|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 5, 2015 16:57:16 GMT -5
Fantastic medieval wargames campaigns: Need something that allows a coherent structure, preferably of reward, from battle to battle (campaign) Need something that supports and preferably rewards warfare, providing context, event producing structures, and armies (wargames) Need to correspond roughly to an abstraction of medieval (western) society (medieval) Need to account for the affects of the fantastic upon the above, but only for the sake of simulation, as there is no "realism" with regards to fantasy (fantasy) I am going to start my ruminations trying to get a decent abstraction of medieval society that is realistic enough to "feel right" but abstract enough to allow for simplicity of play (rules lite): Let us assume a land-bound (rivers and streams, yes, but let us bracket any major sea-lanes allowing sea-trade until at the imperial level) medieval (for our purposes, anachronistically abstracting technology, culture and societal structures for anything between about 500-1500 AD, but erring on the earlier side for the sake of retaining vast unexplored wildernesses) situation. Let us assume the desire to build and maintain a system that meets basic needs, building towards comforts and luxuries. The fundamental unit which could meet basic needs was the MANOR. A single, independent farm could not be self-sustaining in this era. So then, here are our fundamental levels: Manor Barony County Kingdom With farm at the extreme low-end and not self-sustaining up to empire at the highest-end but more ancient than medieval. At each level there is human settlement, government, defense, economy, including transporation, religion, and what we would now call "culture," including what we would now call "education." Here is a table I am building: | Unit | Freeholder | Delegate | Settlement | Stronghold | Defense | Officer | Economy | Market | Transportation | Religion | Cleric | Education | | Manor | Knight | Bailiff | Village | House | Company | Captain | Basic Needs | Subsistence | Trail | Parish | Priest | Home | | Barony | Lord | Reeve | Villages | Fortress | Battalion | Major | Common Comforts | Fair | Lane | Deanery | Dean/Monsignor | Monastery | | County | Earl | Sheriff | Town | Castle | Column | Colonel | Rare Luxuries | Marketplace | Road | Diocese | Bishop | Cathedral | | Kingdom | King | Judge | City | Palace | Army | General | Opulent Accessories | Bazaar | Highway | Patriarchate | Patriarch | University |
The above assumes English names. "Earl" is retained from Anglo-Saxon "Jarl," of a Shire. Normans imposed continental "county" over "shire," but England did not adopt the continental title for the freeholder, "count" (but that is very good for vampires!). Other terms could be employed for "cultural diversity," e.g., thane, canton, etc. I love this website and it has been very helpful towards my ruminations (scroll down for medieval hierarchy stuff): www.friesian.com/rank.htm |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 5, 2015 21:00:58 GMT -5
Further notes as per the chart above:
Knights were gentry, but not nobility. Although a knight may be placed in charge of a manor while the baron is away at one of his other manors, the knight would not have the status of a judge and could not hold court. Barony lords (lord of the manor) were petty nobles, not the king's peers. Nevertheless, they did have legal duties to their barony and its various manors and they held court. Only earls, etc. were "peers" of the king and true or full nobles.
Some of the other titles we are familiar with come from these peers receiving special distinction. So, for example, a county on a border was on the "marches," so, a march, or mark. (E.g., "Keep on the Borderland," could be called "Keep on the Mark.") The freeholder would not be a mere earl but a margrave or marquis. (I like "marker," myself.) As they were on the front lines, so to speak, they would be accorded slightly higher honors at court. Some earls and counties receive special and lasting recognition from their king, elevated to the status of a duchy with a duke. Now, of course, these would have had to have done something to achieve this title, so these, although counties in all other respects, would still be first class counties.
A king is a monarch and there are other names for monarchs. Prince means "first," or "principal." A prince rules over a principality or princedom. There are also Grand-dukes over Grand-duchies who rule their estate as independent sovereigns.
