AD&D's Domain Game: What to Learn, What to Leave, and What to Love

I'm currently in the process of trying to puzzle out how exactly "territory development" (what we would now probably call the "domain game") works in AD&D, as described on page 93 of the DMG, TERRITORY DEVELOPMENT BY PLAYER CHARACTERS:

The process begins when the player decides to establish their character's stronghold. They pick a spot, the DM provides a map of the hex and the six surrounding hexes, and the player character and their henchmen and retainers go to the place to explore it and begin construction:

In the example, the player character wishes to construct a stronghold 100 miles from a border town, although there's no indication at this time that there's any required distance (I'll get back to that). 

The DM must prepare a small scale map of the terrain in the area, 200 yards per hex. An area which is nine such hexes in width then makes up a larger one-mile hex. It and the surrounding six hexes are the area to be explored and mapped. Once they are all mapped, workers can be brought in to begin construction. A garrison has to be present to protect the workers, as each day there's a 1-in-20 chance of a monster wandering in from the area beyond these seven hexes, unless the area beyond is being patrolled:

I tried to visualize what this area would look like in Hexographer and came up with the following:

The smaller hexes are 200 yards across. The larger hexes are one-mile across. They are nine hexes across at their widest (from easternmost to westernmost vertex), so I think this is indeed what's being described in the excerpt above. Each one-mile hex contains 44 (!) 200-yard hexes.

The DM "checks but once for random monsters in each hex". Does this refer to the 200-yard hexes or the one-mile hexes? I don't know. One monster per one-mile hex sounds like plenty to me, and two monster lairs potentially within 200 yards of one another strains credulity, but wandering through 44 200-yard hexes with a chance for a monster to be encountered in just one of them seems rather droll. Indeed, this next section suggests that the DM only check for monsters once per one-mile hex after this "core area" is mapped out:

This sounds to me like, when exploring the "core area" of seven one-mile hexes, the player character explores each 200-yard hex one by one, with the DM checking for monsters (and possibly randomly determining terrain) in each one. It is only after the core area is mapped that the player character begins more quickly exploring the surrounding one-mile hexes (instead of the 200-yard hexes within), at which point monster checks are made "as is normal for outdoor adventuring" (emphasis mine).

Furthermore, once per day, the DM checks to see if a monster wanders into any one hex which borders an unexplored hex. Once per week, the DM checks to see if a monster wanders into "the central part of the cleared territory" (this I take to mean any explored hex which doesn't border an unexplored hex, not necessarily the central hex where the stronghold is being built, but I could be wrong).

Here's my attempt to visualize what this "core area" might look like (using the provided example of wooded hills, though I'm using a variation of the Welsh Piper method instead of AD&D's method for randomly determining terrain), with the hex where I think the player character might locate their stronghold indicated with a star:

According to the AD&D DMG, we're to check for encounters based on population density (this isn't what I usually do, but will for the sake of this example):

Since this area is 100 miles from the nearest border town, it's probably uninhabited/wilderness area. That means 1-in-10 of these 200-yard hexes will have a monster in them. Here's what that looks like:

That's 28 monsters. Am I doing this right? I honestly have no idea. I'm doing as described, checking each hex for a monster, not spacing them out according to any sort of logic or reason. It seems strange that the southernmost hex would have three monsters each within 200 yards of the other two, but this is what I got by following the procedure.

Again, once this is all mapped, construction can begin (the DMG does not explicitly state that the monsters have to be driven off or killed before construction can begin, unless I'm missing something), and the player character will then begin exploring the one-mile hexes surrounding these hexes, with checks for monsters proceeding according to the normal rules for wilderness exploration. 

