Min/Max Boards

Gaming Discussion => General D&D Discussion => Topic started by: SorO_Lost on December 04, 2017, 05:00:54 PM

Title: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: SorO_Lost on December 04, 2017, 05:00:54 PM
Quote from: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/04/i-am-now-going-to-tweet-a-controversial-thing-about-dd-and-being-a-dungeon-master/
Mike Mearls: I am now going to tweet a controversial thing about D&D and being a Dungeon Master.
Mike Mearls: If a PC being too good at combat is messing up your campaign, the issue might be that your campaign is too combat driven.
Mike Mearls:  Your mileage may vary, but too many DMs attack issues from the wrong side of the screen.
Sunsword: I agree with this, however the CR system in 5E isn't perfect and takes time to learn too.
Mike Mearls: I wish we had not called it CR – a lot of folks expect it to behave as it did under 3e, creates false expectations.
He would is half right in that both sides share the blame if he went that way. But since his direction is that too many people blame the characters & players rather than the DM & campaign, I feel he is fully correct.

So, controversial or "no duh"?
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Vladeshi on December 04, 2017, 05:41:18 PM
As a Perma-DM I would side with saying "no duh".
As DM you have a nigh infinite toolbox that also contains everything the players can throw at you and far more.
If your players are too good at combat you have the ability to make combat harder and if that doesn't work then make it harder than that.

The real catch here is that combat that is in the Goldilocks range "not too easy, not impossible, just the right challenge for the players." is a lot a work to do and will require some trial and error for every party composition and may change drastically over a single level up and most DM's do not want to do this much work.

I once spent about eight hours working with my brother to design a dungeon for some friends he was introducing to the game and after the first session we had to change about half of it because they picked up the rules faster than either of us expected and wrecked through the first couple of fights.
Being DM is not for sissies afraid to redo and change everything they already spent tons of time and effort to do the first time.

Though in response to his comment about a campaign being too combat driven, at least in 3.5 in my experience, it is rather difficult to get those types of campaigns without helpful players that are very interested in cooperative storytelling as the rules are mostly about combat.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Jackinthegreen on December 05, 2017, 12:34:01 AM
The game doesn't really need players with a lot of interest in cooperative storytelling.  Some interest/natural ability, yes.  There is a bit of a minimum in terms of how social the players and/or their characters are and also how well the DM also handles social stuff.

But I agree, if a PC being too good at combat is messing up the campaign then it's usually a "duhhh" for the campaign to have too much combat focus.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: nijineko on December 05, 2017, 07:35:21 AM
it all boils down to people problems. doesn't matter how light or heavy, how fluffy or crunchy, how "broken" or "balanced" a game is, humans will find a way to twist it to their own ends because, in the end, the game is for the participants, not the participants for the game.

too combat oriented? just having someone saying that already reveals that there is a problem of differing expectations.

just like some people seem to assume that if you have more than a little combat, or even combat at all, you are automatically somehow not roleplaying.

expectations. assumptions. perceptions. the roots of all problems.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Nifft on December 05, 2017, 02:06:51 PM
Quote
Mike Mearls: If a PC being too good at combat is messing up your campaign, the issue might be that your campaign is too combat driven.

Disagree strongly.

A game with occasional combat shouldn't excuse a poorly designed game whereby only one PC is good at combat.

Ideally, every player has some way to engage with every encounter, and combat -- occasional or frequent -- should be a situation where everyone feels both pressing danger and the thrill of victory.

Combat is one of the 3 major pillars of 5e. It's not the only thing, but it's an important thing, and getting it right is difficult. That is why I am paying for this game. Do your damn job, Mearls.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: nijineko on December 05, 2017, 03:44:57 PM
Quote
Mike Mearls: If a PC being too good at combat is messing up your campaign, the issue might be that your campaign is too combat driven.

Disagree strongly.

A game with occasional combat shouldn't excuse a poorly designed game whereby only one PC is good at combat.

Ideally, every player has some way to engage with every encounter, and combat -- occasional or frequent -- should be a situation where everyone feels both pressing danger and the thrill of victory.

Combat is one of the 3 major pillars of 5e. It's not the only thing, but it's an important thing, and getting it right is difficult. That is why I am paying for this game. Do your damn job, Mearls.

a point. since when has D&D not been a combat game? oh, that's right... since never.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on December 05, 2017, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: nijineko

a point. since when has D&D not been a combat game? oh, that's right... since never.

