• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

CK3 Dev Diary #1 - Dynasties & Houses

Greetings, and welcome to the first CK3 Feature Dev Diary!

As this is the first DD we want it to be extra juicy, and showcase something that we’re excited about - namely what we’re doing with Dynasties! Dynasties are immaterial yet fundamentally important things that make Crusader Kings what it is - your line must follow an unbroken line of members from your Dynasty; if your Dynasty ends, so does your game.

Now, the representation of Dynasties in CK2 was limited. A character belonged to a Dynasty, and that was that - you got a minor opinion boost with characters that were of the same one, and nothing more. In CK3, we really want to emphasize the power that Dynasties held, and their impact on the medieval world! We want you as the player to feel a bond with your Dynasty, and care for it. To achieve this, we’ve done a multitude of things!

DD2.png


Firstly something that we know will especially please CK2 players, we’ve redefined what a Dynasty actually is - not a monolithic entity, but a collection of Houses. No longer will Dynasties have just one name, one Coat of Arms, and one identity - instead several Houses (aka Cadet Branches!) will be collected under the umbrella that is the Dynasty, working together (theoretically…) towards bringing renown upon the Dynasty!

So, what is a House?
Each Dynasty will have a Founding House (usually of the same name as the Dynasty), which is the first House of that Dynasty. As the game progresses, ruling Dynasty members that are distant by blood to the current House Head (more on this below) may choose to create a Cadet Branch - effectively creating a new House under the Dynasty. Creating a Cadet Branch makes the character creating it House Head (with the most powerful House Head becoming Dynast), and by extension free from the direct influence of their old House Head.

Making your own Cadet Branch requires quite a bit of prestige, that you do not stand to inherit your House Head’s titles, and that all of your Dynastic ancestors are dead (your father can’t be alive, for example). Cadet Branches/Houses come with a lot of flavor: their own names, Coat of Arms and Mottos, usually inspired by the location in which they are founded, and the founding character. For example, if a ruler of the Jimena Dynasty would create a Cadet Branch in southern France, they might be called the Toulouse-Jimenas, and so on.

DD1.png


Now, what is a House Head or a Dynast?
Within a House there is always a leader, a House Head, that wields power over the rest of the members. A House Head has the power to legitimize bastards, call House members to war, and demand that they adhere to their Faith (refusal to convert will result in them creating a new Cadet Branch). The House Head also has inherent leverage on all House members born after they were made head, by virtue of getting a Hook on them (more on Hooks in another DD). They also gain passive prestige based upon the number of members in their House. House leadership follows the succession of the House Head, so that if you’re the leader of your House you will most likely keep that title on succession.

The Dynast, on the other hand, wields significantly more power than a House Head - with their power encompassing the members of all Houses of the entire Dynasty! The Dynast is always the most powerful House Head of a Dynasty, with leadership being updated on the death of the old Dynast. In addition to everything the House Head can do, the Dynast can also Disinherit/Restore Inheritance, Denounce/Forgive members of the Dynasty (which affects opinion in a major way), personally Claim titles held by Dynasty members, and make Dynasty members end wars they have against each other. All of these powers work against every member of the Dynasty, not just the House they’re a part of. The Dynast also gains prestige for every living member of the Dynasty. Being the Dynast is very powerful indeed, but you have to carefully weigh the powers against other benefits, as they cost Renown.

So what is Renown?
Renown is a resource accumulated by a Dynasty, and is used for several things. Firstly, all renown earned by a Dynasty counts towards its Level of Splendor. The Level of Splendor is the outward perception of the Dynasty, how well it is perceived in the eyes of the world, and affects the prestige you get on birth, the prestige when marrying into it, and the maximum long reign opinion you can get. Having a high level also makes it much easier to arrange marriages, especially with Dynasties below your level. Regardless of if Renown is spent or not, the Level of Splendor won’t decrease. The higher your Dynasty’s Level of Splendor, the more impressive its Coat of Arms frame will look. Peasant Dynasties will start at a negative Splendor level, which means that you’ll actually lose prestige for marrying them.

Renown itself is a spendable currency, representing the clout your Dynasty holds over itself. Its use is twofold; firstly it can be used for the most powerful Dynast interactions (getting claims, disinheriting, etc.) and secondly for unlocking Dynasty Legacies (more on this below).