Emperor's and Empires are more like generalissimos over conquered economic centers and make more sense in a city-state based economy-society structure than what we are used to in a typical medieval abstraction. A regular peasant with farm lands, although not a slave and "free" in that sense, was tied to the land and the freeholder in a binding, inherited contract and in no way capable of independent subsistence.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 6, 2015 15:15:00 GMT -5
Now as to some notes as per the rules as presented. I will start my study with M&M. "Top-level fighters (Lords and above) who build castles are considered "barons," and as such they may invest in their holding in order to increase their income (see INVESTMENTS section of Volume III). Base income for a Baron is a tax rate of 10 Gold Pieces/inhabitant of the barony/game year." M&M p. 6. It is important to note that the subtitle (true, title, rather than selling-point title) of the original edition is "rules for fantastic medieval wargames campaigns," not "the world's first adult role playing game," etc. The role-playing was a part of it, but the core was a wargame campaign. Campaign indicates here building, on-going, related tactical battles linked to one another in order to build an over-arching strategic game. Thus D&D is really providing mechanics for how to link disparate battles into a coherent structure. This structure needs to reward players for "winning," individual concrete battles. And there is a two-track reward system, linked, but not identical: in-game wealth (treasure valued in terms of gold pieces) and over-all score (experience points). The gold allows for the purchasing of in-game benefits. In a wargames campaign, this means the building of a stronghold and the recruiting of an army. Successful play meant every increasingly defendable strongholds and stronger and stronger armies. Experience points led to more and more powerful, capable and recognized leaders for these armies. Many people interpret the above quote to indicate that a FM cannot reap the benefits of a stronghold until "name level" ("Lord"). I do not hold this interpretation. It only says that they must be name level in order to "invest" in order to "increase their income." The implication being that any FM with a stronghold has a base-income that becomes increasable with a.) name level and b.) additional investments. Furthermore, if we take the customary interpretation, it would take far too long for players to begin army-scale wargames campaigning, something, I believe, is counter to the spirit of the original rules. This will become clearer when we look at M&T and U&WA, later. Here, I will go "off the chain," and start ruminating: I would drop the "name level" requirement all-together in campaigns which truly intend to encourage wargame campaigning. "Distinct names [for levels] have only been included for the base levels, but this does not influence progression." M&M p. 18. I take it that this means that names were fairly arbitrarily assigned for the sake of the feel of progression for the players. Especially when one looks at MUs and CLs, the arbitrary nature of the titles become pretty clear. In no possible world does one progress through priest through LAMA to patriarch! I would therefore first of all suggest either renaming the different experience levels and rendering them independent of organization and social-rank recognizing levels, or simply dropping any title names based upon level all together. I believe we may have gotten locked into this way of thinking and I would like to encourage original edition players to consider a problem they create: the reduction of role-play. Let me explain. Medieval titles are about social status, recognition and the concomitant authority that goes with it. Now, the more one progresses in capacity and wealth, the more one will tend to be recognized. But the gain of recognition could (and I would argue, for campaigns which intend to encourage war-gaming, should) be based more upon in-game role-play instead. What I mean is this: by linking social progression to level advancement, social progression is now defined by an abstract game mechanic. The more something is defined by an abstraction, or, worse, a game mechanic, the less it is open to role-play. This kind of relationship of mechanic to role-play is exactly the thing that attracts most of us to (return to) original edition play. There are two basic means of recognition: peer to peer and authority to subordinate. I advocate the return of these. As players increase in level, the referee could have them also increase in renown, affecting peer and authority valuation. A level 1 is never going to be recognized. By the time we are level four (heroic) the playing field changes. I suggest that by levels 3-4 PCs should start to be able to be recognized for low-level authority roles, such as captains, majors, knights and barons. By levels 7-8 as majors, colonels, and earls, margraves and dukes. By levels 10+ as generals and monarchs. This way, levels roughly correspond to titles but not strictly. They will also need to role-play well. I would suggest a mechanic of 3+ peers for peer recognition of a title or a single authority of the rank immediately above their own for authority based recognition. The benefit of peer-only recognition is the greater likelihood of advance without dispute from authorities. The benefit of authority-only recognition being its relative ease (only one need be pleased, rather than 3+). The detriment of peer-only is the sheer number of folks the PC has to persuade. The detriment of authority-only is the vassal relationship precluding further advance without a fight. And in any case, peer-only for most levels is only available when establishing one's estate in the wilderness. In borderland or civilized locations, there is bound to be another, greater lord who would or could dispute mere peer-to-peer