Meanwhile, there is a chance per day that a new monster will wander into a border hex and a chance per week that a monster will wander into a central (non-border) hex. This can be prevented by signaling to intelligent monsters that the area is dangerous to them, patrolling frequently and aggressively, and by organized settlement of the cleared lands:

Once the stronghold is finished, if proper patrols are organized, only weekly checks for monstrous intruders are needed (one each on the Uninhabited/Wilderness table and on the Inhabited table). If a road is built through the area, checks are instead made on the Inhabited table three times per week:

The Inhabited table is made up of many (presumably) good (i.e., profitable) things, like dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, leprechauns, merchants, nomads, pilgrims, and mundane animals. It also has some bad things, like ankhegs, bandits, brigands, bulettes, giants, humanoids, lycanthropes, manticores, ogres, and all manner of undead. Thus, a domain with a road through it will more frequently be settled by men and demihumans and fey creatures, but will also more frequently be preyed upon by certain monsters and haunted by ghosts. The distinction between the Uninhabited/Wilderness table and the Inhabited table has always struck me as a neat way of modeling which monsters are attracted to human inhabitation and which ones stay far away.

The DM no longer checks for monsters from Uninhabited/Wilderness areas once a territory of more than 30 miles from the center (here I'm guessing the center hex, not necessarily the exact location of the stronghold itself) is patrolled or inhabited. That's 30 one-mile hexes that must be explored and then patrolled in all directions (961 hexes total).The monsters from the Inhabited table continue to show up and settle in the area, and the area returns to wilderness if not patrolled or inhabited:

Inhabited by whom? Well, I guess the merchants, demihumans, and fey creatures. Presumably the nomads and pilgrims are not settling, as wandering is part of their nature. I suppose homesteads will begin to crop up. These will grow into thorps, then into hamlets, then villages, then towns, and finally cities, but how exactly this transpires is left to the imagination.

The next paragraph answers the question - how far must a player character's stronghold be from civilization? Well, it needn't be far at all. In fact, it is suggested that the stronghold might be "located in the heart of some powerful state":

As is often the case in AD&D, the emphasis is on maintaining the campaign as challenging and interesting. In this scenario, the stronghold ruler is not clearing monsters from their land and then holding it against wilderness incursions, but instead dealing with "intrigue and petty wars...jealous neighbors, assassins, and the like" which threaten the fief.

Next we come right back to the matter of inhabitation of wilderness domains:

Again, once the stronghold is finished and patrols have cleared the area, inhabitants will come to settle. I think this is at the same time as when the DM begins checking weekly on both the Uninhabited/Wilderness and Inhabited tables (i.e., before the 30 surrounding one-mile hexes have been cleared and patrolled, but again it isn't entirely clear).

The inhabitants "will match the area and the alignment of the character", which is interesting. Lawful Good creatures will settle in a paladin's domain, for example. Random monsters will settle in the area, "making proper subservience calls upon the master of the territory". I imagine this means that the Lawful Good dwarves who move into the paladin's realm will become loyal inhabitants. Would the Chaotic Evil ogres who move into the Chaotic Evil cleric's realm likewise become the cleric's vassals?

Hamlets, thorps, and other settlements will begin to crop up, starting near the stronghold and working towards the fringes, but no indication is given as to how quick this settling process is, how long it takes one settlement type to grow into another, or anything like that. (OD&D, for its part, suggests 2-8 villages of 100-400 inhabitants each per territory, but it also leaves to the imagination how exactly these come to be.)

Once the settlements are established, "they can be used as centers for activity - good or evil or whatever." They "attract more of the ilk which inhabit them, draw opponents sworn to exterminate them, trigger raids or reprisals, etc." The domain game becomes less about fending off wilderness incursions and more about managing the region's inhabitants and dealing with complications that arise as a result of - presumably - the ideology of the player character and their people. The paladin will need to thwart attacks from the forces of Evil Chaos, while the Chaotic Evil cleric will be dealing with assaults from the realms of Good and Law.

What's interesting is the onus placed on actions taken by the player character - that is, "forming active groups from the population base and doing something." The DM is intended to "initiate by setting up a series of circumstances which will bear upon the territory" only as a last resort. Is that to suggest that the paladin's realm is only besieged by Evil Chaos after the paladin has instigated the conflict in some way? Do the forces of Law and Good simply not mind their Chaotic Evil cleric neighbor until his ogre vassals start plundering their land? I like the emphasis on player agency, but this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

One thing that strikes me is that the domain and its inhabitants read like an extension of the player character. The regular inhabitants are all of the same alignment, pay taxes (as indicated in the class descriptions in the PHB), and exist for the player character to form "active groups" and do "something". Are we talking about raising armies? How many peasant levies can be raised from the thorp, hamlet, village, or town? It isn't clear, but clearly these inhabitants are intended as additional resources and game pieces for the player to employ in whatever their ends may be. They need to be protected, not necessarily because the character is a Good hero but because they share the character's ideology and are useful in some way.