The way you get Renown encourages you to mimic a ‘playstyle’ that was common in reality, but that wasn’t very practical in CK2 - spreading your Dynasty far and wide! You will gain renown for every ruler of your Dynasty that isn’t a subject under another member of your Dynasty. This is based on tier, which means that a King will give more Renown than a Duke, and so on. Marrying in such a way that your Dynasty ends up on the throne of a foreign realm is therefore useful for other reasons than to just murder them until you inherit their lands. Having your Dynasty spread out will give you more Renown, and thus a more powerful Dynasty overall. For example, if you’re playing as the King of England you will NOT gain renown from your landed vassal brother, but you WILL gain renown from your Dynastic cousin ruling a Duchy in the Holy Roman Empire. You will also gain renown from marrying away your dynasty to be spouses of powerful rulers, symbolizing your newfound influence in their realms. This gives you a reason to carefully plan the marriages of your kinsmen, even if you are not in need of an alliance!

So, what are Dynasty Legacies?
We all know that the playing field in Crusader Kings is a very volatile one, you might be Emperor of the World as one character, while being reduced to Count of Norfolk as the next. Dynasty Legacies offer some permanence in this otherwise very wild world, in the form of modifiers and unlocks that affect every member of your Dynasty. Essentially, by using Renown you get to shape what your Dynasty is known for. There’s a myriad of Legacies to choose from, all divided into tracks with an appropriately thematic name, such as ‘Kin’, ‘Guile’ or ‘Blood’. These aim to represent notions the world had (or has) about certain dynasties, i.e., that the Seljuks are warriors, the Abbasids lawmakers, the Habsburgs diplomats (and, ahem, prone to marrying their own kin), etc. Each Legacy track contains five unlocks, each costing a progressively higher amount of Renown to unlock.

DD3.png


In this Dev Diary we will go into details on one of these tracks, “Blood” (which also happens to be my favorite). This track is designed for those of you who enjoy breeding traits into your family line, with the first few unlocks all focusing on increasing the chance of inheritance, emergence, and reinforcement of genetic traits (more on genetic traits in another DD). The last few unlocks will reduce the chance of negative traits appearing (essentially allowing for more.. ‘risky’ marriages), give you the chance to choose a genetic trait to be more common among your kin (i.e. beautiful, intelligent and strong… but also giant or dwarf. No matter how much I pleaded with art I couldn’t get a ‘Habsburg chin’ trait, though!), and finally rounding off with an increase to your Dynasty members Life Expectancy (which increases both their average age, and average fertility - this even means that women of your dynasty remain able to bear children for longer!).

Legacies take a long time to unlock, and you will have to work hard toward unlocking even one full track - though their power more than makes up for the wait. Legacies are chosen and unlocked by the Dynast, so make sure that you’re in control of your Dynasty.

That’s all for this time! We won’t spoil any more of the Legacy tracks for now, but rest assured that they all offer very interesting opportunities for you to shape your dynasty as you would like it! Next up we have a sneak preview of the map, stay tuned for the next DD.
 
  • 11Like
  • 7Love
  • 2
Reactions:
I would imagine that the Emperor title comes with much more renown than duchy titles, so as to compensate for such a thing.

Up to a point. The HRE has a lot of duchies, after all. Without knowing the exact numbers it's all speculation exactly where that breakpoint is, but it's interesting enough that such a point exists at all.

But at the same time, it makes sense that, say, if the Habsburgs have a reputation for being powerful vassals under the Konradiners, their family is going to be more well-regarded than if they're powerful vassals under a Habsburg. Fair or not, that just looks like nepotism to outsiders.

I get the justification for it. It just encourages kind of weird behavior at the extreme min/max end, like setting up a "reknown farm" neighbor realm which is stuffed to bursting with vassals of your dynasty but led at the top by someone not of your dynasty which you would presumably want to keep in power, even against those aforementioned dynasty vassals, because if they ever took over you'd lose out on reknown income.

Is that better than just landing a bunch of your dynasty members in your own realm (and getting reknown credit for them) and expanding naturally? Especially with new the cadet branch / house mechanics? I'm not sure but I'm leaning towards no.

also I don't think the family will lose renown in that case, they'll just be gaining it at a slower pace. Basically like prestige, it accumulates over time rather than being fixed.

Yes, that's what I meant.
 
Up to a point. The HRE has a lot of duchies, after all. Without knowing the exact numbers it's all speculation exactly where that breakpoint is, but it's interesting enough that such a point exists at all.

Maybe the renown gain from a title is based on the number of vassals it has, so if one of your family members gets elected Emperor, you're now getting effectively getting renown from everyone in the HRE, instead of just the duchies your Dynasty controls.
 
The HRE has a lot of duchies
And at the same time, the HRE was extremely dysfunctional. It was more of a coalition than an empire wasn't it? With duchies doing whatever they wanted half the time from what I read.

If anything HRE empire title should have less prestige.