estimation, demanding the swearing of fealty, etc., thus providing further encouragement to wilderness exploration and clearing. "When Clerics reach the top level (Patriarch) they may opt to build their own stronghold, and when doing so receive help from"above." Thus , if they spend 100,000 Gold Pieces in castle construction, they may build a fortress of double that cost. Finally, "faithful" men will come to such a castle, being fanatically loyal, and they will serve at no cost.. . . . Clerics with castles of their own will have control of a territory similar to the "Barony" of fighters, and they will receive "tithes" equal to 20 Gold Pieces/Inhabitant/year." M&M p. 7. So here is a pattern that I see: fighting-men are taken as a kind of default, with other classes being described from there. Many commonly assume that magic-users cannot have strongholds or serve as barons, but I do not see this. The very fact that they are supposed to be researching and making and earning money from the selling of magic items shows that they need to have a place to do so. Further, when we study U&WA, later, we will see that in the wilderness we are to assume that some castles are those of magic-users. So I believe a case can be made that any character class can have a stronghold, develop an army and reap the benefits of taxation. But details should be delineated per class. If CLs get to double up on benefits, perhaps MUs get half benefits but gain in their ability to make additional wealth through magic item trade, etc. Another assumption I see here is that "clerics" are an attempt to find a generic name for something more like the specific "knights templar," and other medieval orders of warrior monastics. If this is the case, then I would say that this should even further persuade us to "unhook" level from titles, especially church titles. You could have a parish priest or a major bishop who, nevertheless, are not going to fight as four (or seven) men! "[Charisma's] primary function is to determine how may hirelings of unusual nature a character can attract. This is not to say that he cannot hire men-at-arms and employ mercenaries, but the charisma function will affect loyalty of even these men. Players will, in all probability, seek to hire Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and/or Clerics in order to strengthen their roles in the campaign. A player-character can employ only as many as indicated by his charisma score: ." M&M p. 11.
Charisma is often derided as a "dump stat." And this is relatively true in the later role-playing game that would develop under the same name as the first published rules for setting up medieval fantasy wargames campaigns. But in a genuine wargame campaign, charisma is no dump stat. Many often assume that this limit on hirelings means, for example, that one could only have say, four each of an engineer, a sage, etc. I do not read the rules this way. I believe that the charisma limit implies only a limit on the hiring of non-playing characters of playing character classes who are greater than level one (1). Otherwise, I believe players should only be limited by advertisement, availability and hiring.
I believe that the basic unit of "barony" described in the LBBs (more on this when I study U&WA, but here is a preview) is that of the several manors a medieval lord would rotate between in a given year in order to hold court and maintain his "lifestyle." I would suggest as a game mechanic that this "barony" (of eight villages with up to 400 in population, each) should be the basic unit of holding for any character. Therefore, in order to progress to, say, that of an earl of a county, this would mean that the character must "convince" other barons to swear fealty to the character. Charisma limitations could then be applied to the number of such subordinates. So, someone with average charisma could hire up to four (4) leveled non-playing characters as immediate hirelings AND have up to four (4) lords in sworn fealty under them. As these are two separate things (hirelings on the one hand, fiefs on the other) they would not take from one another. Once an earl had maximized the total number of fiefs and their respective holdings, the character could then progress to "convincing" other earls to swear fealty, thus elevating him to monarch status, etc. This is elegant in another way: the progression of holdings would follow a similar shape to the level progression of a character.
So those are some preliminary ruminations from M&M. M&T is next, followed by U&WA. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Sept 6, 2015 16:11:13 GMT -5
Relevant information from another thread: That's a great resource, and helped clear up some of misconceptions. Thanks! 
A Prince is any independent sovereign. Generally kingdoms are large, and principalities are small (possibly city-states): Thus all kings are princes, but not all princes rule a kingdom. A Grand duke is a misnomer, and should be called a prince. A Duke rules a county. He has some autonomy and possibly has vassal counts but still owes fealty to a prince. A Marquis rules a county at the edge of a realm, called a march. Marquis are directly answerable to their prince, not a duke, and thus have greater prestige than a count, but at the price of ruling an uncivilized and dangerous land. Margraves have more autonomy to deal with threats to the realm as they see fit. A Count (Earl in England) rules a county, and is answerable to a prince or more often a duke. A Baron owns a castle within a county. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Sept 6, 2015 16:32:21 GMT -5
OD&D vol 3: TU&WA, p. 15, Description of Blackmoor and Greyhawk:
OD&D vol 3: TU&WA, p. 24, Baronies:
Thus, by OD&D, the average newly instituted barony will have 1250 inhabitants, cover ~1250 sq miles (20*20*pi), and recieve an income of 12500 gp/ annum.
The castle is not built adjacent to any of these villages and begins with only the Baron's entourage.