Hell, it was even built on the back of a miniatures wargame with the exploration tacked on in the form of an entirely different game made by another company.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Nifft on December 05, 2017, 05:52:08 PM
Hell, it was even built on the back of a miniatures wargame with the exploration tacked on in the form of an entirely different game made by another company.

"If one mini in our tactical skirmish wargame seems to be so strong that combat is unbalanced, maybe it's your fault for using our tactical skirmish wargame for tactical skirmish wargaming."

I'm paying you to balance the minis. Do your damn job Mearls.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: SorO_Lost on December 05, 2017, 10:46:34 PM
Quote
Mike Mearls: If a PC being too good at combat is messing up your campaign, the issue might be that your campaign is too combat driven.
Disagree strongly. ... Combat is one of the 3 major pillars of 5e.
I'm not following you here.

So if combat is one of the three pillars that means Mc UberGod dominating combat is only dominating 33.3% of the game. Well, actually significantly less really. Since Adventures allow up to seven players, even if Mc UberGod deals four times as much damage as everyone else he only makes up 40% of the party's total damage. His total share & contribution to the campaign's advancement is an equivalent of 13.3%.

Assuming everything was split up, each person is expected to have a median value share of about 14.25% (100/7) with some scoring higher in some pillars at the cost of not performing well in others (aka balance). If anything, your three pillar approach is exactly what Mearls is talking about and the existence of those inherently lessens the impact of someone being better in combat than the rest of his follow players. A character must also focus on other things, otherwise he'll end up being subpar.

This is why Wizards in 3rd were ultimately pegged as broken. It's not that they can deal more damage than an ubercharger, but in their downtime they create minions, castles, items, cure cancer, solve world hunger, and turn turtles into ninjas. It doesn't cost them anything to temporarily master any given pillar.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Nifft on December 06, 2017, 11:23:37 PM
Quote
Mike Mearls: If a PC being too good at combat is messing up your campaign, the issue might be that your campaign is too combat driven.
Disagree strongly. ... Combat is one of the 3 major pillars of 5e.
I'm not following you here.

So if combat is one of the three pillars that means Mc UberGod dominating combat is only dominating 33.3% of the game. Well, actually significantly less really. Since Adventures allow up to seven players, even if Mc UberGod deals four times as much damage as everyone else he only makes up 40% of the party's total damage. His total share & contribution to the campaign's advancement is an equivalent of 13.3%.

Assuming everything was split up, each person is expected to have a median value share of about 14.25% (100/7) with some scoring higher in some pillars at the cost of not performing well in others (aka balance). If anything, your three pillar approach is exactly what Mearls is talking about and the existence of those inherently lessens the impact of someone being better in combat than the rest of his follow players. A character must also focus on other things, otherwise he'll end up being subpar.

This is why Wizards in 3rd were ultimately pegged as broken. It's not that they can deal more damage than an ubercharger, but in their downtime they create minions, castles, items, cure cancer, solve world hunger, and turn turtles into ninjas. It doesn't cost them anything to temporarily master any given pillar.
Well, it's because a 40% damage increase isn't the problem.

Stockpiling spell slots to unlimited quantities during downtime is the most blatant current problem.

Here's an example: a so-called Coffeelock at character level 12 can stockpile roughly 50 level 5 slots every 10 days, increasing the stockpiled slots at that rate without limit so long as downtime persists.

This isn't at the level of 3.x Wizards -- I suspect nothing else is at that level -- but it's in the same direction, and it's for the same reason that you bring up as if it were a distinction.

If downtime exists in a game, there's currently a character who can stockpile resources without limit.


Those resources are not limited to combat, of course. The so-called Coffeelock could stockpile slots for a season, and then keep nine separate level 5 Animate Dead spells active for 10 days. Quantity has a quality all its own, and all that, and what a Coffeelock brings is unbounded quantity -- or plot-bounded, I suppose.


This is not going to be fixed by DMs caring less about combat.

This is the sort of thing that Mearls should be fixing.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 07, 2017, 05:18:20 PM
giantitp forums are really in a Tizzy about the coffeelock.

Should be compared to the Glyph of Warding find , or say crafting a Very Rare item.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Nifft on December 08, 2017, 09:38:24 PM
giantitp forums are really in a Tizzy about the coffeelock.
Seems to be dying down a bit now.