On a serious note it'd be neat if title prestige was dependent on size AND how... functional... your realm is. Who cares if your empire is huge when over half your vassals don't listen to you and hate you with revolts every other year. But a huge realm that is functional with few revolts, obedient lords etc would get decent prestige for well... functioning and being "enlightened" enough to have such peace.
 
On a serious note it'd be neat if title prestige was dependent on size AND how... functional... your realm is. Who cares if your empire is huge when over half your vassals don't listen to you and hate you with revolts every other year. But a huge realm that is functional with few revolts, obedient lords etc would get decent prestige for well... functioning and being "enlightened" enough to have such peace.

Perhaps the stringency of feudal contracts should influence prestige and renown. I imagine that the HRE vassals are tied to the emperor through very loose feudal contracts, with them acting as sovereign princes in their own demesnes. The larger the number (or percentage?) of strict contracts is and the stricter the terms of feudal contracts are, the more prestige and renown a title generates.
 
That's a good idea (though it was basically super decentralized) but how would... it handle the part where the HRE had no emperor for 66 years? They even had 2 more times where they didn't have elect an emperor for years.

The HRE was way too dysfunctional. So dysfunctional it wouldn't be that strange to lose prestige for holding the title but I joke. Speaking of jokes, their territory was basically border gore the empire.
 
I get the justification for it. It just encourages kind of weird behavior at the extreme min/max end, like setting up a "reknown farm" neighbor realm which is stuffed to bursting with vassals of your dynasty but led at the top by someone not of your dynasty which you would presumably want to keep in power, even against those aforementioned dynasty vassals, because if they ever took over you'd lose out on reknown income.

Is that better than just landing a bunch of your dynasty members in your own realm (and getting reknown credit for them) and expanding naturally? Especially with new the cadet branch / house mechanics? I'm not sure but I'm leaning towards no.

I think @Shneemaster's suggestion above makes sense, and if that's not how it works right now, it probably should be.

And also, at the same time, minmaxers gonna minmax, and I'm sure if this weird counterintuitive strategy doesn't do the trick they'll figure out another one.

I'm not gonna rehash it, but there's pages and pages of discussion on the subject in this very thread.

Edit: I guess if you want the short, short version, if renown is mana then so is literally every mechanic in CK2 that involves points.
 
Last edited:
This is a very interesting mechanic. I have still some doubt in the legacies (it must be seen how it works in game before being able to judge) but dynasties as described can add a total new layer of depth to the game, where you have to consider what is good for your country and what is good for your dynasty, and mechanics that generate this kind of contrast are good in my book.

All considered a big + for CK3.
 
I have a recommendation.

Can it be possible for dynasties and houses to have custom names which members could use to name newborns that will be used in place of names linked to culture? Essentially, a way for AI dynasty and house members to more habitually used the "Name after Random Ancestor" button upon birth of a new child.
 
Any chance of seeing cadet branches form with a new or quartered coat of arms based on substantial claims, titles, or heritage, if the circumstances are right?

Oh, dang it, how I hope it's so!

Not quite sure about being able to claim titles held by members of your dynasty, which seems a touch autocratic, but I'll reserve judgment until more is revealed on that subject.

I feel exactly the same. That was the one thing that gave me pause in all of this Dev Diary. That and a slight fear that some legacies (war, mainly) can make a house that already has so many rulers going about to be a hard opponent become unbeatable unless you take the same legacy.
 
Having cadet branches, dynasts and houses is great. Definitely something that sets CKIII apart in a good way.

But I feel the opposite on Legacies. Spending points to get benefits is more for EU, for CK I really like how indirect your control over things is. And since I already know there's skill trees for characters, I'm still undecided on this game.
 
Legacies seem a bit gamey, I hope they are done appropriately with respect for reality and not Game of Thrones-esque, where every member of a dynasty has the same personality.
 
Hopefully it won't be restricted to Catholics.
This system sounds as if it could be translated to tribes and clans in the Arab world that @elvain has written extensively about.
Quraysh --> Banu Hashim (Hashimid in CK2), for instance.

It could also work well for the dynastic conflicts of Genghis Khans successors.
Borjigin --> Jochid, Chagataid, Ögedeid, Toluid.

In game terms, the Kaidu-Kublai War would be the head of the House of Ögedei challenging the head of the House of Tolui for the position of Dynast.

My main concern here is about the consistency of scope. If Capet is a house of the Robertine dynasty, then 'de Anjou' and 'de Valois' would be considered Robertine houses even though they're decedent directly from Capet. That's fine, but would you in the same vein consider the Abbasids to be part of the Quraysh while descending from the Hashimids? And the Borjigins themselves are a sub clan so they shouldn't really be represented as a dynasty either.