Next, we are told that the "real benefit" of player character territories is what they contribute to the DM's milieu:

When the player character constructs their stronghold, the player should provide the DM with floor plans (including dungeons) and a map of the immediate area surrounding the stronghold. This is so the DM can plan sieges and other attacks upon the fortification:

Finally, if a player leaves the campaign or switches to a new character, the DM can take control of the former character's domain and run it as they wish:

I would be remiss not to mention the possibility of uprisings if the player characters forces peasantry, serfdom, or slavery upon their subjects:

Peasantry/serfdom is not the accepted norm for common people in the AD&D world. D&D is not medieval.

This also gives us a window into what it looks like for a player character to raise levies from the normal inhabitants of their domain. 1-in-5 of the inhabitants will be fighters (which I take to mean adults capable of fighting, not individuals with a level in the fighter class). These troops will be 0 level peasants, treated "as up to 1-1 HD" monsters according to the EXPERIENCE POINTS VALUE OF MONSTERS section of the DMG:

This means the average single dwelling (population 6.5) will yield one troop, the average thorp (population 50) will yield ten, the average hamlet (population 250) will yield 50, the average village (population 750) will yield 150, the average town (population 4,000) will yield 800, and the average city (population 35,000) will yield 7,000.

If we standardize the values provided by the DMG's INHABITATION table, that area of 961 one-mile hexes (960, not counting the hex in which the stronghold itself is located) could eventually support 28 to 29 single dwellings, 19 to 20 thorps, 19 to 20 hamlets, 19 to 20 villages, 9 to 10 towns, and 9 to 10 cities. On average, that could yield from 74,000 to 82,000 peasant levies in a new campaign or uprising. 

That seems a bit hard to believe, so I am probably over-interpreting the available information. The whole point of this section is that these people do not tolerate being subject to peasantry, serfdom, or slavery, so it seems unlikely that the ruler could call on their subjects (if they can be called "subjects" at all) in such great numbers. The numbers given also pertain to an enthusiastic uprising in which everyone who can pick up a weapon for the cause does so. Perhaps in an organized war effort the numbers should instead be cut in half. 

Perhaps the intention is for the player character to lead campaigns with only the strength of their follower armies and mercenaries, but it seems a bit hard to believe that these tax-paying settlements contain no loyal warrior subjects who can be called upon in a conflict.

In any case, if the uprising (or perhaps campaign) lasts more than a month, you add 10% to the total force for each month, and upgrade 10% of the total force to regular men-at-arms (1-1 to 1 HD monsters) and give them improved tactics. This suggests that perhaps a more warlike ruler cultivates a more warlike populace over time. (OD&D, of course, famously suggests the insertion of a Conan-type "to bring matters into line" in the event of an uprising.)

There would also eventually be two additional strongholds in the area which, since the player character's stronghold controls the area, are likely vassals or henchmen of the character, and so would contribute their own forces as well (men-at-arms as well as whatever followers are attracted by, say, a fighter or cleric). Normally some of these strongholds would be inhabited instead by bandits, berserkers, brigands, or the like, or become deserted and potentially inhabited by monsters, but since this is a newly developed territory such a takeover or ruination would have to happen as part of an in-game event.

Now, is this system good game design? I don't know, I probably wouldn't use it as is. I think it's pretty unlikely that the player will say "I want to go 100 miles away from this town and build my stronghold on some random hill, where I don't even know what the terrain is like or where monsters may be." I don't really like the idea of switching to a much finer-grained scale of wilderness mid-game and forcing the players to laboriously explore some 300 hexes and slog their way through 30 monster lairs to establish their domain, then explore and inhabit or patrol an additional 950 hexes just to stop monsters from wandering in all the time. 