All new population growth driven by investment or forcible mass relocation will occur in a new settlement directly surrounding the castle, called the castle-town. By such means, the castle-town may be grown into a large city such as Greyhawk or CSIO.
The castle-town is customarily referred to by the name alone (Blackmoor), while references to the castle are prefaced by the word "castle" (Castle Blackmoor).
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Sept 6, 2015 16:50:49 GMT -5
The gp/month given in TU&WA for soldiers almost exactly correlates to pence/day pay in England around 1300.
Thus pay for very specific types of troops may be derived by looking at Hundred Years War salaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 6, 2015 17:11:28 GMT -5
Relevant information from another thread: That's a great resource, and helped clear up some of misconceptions. Thanks!
A Prince is any independent sovereign. Generally kingdoms are large, and principalities are small (possibly city-states): Thus all kings are princes, but not all princes rule a kingdom. A Grand duke is a misnomer, and should be called a prince. A Duke rules a county. He has some autonomy and possibly has vassal counts but still owes fealty to a prince. A Marquis rules a county at the edge of a realm, called a march. Marquis are directly answerable to their prince, not a duke, and thus have greater prestige than a count, but at the price of ruling an uncivilized and dangerous land. Margraves have more autonomy to deal with threats to the realm as they see fit. A Count (Earl in England) rules a county, and is answerable to a prince or more often a duke. A Baron owns a castle within a county. , thanks for the interaction! I would not call "grand duke" a misnomer, so much as a kind of a "flavor option" for characters. In the traditional sense, all monarchs are "princes." But folks may want to refer to themselves in different ways. Right, the fundamental unit is "county," but on a border the county becomes a "march," and when elevated in status before the monarch it becomes a "duchy." I am not sure if a count was usually answerable to a duke or not. I think I like keeping things simple for game abstraction purposes and I would just want march/margrave duchy/duke to be kind of "flavors" for counties/earls to dip into, when and as appropriate. Reading up on what a "lord" (baron of a barony in English, as "baron" sounded to German to English ears) was like in England I've found that, in order to maintain their non-laboring existence, a lord would have to be the freeholder of several manors (I take it that this is why U&WA has you roll for up to 8 possible freeholds). The lord would live for a month or two at each one, until the food ran out, then move on. While there, he would hold court. While gone, he would put his bailiff (usually a knight) in charge of day-to-day affairs. I think this can be simulated in a D&D wilderness situation with the holder of a single manor being a kind of independent knight, but incapable of holding court until a true baron. Once a true baron, one would then roll up the additional villages through which he would make progress. Barons would have a large, fairly fortified manorial house. So too, could this wilderness knight. The fortification of such would not hold up under siege, but would be affective against bandits, thieves and ordinary problems (the first "gated community"). But by the time such character has progressed to true barony status, I agree that in one such village he would probably have a defensible castle. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 6, 2015 17:25:33 GMT -5
Thus, by OD&D, the average newly instituted barony will have 1250 inhabitants, cover ~1250 sq miles (20*20*pi), and recieve an income of 12500 gp/ annum. The castle is not built adjacent to any of these villages and begins with only the Baron's entourage. All new population growth driven by investment or forcible mass relocation will occur in a new settlement directly surrounding the castle, called the castle-town. By such means, the castle-town may be grown into a large city such as Greyhawk or CSIO. The castle-town is customarily referred to by the name alone (Blackmoor), while references to the castle are prefaced by the word "castle" (Castle Blackmoor). , I like your reasoning here. When I think of this, I think in terms of hexes. I think that the safety "emanating" from the stronghold keeps us chaos free for a radius of 20 miles. But I do not think that is his dominion, proper. I think all of the villages are in one 5 mile HX, so, about 20 square miles. This would mean that each village of 8 would get approximately 2 & ½ square miles each for farming, park range and the village proper. This is about right and fits other descriptions of medieval population density in western Europe that I have studied (I will try to come back and add some links later!). It may sound small, but, consider, there are 640 acres in a single square mile. And it takes about a day to walk 20 miles, so a standard county of several such baronies would be about a days walk across. About right to get a message from the center and back in one day, if necessary. I agree that the stronghold (castle of just fortified manor house) must be built in order to attract any starting population. But I would understand the first of those villages to have grown up around that central castle. This is not an argument! Just presenting a different way to interpret it. I would totally play in your campaign too! This just represents the direction of my ruminations. Another reason why I like smaller domains is that it allows other domains to crop up next to one's own, either PC or NPC. These can form alliances and liege relationships leading to kingdoms and the like. Furthermore, it keeps the wilderness vast and unconquerable! And I like that too! I love your points about Blackmoor, the castle, and the nomenclature. Very helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Sept 6, 2015 18:05:50 GMT -5
I think it is likely these rules were derived from the FFC, where each faction has a listed number of villages, incomes, and populations.