Should be compared to the Glyph of Warding find , or say crafting a Very Rare item.
Can you expand on what you mean by this?
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 09, 2017, 02:38:52 PM
From here on down :
http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=17864.msg323620#msg323620

Use a bag of holding to move around a Glyph + get more Glyphs.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: SorO_Lost on December 09, 2017, 05:14:08 PM
Well, it's because a 40% damage increase isn't the problem. ... and then keep nine separate level 5 Animate Dead spells active for 10 days.
Ok so I did understand you correctly, dominating combat isn't a big deal.

Also my official answer on that subject is a full on condescending "meh". Noobcentral is throwing a hyperboled bitchfest (in other news the sky is blue) but 5th has had an infinite Pact Magic problem since the beginning. It took Jeremy over a year to half-ass patch it, and sageadvice has two year old questions reguarding how poorly it did it, and that's without his bosses undoubtedly breathing down his neck telling him to sit on any nerfs so Xanathar continues to sell. And it's not even the only way to bank Spells either.

Besides, it's hardly as effect as you make it out to be. Go ahead and try to beat Season One of the Adventures and let me known how fast you realize the inherent problem with being limited to 5th level Slots with no other useful Actions can be. While you're at it maybe you can come up with a less pathetic example of abuse too, nine zombies for ten days requiring a ten day prep period of not doing anything. You can craft a Night Caller in the same amount of time and after five cycles into this all the Craplock has been doing is trying to keep the same nine Zombies running around while someone else already has ten of them up without using a single Slot or sacrificing higher level Spell. I mean hell, Danse Macabre can kick out thirteen of them, with bonuses, on top of that if the Craplock just took an 8 hour nap. You don't even need to tax your self three levels of Spell Advancement to take Warlock either. In fact you can take levels in Wizard to buff those Undead even more instead as previously discussed.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Nifft on December 09, 2017, 09:59:40 PM
Well, it's because a 40% damage increase isn't the problem. ... Stockpiling spell slots to unlimited quantities during downtime is the most blatant current problem.
Ok so I did understand you correctly, dominating combat isn't a big deal.
What's your goalpost here?

Is there anything that would qualify as a big deal in your opinion?

Besides, it's hardly as effect as you make it out to be. Go ahead and try to beat Season One of the Adventures and let me known how fast you realize the inherent problem with being limited to 5th level Slots with no other useful Actions can be.
3 levels of Warlock gets your Sorcerer unlimited level 5 slots during downtime, but it does not limit you to level 5 slots.

You're still a level 17 Sorcerer.

Level 17 Sorcerers can and do cast spells of higher than 5th level.

If your argument was supposed to be that being limited to level 5 slots would balance the unlimited stockpiling, then you're going to need a better argument.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: SorO_Lost on December 10, 2017, 12:55:09 AM
What's your goalpost here?
Trying to figure out what you're saying. You disagreed with Mearl's point to look at something other than combat by talking about how combat is only 1/3 of the game anyway. Puzzling, but your recent rant has very little to do with combat-focus anyway so I don't think you're actually disagreeing with him. Possibly? Still not really sure.

Level 17 Sorcerers can and do cast spells of higher than 5th level.
Yeah they do, but the Craplock can't use a Long Rest to recover his higher level Slots without wiping every single Extra Slot in the process. Optimally you always take a Long Rest to replenish those Slots which means you only convert a few Pact Slots over on a given day and discard them if they end up being unspent for being as worthless as they actually are.

But you seem to be arguing that a 5th's version of a Mystic Theurge could theoretically be broken because you think it's broken. And part of the assumption as you've already shown us is based on spending more Downtime than you're actually allowed. But eh, w/e. It wouldn't be the first time in the last few hours I have no idea what you're trying to say. I do know your Animate Dead example is pretty f'ing funny if you think that's powerful.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Nifft on December 11, 2017, 03:28:30 PM
What's your goalpost here?
Trying to figure out what you're saying.

If this was somehow difficult to understand:
Combat is one of the 3 major pillars of 5e. It's not the only thing, but it's an important thing, and getting it right is difficult. That is why I am paying for this game. Do your damn job, Mearls.
... then, uh, you may want to set easier goals for yourself.


Level 17 Sorcerers can and do cast spells of higher than 5th level.
Yeah they do, but the Craplock
The what now?

