Arti: Descend into Avernus
As I said it could be skinned in a way to avoid that baggage.
But that is beside the point.
Would you make the same argument for a system that awarded players' characters with partners?
No.
Because whether or nor it was handled okay through role-play is beside the point.
The idea that a character has reached some milestone and this now entitles the character to another person in any way is gross.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Except this isn't what happens. No more than if you get hired as a manager of a store you're being "awarded the labour of others". Nothing about the Bastion rules says the hirelings are present against their will. It is simply the case that building or starting a Bastion includes the process of finding people to work there. This is all very silly, bordering on disingenuous. It does smack of the all too common trend of trying to prop up a subjective and personal dislike of something through intellectually dishonest moralising.
As an aside, class (role) and class (social position) are very much homophones, not homographs. Homophones are two words pronounced the same but with different meanings, whereas homographs are words that are spelled the same but not necessarily pronounced the same and with different meanings. Class (role) and class (social position) are homophones, lead (to guide) and lead (a toxic metal) are homographs.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
You're injecting a load of preconditions that aren't grounded in the reality of the text in order to support your faux-outrage.
Then those aren't the people working as hirelings in the bastion. Nothing in the rules suggest, implies, says, or supports the notion that any single hireling in the bastion is unwilling in any capacity. All the rules say is that the player gets the bastion (the structure) and it's assumed its staffed with hirelings required to run the bastion. You are the one injecting without grounds, rationale, reason, or logic the notion that those hirelings are somehow being mistreated, coerced, enslaved, or otherwise oppressed when literally nothing supports that. That's why you completed ignored my analogy of a new manager joining a store.
As for this
They're not being awarded that, so this point is irrelevant. If they were, that would be disgusting, but it's not the case so that's a non-issue. And the two scenarios are not comparable, so it's doubly moot.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I'm genuinely curious why you think that people working in the Bastion are any different from the party themselves? Because both depend entirely on others "gaining the benefit of their labour." Townsfolk or guilds hire the party to do a job, the party then spends it's money in taverns (gaining the labour of bar staff) spends it on new weapons and equipment (gaining the labour of the blacksmith) and in this case possibly have a Bastion (gaining the labour of the people in there)
Is your problem just that the Bastion didn't require you to role play the job interview for the staff? Because unless you're running your table as an egalitarian collective the whole game is pretty much built on the exchange of gold for goods or services
Locking this as it has gone far off base and into topics not appropriate for the forums.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support