More likely is that the player characters will set up their domain in some place that they're familiar with - the existing campaign area. I obviously make a lot of sandboxes, and I arrive at the first session of the campaign with a complete map of settlements, strongholds, ruins, and monster lairs. Once the player characters familiarize themselves with the area and grow in power, I think they're more likely to build their stronghold in a region that's already settled, to take a readymade stronghold from someone else, or to rehabilitate a ruined stronghold into something they can use. If there are monsters nearby, they'll have to deal with that, but I wouldn't require them to meticulously explore a huge area before they could even begin building the thing.

I do like the idea of checking regularly to see if monsters wander into the area from the wilderness, but feel that this could be applied more broadly to the campaign map as a whole. Maybe you check each unoccupied border hex of the campaign map on a regular basis to see what new monsters move into the area, and maybe likewise track their movements from one hex to another as time passes and they search for a lair to settle in. Maybe they stumble into the player character's domain and stir up trouble in their search for a home or for prey. You could have some sort of minigame for when the monster wanders into a patrolled area to see if the patrol can handle it or if the monster overwhelms them and continues on its march.

I really like the image of a player character's (or NPC adventurer's) territory being surrounded by monster carcasses and totems to ward off intelligent monsters. When the player characters see that, they know they're entering into some powerful NPC's domain.

I also like that different types of monsters are drawn to strongholds more frequently if they're joined to the rest of civilization by a road. Building a road between the stronghold and the nearest settlement is a matter of great convenience, allowing expedited travel back and forth. It will attracts merchants and elves and dwarves to the domain, but it will also attract all the men and monsters that prey upon civilization. 

I like the distinction between wilderness domains and those within settled regions. Do you want to deal with monstrous incursions, or politics and intrigue? Would you rather defend against the occasional orc warband wandering into your domain, or with the neighboring warlord's organized campaign, a king somewhere demanding your fealty, and assassins poisoning your food?

Lastly, I like that the alignment of the player character seems to influence who is drawn to the domain and for what purpose. The Good character's realm will be inhabited by Good people and threatened by Evil-doers, and vice versa. One realm is populated by dwarves and elves and fey, while the other is inhabited by manticores and orcs and ogres. I imagine that both types of domain are not entirely harmonious internally - I'm sure the dwarves and elves have beef and the fey play tricks on people, and the orcs and ogres contend with one another unless united by bribes and coercion from the local ruler.

This concept could be broadened beyond the realm of alignment only instead to the nature of the character in general. A dwarf's domain will attract more dwarves and an elf's domain will attract more elves. A paladin and a ranger will both rule Good domains, but their inhabitants will look very different, as will a cleric's and a druid's.

While I like the emphasis on player agency in the text, I don't much like the attitude that intervention on the DM's part is a last resort option. It doesn't make much sense to me that (if I'm reading this right), the Lawful Good neighbors of the player character's Chaotic Evil domain will only make some effort to overthrow the neighboring ruler if the player character takes the initiative first. If you're building a barony of ogres and mustering an army within your borders, the powers that be will take notice and intervene to the extent they are able.

The takeaway here is less that you should use specifically AD&D's system for any of this, but that you can take away certain broad ideas when including domains (whether player characters' or NPCs') in your campaign:

• Monsters move around the wilderness looking for places to live.
• Domain rulers have to contend with monsters wandering into their territory.
• Domain rulers can prevent monsters from wandering into their territory by placing warning signs, patrolling the surrounding area, and inducing settlers to inhabit it.
• Roads connect the domain to civilization as a whole, but introduce their own complications.
• Domains in the wilderness and those in inhabited areas have their own distinct complications.
• The character of the domain's ruler will influence who lives there and who opposes them, what their goals are, what problems they deal with, and the like.
• The inhabitants of the domain are somewhat an extension of the character to be used to raise funds and armies and achieve whatever it is the player desires. 
• Likewise, these inhabitants are a resource of the character which can be attacked much like anything else on the character sheet (in this case, they're almost like the domain's "equipment"). They are usually attacked by the domain's ideologically opposed enemies and neighbors.

That's my attempt to reckon with AD&D's domain game. While a lot of AD&D's actual mechanics often seem archaic or inscrutable, its broad ideas and procedures are often quite good. This is one of the few times where I find the procedure itself to be difficult to wrap my head around and borderline unusable, but once again the big ideas and overall feel of the system is solid, and there's a lot of good stuff to take away for whatever D&D-like game you may be playing.