Please explain this new term you're using, and explain how it prevents 6+ level slots from being available for an appropriately leveled Warlock/Sorcerer.

I think it's pretty clear that level 6+ slots are in fact available, so... yeah. You're just reaching now.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: SorO_Lost on December 11, 2017, 04:47:36 PM
... then, uh, you may want to set easier goals for yourself.
:eh
(click to show/hide)


Please explain this new term you're using, and explain how it prevents 6+ level slots from being available for an appropriately leveled Warlock/Sorcerer.
:banghead
(click to show/hide)

I think the main problem Nfft is you don't actually know what you're disagreeing with and just want to rant about Pact Magic being able to fuel Long Rest stuff. Jeremy has already said it's intended on a Paladin/Warlock's Divine Smite. And if you wonder if that should change, you need to look at the value of spending your limited Downtime on extra 5th level Slots for a very limited time vs the impact of getting higher level Slots everyday. If you're wrong, like your Zombie example, and a Sorcerer using Long Rests is more powerful. Than a Craplock isn't a problem on the table top. The problem is the lack of understanding about the table top.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: SorO_Lost on December 18, 2017, 12:07:44 AM
I think the main problem Nfft is you don't actually know what you're disagreeing with and just want to rant about Pact Magic being able to fuel Long Rest stuff.

And I'm here to give you a Christmas gift.
Quote from: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/938568519385456641
iamrenejr: Does Aspect of the Moon allow to skip the DC 10 Con save for not taking a long rest?
Jeremy Crawford‏: Aspect of the Moon lets you forgo sleep when you take a long rest. The invocation doesn't remove the need for long rests.
So I guess expect it to be nerfed either way.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 18, 2017, 05:02:16 PM
Ehh ... err ... I think that tweet-rata just about does it.

The XGtE sleep section has 2 IF clauses, and
the tweet settles/ends the first one.  The 2nd one
is still sleep based which is not the problem for
Elves, Warforged, that Invoc or the 1 psi-thingy.
Their sleep "problems" are just fine.
But it puts the Long Rest mechanics right there.

I think what this does, is it puts any SorLock based
spell banking (Soro's term) onto a resource schedule
of removing exhaustion levels.  As in it still works,
just more slowly, and you have to take a day off
every now and then. 

Stick it on the pile with abusing Rope Trick or
Leomund's Tiny Hut; though less borkt than either
because there's an actual cost to do it.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: SorO_Lost on December 18, 2017, 05:29:35 PM
As in it still works, just more slowly, and you have to take a day off every now and then.
Technically speaking if you really wanted to nerf a Craplock all you have to do is read the book anyway. The part about Long Rests not being mandatory is, its self, an optional rule within a chapter that is supposed to be ignored if it doesn't help the DM.

Through I'm much more interested in the balance aspect of banking extra 5ths vs the higher once per day slots. Unshockingly I can find very little discussion on this, I even checked GitP even through I knew I'd be wasting my time. I guess I'll end up having to research it my self.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 19, 2017, 04:36:47 PM
Glyph 6 to make a 6th.
Glyph 7 to make a 7th.
Glyph 8 to make a Wish based 8th , xor Glyph 9 to make an 8(+1*)th
* is heightened 1 level (and perhaps not useful)

Bard has to wait 1 level for Wish.
Bard has some Bard list + 3 other spells + Wish.

Cleric has all Cleric list , Arcana has + 3 Wiz spells + Wish.
Cleric might get a very rare DMother-may-I extra 9 = Glyph 9 to make a 9th (!)
That day goes :  Glyph 8 to make a 7(+1)th , Glyph 7 to make a 6(+1)th , Glyph 6 to make a 5(+1)

Wizard Conj 2 gets way better economics early on, and generally better Wiz list.
Tight DM might require Haste to pop off a Conj 2 and make the Glyph casting, during the same round.


edit
(click to show/hide)

Conj > Wiz > Arcana > Bard > Cleric
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Nifft on January 07, 2018, 12:24:36 AM
Ehh ... err ... I think that tweet-rata just about does it.


Indeed. Apparently the designers agree that the thing needs nerfing, and thus they tweet-nerf'd it.

Hope Sore_Loss isn't too sore about the loss.  :lmao
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: SorO_Lost on January 07, 2018, 02:06:13 PM
Hope Sore_Loss isn't too sore about the loss.  :lmao
Huh, why would
Oooh, I see.