There is also description of possible investments including roads, bridges, canals, inns, "hunting, armories, and animal breeding", religion, farming, fishing, trapping, tourism, and others.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Sept 6, 2015 18:45:00 GMT -5
Although a knight may be placed in charge of a manor while the baron is away at one of his other manors, the knight would not have the status of a judge and could not hold court. Consistent with the Unit: Manor, Freeholder:Knight Each of the 2-8 towns surrounding a castle may house a knight in its manor (Think Sir Robin of Locksley). Knights are retained by land-grant, and thus only require a salary when taken on campaign. Knight salary is historically about 2 shillings (24 p) per day, but he will in turn pay one squire (1s/day if a seargent, if just a boy than salary will be nominal or perhaps knight is even paid), possibly one additional hireling (1 or 2 p per day as a non-combatant), and feed 2 to 3 horses of his own (2 to 3 p in fodder for each day per horse) on this salary. |
|
|
|
Post by bhoritz on Sept 7, 2015 17:05:53 GMT -5
Knights are retained by land-grant, and thus only require a salary when taken on campaign. Not all knights are landed knights. They can be landless and just in the payroll of a higher noble, being paid by the money raised as scutage (money paid to one's lord to avoid war service). Being little more than mercenaries, they can hope to receive a grant of land, depending on service. Landed knights are only receiving pay when the service for which they are called is more than the time they owes to their lord. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Sept 8, 2015 11:00:28 GMT -5
Landless "knights" were rarely knights, unless they were a member of a religious order. Knighthood was obtained by heredity, vassalage, or by purchasing your way into an order for a fee so great you would surely be a property holder.
It was prohibitively difficult to be knighted for pure competance, loyalty, or skill at arms.
The term for unknighted, but highly skilled and well armed/armored fighting-man is a Sargeant (a troop classification, not a rank), and these men were still very well paid (10-12 p /day). Occasionally Sargeants could be knighted, but this generally took a lifetime of exceptional military service by which point they were too old to fight, and too rich to be landless.
|
|
|
|
Post by bhoritz on Sept 8, 2015 13:32:02 GMT -5
It probably depends a lot on the period and land. If you take a view at the early periods, all you have is mention of "miles", meaning a mounted fighter and there is no difference made between landed or landless (the same term is used). The confusion in terms stems from the use of Knight as a noble level, as a category of fighters and the knighthood as a kind of chivalric distinction. Those aspects are not always together depending on time and place (sooner in France, later in Germany). There are other sources, but there is a good explanation in Medieval Knighthood V: Papers from the Sixth Strawberry Hill Conference 1994
To summarize, the early knights (and up to the twelfth century) were  Primogeniture alone ensure that there is a lot of landless knights available for service of the higher nobles (and churchmen). Scutage was specifically developed to enable the use of household knights instead of the less reliable feudal ones. Any noble whose vasselage imposed, for exemple, to provide 5 knights for a period of sixty days could maintain 5 knights as landed vassals to himself or have 5 household knights or any mix in between. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 8, 2015 14:01:43 GMT -5
There are knights without land (probably the majority, early on) and there are knights with land, but without the right to hold court therein. All knights are bound in service to a vassal lord.
Either way, for simplicity of abstraction and lightness of rules, I am just associating the manorial estate with a "knight."