I'm not at all opposed to this but when looking at the inconsistency between houses and clans and dynasties in CK2, I'm afraid that mistakes will be repeated. It will take a lot of work.
Wow! What a memory you have, good sir! How comes that you remember that? It was posted 3+ years ago :eek:

To be honest those were exactly my thoughts when reading this DD.

I o hope this opens some new possibilities for more realistic gameplay of muslim societies.
But also this DD opens a question how many layers will there be possible and whether and what would be the differences between muslim clan societies and feudal ones when it comes to these dynastic options.

I'm really looking forward to learn more about it.... and wishing that more ideas out of that Qabila suggestion (obligatory link for those who want to read) would make it into CK3
 
Last edited:
I'm going to say this only once so I don't clutter up future dev diaries. I would have held my tongue but the minute you said Splendor the academic in me began twitching:
Please get the Byzantines right in CK3. This Splendor mechanic represents one small opportunity to depict the Eastern Roman political system more accurately; Byzantium was run by salaried appointees to offices kept loyal through imperial patronage and emperors used demonstrations of their wealth, power and piety to legitimise their rule. The attraction of the imperial court to foreigners is well-documented, as is the competition between foreign princes to secure a marriage to a purple-born princess. Such a marriage should bring the dynasty/House which she marries into a significant boost in terms of prestige/Renown etc. This is just one idea. And, for the ones at the back: The Byzantine Empire was NOT feudal! Please please address this glaring inaccuracy in CK3 - it drives me mad as a Byzantinist historian that they are treated this way in CK2. Obviously, I've no idea what you've got planned for CK3 in this regard, so I go forward in hope, and full of ideas about Byzantium.
 
Piety and seems to be missing, as well a Legacy for Economic brilliance (Lannisters will riot if this is not there!)


Maybe holding onto those for future DLC - theocratic dynasties and mercantile dynasties?

You won't be the only ruler creating long lasting (or short?) dynasties :)

AI can create Cadet Branches (Houses), and depending on their decisions... dynasties could then be created.


So cadet branches can even completely split off and form entirely new dynasties? What does that kind of decision require?

It's odd because CK2 has mana as well but no one complains because it's done well.


Mana is fine if done well, sliders and actions/achievements are better but it's all situational.


It's extremely silly for folk to complain about mana without actually... seeing the context and gameplay behind it? You are right with some folk just freaking out at the mere thought but they're being silly.


I get being afraid of mana for mana's sake, but it really sounds like this is a power system that you build by aggressively increasing the connections and power of your dynasty, and then utilize by throwing your weight around once you've built up to a certain point. A more powerful dynasty (one with more renown, in game terms), would then be able to throw their weight behind getting claims, using their name to push through bureaucracy. Or similarly, a powerful dynasty could use their name to gain marriages that place sons in patrilineal marriages within families with no male heirs. It seems the reverse could also be true - a powerful dynasty could force matrilineal marriages when they have no male heirs, and so on. So this doesn't really feel like mana, just like "face". Throwing your weight around as a dynasty would make sense to reduce your renown, as people would view pushing through the propriety of the noble classes as something more "base"...


I really don't get the fear of mana either. Some of Holy Fury's features were mana-based - but also based on decisions - building Warrior Society legend, for example. Also... Gold is mana. Prestige is mana. Piety is mana. Sure, your decisions affect how much of said mana you get, but they're mana nevertheless. Renown feels like a system that integrates well because it functions like prestige on a dynastic scale. Using it for Legacies might seem a little game-y now, but as long as it leads to functions that make it clear the dynast is using their renown to push the rest of the dynasty in a certain direction, doesn't that make sense.

Also players are talking like they all assume they're going to be the dynast from day one. If you play as king of France, maybe, but if you like starting as a lower power count in a large dynasty... it might take you a while to get there. And even if you have your own dynasty, building renown will be difficult without the clout of a kingdom or an empire to lean on.

But why? The game already has skill trees and other stuff that can easily allow you enough customization for your own character(probably too much).


Couldn't we spare us mechanics to build superhumans and mutants that literally escalate over time, meaning tgat the longer you play, the more you are guaranteed to always have strong characters?


Hopefully if the AI is built well, then they'll also have increasingly stronger characters?
 
Last edited:
I guess it's a minor thing, but shouldn't the naming of cadet branches be reversed? Generally when I see such cadet branches in English historical works the "location" of the cadet branch is always after the parent house (Habsburg-Lorraine, Valois-Burgundy, Bourbon-Parma)