I think it's ok, pfft (https://www.quora.com/Why-do-teens-use-the-text-word-pffft) just couldn't explain him self is all. :P
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Samwise on January 12, 2018, 09:43:42 PM
Not controversial, but non-responsive.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one player being too good at combat is messing up your campaign.

Why is it messing up your campaign?

Because the other players suck at combat?

Because the others players don't want to engage in combat?

Because the DM keeps trying to challenge the one player who is "too good" at combat and winds up slaughtering the other PCs?

Because the player who is "too good" at combat makes an effort to try and teach the other players tactics and those other players are getting bent out of shape about it?


Meanwhile, let's examine his "solution": combat is now less relevant to the campaign.

What replaces it?

What if the players suck at what replaces it?

What if the players suck even more at what replaces it!

What if the player who was "too good" at combat is the only player who doesn't suck at what replaces it?


And then let's consider the game design principle here.
I saw something similar in regards to BECM/Rules Compendium D&D. One of the designers got rather snippy about higher (Companion and Master) level play, pointing out that PCs weren't supposed to be doing the same sort of dungeon crawling and such that they did during lower (Basic and Expert) level play. You were instead supposed to be doing political and rulership stuff at Companion level, and plotting your pseudo-apotheosis when you hit Master level.
Of course, the published adventures really didn't support this very much, being way more combat oriented with the non-combat stuff slipped in here and there. So apparently, the designers couldn't actually write publishable adventures according to their standards.
More, why exactly would you design a game that is played one way at the beginning, another way in the middle, and a different way at the end? Triathlons, BASEketball, and Calvinball excepted, that's like playing football for the first quarter, baseball for the middle innings, and ending up with basketball at the end.

But then it is the fault of the players and DM for not getting it right?
Which sounds a lot like their rhetoric during the roll-out for 4E, blaming players of 3.5 for not knowing the right way to have "fun".
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: nijineko on January 13, 2018, 11:19:31 AM
More, why exactly would you design a game that is played one way at the beginning, another way in the middle, and a different way at the end?

Which sounds a lot like their rhetoric during the roll-out for 4E, blaming players of 3.5 for not knowing the right way to have "fun".

Because Gygax and Arneson read the same books (conan, vance, john carter, tarzan, LotR, fafhrd, e.e. doc smith, etc.,) and agreed that that was how things were supposed to progress. Heroes naturally become rulers, and rulers naturally deal with different kinds of problems than heroes. Ergo, the ROLE in your ROLEplaying game is a moving target, and you (the players) are naturally supposed to agree and adapt accordingly. Gygax was rather vocal about it, iirc.

In short, Heroes just defeat bad guys, loot treasure, and other minor stuff; while Rulers rule kingdoms and empires dealing with politics and dynastic crap, so they recruit sacrificial goats... er, i mean... "heroes" to deal with the piddling problems of new up and coming bad guys, the same way you were recruited way back when. Once you hit levels 6-12, you have to start setting an example for the masses, and ruling them for their own good, after all. and once you hit levels 20-30, you're supposed to be watching over the entire world, or maybe your prime material plane and dabbling in intra-planar politics. And on beyond 40+ you're supposed to be thinking about how to ascend and take over your own planes, and defend your local planar cluster against the real outsiders from beyond, etc..

Look at earlier versions of D&D to see when all the Leadership stuff automatically kicked in (became a feat in 3.x). That's when your game play was supposed to "naturally mature" and move beyond the dungeon crawl. It became a kingdom crawl instead... followed by an empire crawl... followed by a planar crawl... and topped with ascension. The Birthright campaign setting even gave action types for possible actions taken on a large geographic scale.

Too bad they didn't read enough wuxia novels back then, or they might have kept on going on beyond small change like deities and overdeities.
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on December 29, 2018, 03:14:40 PM
Glyph Of Warding trick minor update :

Ravnica has the guild spells.  Izzet has Glyph at level 3,
now available to all caster classes ; 'cept 4 elements monk  :P

Warlock and Sorc (especially Divine Soul) are somewhere a fit
with the previous ranking.  Land Druids can kinda do it too.


edit ...
Lock 17 / Sorc 3 uses the 9th to make an 8 gylph , the 7th to make a 6 glyph,
uses 3 points and rips a 5th into 7 points, to make 3 twin 5 glyphs
short rest, makes 2 twin 5 glyphs and 1 empower 5 glyph, repeat ~ twice
14 glyphs in 17 hours , need to not make 3 every 4th day
Title: Re: The DM/MMX Controversy?
Post by: Samwise on January 01, 2019, 11:51:53 PM
Because Gygax and Arneson read the same books (conan, vance, john carter, tarzan, LotR, fafhrd, e.e. doc smith, etc.,) and agreed that that was how things were supposed to progress. Heroes naturally become rulers, and rulers naturally deal with different kinds of problems than heroes. Ergo, the ROLE in your ROLEplaying game is a moving target, and you (the players) are naturally supposed to agree and adapt accordingly. Gygax was rather vocal about it, iirc.