|
|
|
|
Post by bhoritz on Sept 8, 2015 14:32:11 GMT -5
Either way, for simplicity of abstraction and lightness of rules, I am just associating the manorial estate with a "knight." That is indeed necessary. Middle-ages were not very concerned by consistency and medieval "real rules" would be unwieldy (in a way, there was not much rules, just a lot of ad hoc situations). If you want to have gaming material, you have to make usable rules. Medieval reality would make organizing a campaign a nightmare. Just for fun:  And we have not yet even spoken about money-fief |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 18, 2015 17:48:00 GMT -5
More notes as per the rules as per written. Moving on to M&T but with constant reference to the rest of the rules. Men appear in numbers of 30-300. I take it that this means rolling 3d10 and multiplying the result by 10. Because if it is 30d10 (as p. 6 seems to imply) then I am going to go temporarily insane. How far off am I on this one, waysoftheearth? Now, interestingly, in U&WA there are from 30-180 men at any given castle encounter. Composition of force being not unlike that in a random wilderness encounter. Okay, both are base 30. But one is 3d10 while the other is 3d6. Their base is the same: 30. Wilderness encounter average would be 165 men (whether 3d10X10 or 30d10); while a random castle encounter has a random force of 105. That is a difference of 60. At utmost extreme we have 180, castle, vs. 300 on the road. That is a difference of 120, almost half. Why are their fewer men at a castle than on the road? What I am picking up from this includes the following: There is a kind of "bottom limit unit" of 30. So let's call that a basic company and assign it to a knight serving as its captain. This would be the basic unit of a manor at its fortified manor house and it would be what the lord of the manner would call up in fealty when necessary for war. I perceive this to be confirmed in the rule that every 30 men will have a 4th lvl Hero (as their captain, I would presume). Now if the average barony has 5 (average of 2d4) villages, then our average barony unit is now 150; that is not the average of 3d6X10, but it is half of 300, so, notable to me nonetheless. So here is what I see going on. There are less troops at any given castle because the castle's main defense is the castle itself. There are more troops when on the road because these represent conscripts and called-up subordinates marching off to war somewhere. The baron has gathered his collective subordinates across all his villages and manor houses. But why aren't they much bigger than this 300 "cap"? Because some must be left behind for defense? Perhaps? For every 50 men there will be a 5-6th lvl fighting-man. Perhaps this is a battalion under a major. 3 of these roughly correspond to the barony-level with its liege lord. For every 100 men there will be a 8-9th lvl FM. Perhaps this is a column under a colonel. The column with its colonel may roughly correspond to a county-sized unit. Let us for a moment presume that a baron could become an earl by having other barons swear fealty. Let us further presume that the charisma limit on unusual hirelings could be cross applied to this case as well. The average baron with county aspirations could convince up to 4 barons to swear to him. If he had 150 available troops, all he would need to reach the in-game max of 300 would be to call upon one other comparable baron. This is where we start getting troops of 300 on the march in the wilderness. What about bigger armies? Well, surely an entire kingdom's army could be on the move. But these would, presumably, be in more civilized or at least border-land scenarios and not found wandering about in the wilderness! And then there is simply level of scale issues. Once we get over 300 men per side, Chainmail moves into its own cumbersome zone. Something even more abstract (like, say Risk?) may be necessary to resolve warfare at the kingdom+ levels. That is all I can dig out of M&M for now. Next up: U&WA! |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 19, 2015 1:08:07 GMT -5
Men appear in numbers of 30-300. I take it that this means rolling 3d10 and multiplying the result by 10. Because if it is 30d10 (as p. 6 seems to imply) then I am going to go temporarily insane. How far off am I on this one, waysoftheearth? Hey tetramorph, sorry I haven't had time to read all this topic, so I'm unqualified to comment on your extrapolations. However, worthwhile noting an important distinction between OD&D and later editions is that OD&D expresses randomness as number ranges, while later editions express randomness as d-notation. The later is prescriptive; "3d10" means you must throw three ten-sided dice and sum the results. It's up to the ref (or player) to figure out that this produces results in the range 3 to 30, and what this might imply. The former is not prescriptive; "3-30" tells you only what numbers are legal, but not how they must be generated. The 1973 draft of OD&D describes using a deck of playing cards to draw random numbers between 1 and 100 so it's clear that possession of ten-sided dice was not assumed at the time much of the text was composed. Even the 1974 M&M doesn't mention ten-siders in the Recommended Equipment (M&M p5), although twenty-sided dice would probably have been marked 0-9 twice in 1974. End result is: 1d271+29 is as appropriate as (3d10)*10 or as 30d10, or as simply declaring "300". Practical reality is that 3d10*10 is rather easy to accomplish today, but that's for you to decide. FWIW, I believe the "Number Encountered" stat is primarily useful as the number encountered in a lair, and perhaps of secondary use for field armies (which--in most fantasy literature and games--are typically composed of multiple types rather than of just one type). In either case these encounters would be the "big ones" where treasure (lair) or campaign politics (army) are at stake. I don't believe the "number encountered" stat or the wider rules imply that every single wilderness encounter "on the road" must be at a lair or with a field army. In fact, the "% Lair" stat says only 15% of encounters with Men will be in their lair. The other 85% of encounters must therefore be outside their lair, and could very easily be with fewer Men. I.e., although Robin Hood and his merry band operated almost exclusively outdoors, they are rarely depicted encountering any more than a score of the Baron's Men. They only ever risk facing 100+ Men at the Baron's castle (i.e., his "lair"). Note also that U&WA p12 says (discussing numbers of monsters encountered underground): "There can be places where 300 Hobgoblins dwell, but how many can come abreast down a typical passage in the dungeons?". So it seems to me that a Hobgoblin lair (where "Hobgoblins dwell") of hundreds can occur in the dungeon setting just as it can in the wilderness setting. I agree it's inconvenient that the numbers encountered at strongholds don't line up with the numbers encountered at lairs. Moreover, you many note that clerics will attract 50-300 "faithful men" when they build a stronghold (M&M p7), yet the EHP will have 30-180 guards at his stronghold (U&WA p16), so even the stronghold figures don't line up exactly. All this is potentially "explainable" at a stretch, but it seems probable the discrepancy may be due to the source material coming from the different authors, or being written, or edited, at different times in the game development. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 20, 2015 14:40:31 GMT -5
waysoftheearth, right, I am aware of the d-notation history. My non-quick-mathematical mind just likes that. But your explanation of the flexibility that range notation gives the ref I find really helpful. Thanks on that one. Just yesterday we had to roll up a dragon's hoard. They have between 10-40 items of jewelry. We go round the circle to roll up random treasures. The player reached for 1d4 and I said, do you want something less linear and more curvy? So they rolled 10d4 much to their benefit. Thanks on that one. (I'm not sure if I'll ever use 1d271+29, but it is a fun thought-experiment!) Thanks, also, for helping me to clear up the difference between in lair or no. I think, going forward, I will roll to determine if in lair, first. If in lair, then 30-300. If on the march, I will probably opt for lower than that, say 30-180, again. That is some good insight. Thank you. I agree that dungeons can hold lairs. In fact, I tend to think of each lvl as the lair of one key denizen while others dwell in their midst, at odds, for mutual benefit, or unawares. So I absolutely place one lair per lvl in my dungeons. I am glad to know I have good precedence for that! I am sure the discrepancy is an historical artifact and unplanned. But I follow your now famous lead in trying to make some sense out of the numbers, not for rules lawyering and strict adherence, but to imagine and extrapolate reasonable rulings from what is already sitting there on the page. Thanks for the interaction. Read above and join your voice if you can!
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 20, 2015 19:32:32 GMT -5
I follow your now famous lead  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 29, 2015 14:54:51 GMT -5
Great thread guys and very useful stuff. Hope I get a chance to use some or all of it.  |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 24, 2015 12:31:21 GMT -5
The Red Baron , bhoritz , waysoftheearth , Admin Pete , et al: More notes as per U&WA: I think I will need to divide this up into more than one post. In his one, I am going to concentrate on all the hints we get at baronies and barony level play from all the other sections of U&WA so that I can concentrate on the sections specifically dedicated to baronies in another post. The wilderness "really" (why that word choice, I wonder?) consists of unexplored land, cities and castles, and the immediate surrounding area of the "castle" where folks start their adventures. I think this implied a distinction between wilderness and some kind of relative "civilization," where then playing characters start out. B2 the Keep on the Borderlands, would come out in the late 70's. We now have the traditional three classes of territory: civilized, borderland, wilderness. I think this distinction should be given simple but interesting and rewarding game-mechanics that reward wilderness exploration and the building of baronies that progress from borderland to civilization. When the use of Outdoor Survival is suggested, all the ponds are turned into castles and all the buildings are towns (or villages). Again, extrapolating from my table, above, I would assume the following: an independent castle is that of a knight (or wanna be knight, of course) who is attempting to become the lord of his own barony but has not yet succeeded. I therefore assume that a castle also has an associated village around it, but it is small (population on the low end of the d4 roll, so, 100) and merely subsistence in level. Villages encountered I assume always to have some kind of fortification. It makes no sense to me that there could be some village of peace-loving denizens of democracy living in the wilderness with no walls and no army! But the villages encountered I assume