. . .

Look at earlier versions of D&D to see when all the Leadership stuff automatically kicked in (became a feat in 3.x). That's when your game play was supposed to "naturally mature" and move beyond the dungeon crawl. It became a kingdom crawl instead... followed by an empire crawl... followed by a planar crawl... and topped with ascension. The Birthright campaign setting even gave action types for possible actions taken on a large geographic scale.

Except . . .
I've read those stories too (except for ee doc smith), and . . .
That's not what happens.

Conan becomes a king and . . . promptly goes on a killing spree. Sure it is stopping a conspiracy against him, but does he defeat it by talking and hiring flunkies? No. He defeats it by schmoozing with a sweet young thing and caving in skulls.
John Carter becomes warlord of Barsoom. Does the next novel cover his diplomatic negotiations and social reforms in detail? No. It picks up with a relative running about committing mayhem. And the next. Then for variation another earthman shows up on Barsoom. Then John Carter reappears - committing more mayhem.
Tarzan? All of one chapter about how he has some problem running his estate, then the next 20 chapters he is back in his loincloth, smacking stuff silly.
Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser! No wait, they just keep going adventuring until they retire. Then, when they come back for a mid-life crisis they promptly get kidnapped and have to go on more adventures.
Lord of the Rings! Ends when it comes time to do the actual ruling, which is summed up in an appendix. Even Tolkien did not try and right an epic saga about kingdom administration! (Which is both expected and unexpected in its own way.)
Now technically Vance wrote two of the Dying Earth novels about a supreme wizard who sent a flunky out on his bidding. Of course the majority of the text of those two novels then follows the misadventures of said flunky. And the fourth novel was about a conclave of super-wizards and their infighting. But then Vance also used words like "quotidian", and copying that style, adapting the magic system, and incorporating ioun stones is pretty much all that the game gets from Vance.

Nowhere in any of them does anything even vaguely like the Companion or Birthright system for kingdom management appear. At most, you might consider the random events tables to be a vague nod to some kind of sandboxed campaign, with a die roll determining which adventure to play next rather than DM design and fiat, but that's about it.
So really no, the fiction does not even reflect that model. (Which would lead to a longer rant of mine about the flaws in trying to make the modern version of the game reflect Appendix N.)

As for Leadership as a feat in 3E, yes it is. And as a result, unless the DM starts to give out bonus feats for such background elements, character optimization is going to tank rather rapidly when it comes to getting the skills and feats needed to optimize building a kingdom. 3E has the additional "feat tax" of Landlord in the Stronghold Builder's Guide, the plethora of guild/organization related feats in later books, and a generally less-than-spectacular couple of rules sets for running a business or creating an affiliation. Pathfinder actually manages to be worse with their Kingdom Builder and Downtime rules in terms of non-optimized choices, although Pathfinder did manage to create an entire additional sub-system for intrigue - which of course requires even MORE resource expenditure to optimize at the cost of combat effectiveness.
So unless you are going to allow heavily rebuilds/retrains at "ruler level", with a "go back" option if the PCs have to do fieldwork themselves, it really is not going to work.

Well, or if you get really weird and build an entire campaign around multiple PCs per player, with the additional PCs as the cohorts/followers/hirelings of the main PCs, and some really gratuitous bonus feat distribution to the "rulers" (did someone say "bloodline"?), with the campaign flipping back and forth between leaders and followers, and the adventures representing different events (random or otherwise) needed to build/protect/expand the kingdom.
Which my players actually enjoyed quite a bit, but I wouldn't expect it is for everyone.

Again though, we have a situation where the system really does not support that kind of play without a significant amount of hacking to the point that you really are either playing another game entirely, or going with a truly divergent type of campaign that overwhelms the base system and assumptions.