are a part of a lord's network of a barony he holds or is building up. Thus the population may be on the higher end of the d4 range (up to 400). Note: I also understand population to mean able-bodied and thus conscriptable men. I like the tradition of assuming 5 people to every conscriptable male. So a village of 100-400 has more like 500 to 2K people living in it. This seems to match up well with medieval demographics I have run into on the webs. Again, note the base 30 for castle guards. I take this to be a basic company under the captainship of a knight appointed (by self or lord) as bailiff of the garrison. A thought: perhaps at higher levels of campaign play this basic unit of 30 could serve as the basic "counter" in a "hex and counter" style wargame! (I would love that!) I find it fascinating (and encouraging, especially as per my points, above, about how D&D was originally designed as a system to coordinate a wargames campaign) that the construction of castles and strongholds is its own section, and prior to the section on baronies. So, again, I take this to mean that before a character can establish a barony of multiple manors and claim a title of lord, he must first establish his own manor and claim the title of knight. This would be only subsistence in economy, but it would be the start to "launch" his "career." Again, I do not think that the number of specialists hirable should be limited by the charisma score. It should be limited by availability and what the character can afford. I believe that charisma limit on retainers should apply only to the employ of lvl-ed NPCs of PC classes and to the allegiance of vassals, seperately. Again, in order to encourage wargaming. The cost table on p. 23 I interpret to indicate monthly cost of a standing army. I think the same table could easily be applied to the weekly hire of such troops for wilderness clearing and their daily hire for dungeon endangerment. Non-fighters can be expanded for such things as cooks, porters, etc. Light or heavy foot expanded for bodyguards, shield-bearers, etc. Advertisement costs should really be only for establishing standing armies and details for wilderness clearing. Finding some hirelings at the local tavern for a dungeon crawl should cost 1/100 of that in terms of rounds of ale! This way of reading the spirit rather than the letter of the rules keeps the campaign world flexible. I do not think the 1% XP to GP PC support and upkeep is really significant enough to encourage wargame and barony play. I would make it 10%. I would exact this once, upon each respective accrual of XP. I would also demand at least a tithe from lawful and chaotic players to their respective churches, regardless of whether they are clerics or not. Thus getting free of the support tax would feel like a real goal. Skipping the (very brief!) "Baronies" section, we come to the detailing of combat. The combat in no way suggests a game where 20th lvl PCs are still down on the 30 lvl of some dungeon. The rules all imply wargame scenarios. I especially like the suggestion for "written orders"! Okay, that is probably enough for now. Next post I will concentrate on the barony rules, as provided and my suggestions from all of the above on how to expand upon them but still maintain a "rules light" feel.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Nov 25, 2015 0:10:43 GMT -5
The above assumes English names. "Earl" is retained from Anglo-Saxon "Jarl," of a Shire. Normans imposed continental "county" over "shire," but England did not adopt the continental title for the freeholder, "count" (but that is very good for vampires!). Other terms could be employed for "cultural diversity," e.g., thane, canton, etc. Minor nitpick: jarl comes from Norse and eorl is the AS word which I am fairly sure come from the same root. Well, I don't vouch for this site never having seen it before but here is an etymology: www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=earl |
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Nov 25, 2015 0:18:50 GMT -5
I have not been keeping up with this thread, but I will try to read it over on the long weekend.
I am working on something similar although I am taking a different approach. I am working toward writing tax rolls for entire kingdoms, and right now I am developing a single ordinary manor. I hope to eventually come up with a fairly detailed economic/ political model capable of simulating a feudal economy with detail possible down to individual farms and other family enterprises.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Dec 21, 2015 15:14:01 GMT -5
Nice thread!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on May 7, 2016 21:57:49 GMT -5
Historical Justification for in-game Taxation Abstractions:
Nobles auctioned off tax collecting privledge to the highest biddder.
The noble would recieve a lump sum of money, and not have to worry about the details of how many pounds of potatoes and hours of labor were collected in taxes.
A Baron can collect the revenue as prescribed in the 3lbbs and let the tax collecter worry about robbing the peasants blind.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 22, 2016 17:26:15 GMT -5
The Red Baron , bhoritz , waysoftheearth , Admin Pete , jmccann , and captaincrumbcake : Here is my most recent attempt to put all this into practice in my current Outdoor Survival Campaign: I have been pleasantly surprised at how the recursive nature of the deal has allowed me to describe some amazingly rules-lite game mechanics to map what is otherwise some pretty dense "fluff" (see all that verbiage, above!). Please do let me know what you think.
|
|
