In anyone's campaigns has the use of campfires in any setting (Underground, woodland, etc) caused unwanted attention? Such as hungry animals, enemy patrols or scrying wizards? Reason I bring it up is that campfires are a beacon to anyone/thing in the area and would seek out the source. Which could cause the party to have more night time encounters than they wish. Or have the campaigns glossed that over to keep things moving? I tend to have the party take the risk of cooking meat, dim light from even a small campfire and smell of smoke if they do make one. After all if in humanoid territory those night patrols are going to come visiting if they notice a campfire in the distance which means the wizards will have to read their books before it gets too dark or by casting globe of lights. Not to mention eating rations instead of cooking a meal whose smell carries for a good distance. Thanks.
Quote from: leo54304 on July 10, 2021, 02:43:44 PM
In anyone's campaigns has the use of campfires in any setting (Underground, woodland, etc) caused unwanted attention? Such as hungry animals, enemy patrols or scrying wizards? Reason I bring it up is that campfires are a beacon to anyone/thing in the area and would seek out the source. Which could cause the party to have more night time encounters than they wish. Or have the campaigns glossed that over to keep things moving? I tend to have the party take the risk of cooking meat, dim light from even a small campfire and smell of smoke if they do make one. After all if in humanoid territory those night patrols are going to come visiting if they notice a campfire in the distance which means the wizards will have to read their books before it gets too dark or by casting globe of lights. Not to mention eating rations instead of cooking a meal whose smell carries for a good distance. Thanks.
Animals not so much... most instinctively fear fire. Its the intelligent critters you've gotta worry about and that is VERY dependent on the creature's goals and practicality.
As a practical matter, anyone who can make a fire can also make a weapon so if you're looking for food its a second choice to something unarmed like a deer. Mostly those who will investigate fires are local warriors (to see if they're a threat) and bandits (hoping to acquire loot). In either case they're going to scout you before attacking.
In the case of warriors, if you're just passing through and look sufficiently armed that someone could die, why risk it... they aren't staying in your territory. Particularly stringent ones might opt to approach a heavily armed party under the color of law and as a warning ("you're camping in the Lord's Forest; Pack up and depart immediately" or "You're camping in the Lord's Forest, we can issue a permit for X gp/head" depending on the Lord and or troops). If they look weak, it really depends on what the goals of the warriors are and how they think your camping party might fulfill those goals.
Bandits will similarly judge based on risk vs. reward. That guy in robes with a staff tipped with a ram skull means stealth or a con job might be better than trying to rush them.
I roll up campfire issues into the more general issue of getting good sleep, good food, and avoiding attention. Without getting specific on mechanics as it varies by system, what I typically do is make a call on the quality of the location. Finding a decently sheltered location, with plenty of time to set up a campfire and get it down to coals (i.e. not much smoke) before it gets late means normal rules for being spotted and normal rules for healing. So that is the default that the party is aiming for. Having to eat cold food in the rain while something is stalking you means no natural recuperation. Something between those is usually some kind of modifier to rolls or results or both. (Of course, when doing this, I also give bonuses for locations that are much better than the default.)
In my own system I've got a few rules for it. I've done house rules for it in a few systems. However, in effect it means that the players put in a little effort to have shelter, have food, etc. and thus avoid invoking those rules. So a little GM judgment can go a long way once the players are in that mindset. Maybe that's just my players, but when I convey to them just how grubby and nasty they are getting in bad conditions, they usually want to do something about it. :D
Quote from: leo54304 on July 10, 2021, 02:43:44 PM
wizards will have to read their books before it gets too dark or by casting globe of lights.
On a dark night a real-life human with normal vision can spot a match being struck one mile away. In a pre-industrial society or in the real wilds, you would expect a globe of light to attract as much attention as a campfire. Perhaps if the moon is full and the light is mostly contained, it might not be an issue...
But generally, trying to determine whether a hasty campfire that is put out at dusk or a fire that burns through the night (especially assuming they take some effort to hide it from notice) is an awful lot of work that you can just offload to encounter probability tables. If you roll and encounter, and you roll gnolls, you can assume that they came because of the fire. If you don't roll an encounter, you can assume that the wild animals were discouraged by the light.
Tonight IMC the PCs spotted a campfire in the woods and attacked the orcs round it. So yeah.
If running a pretty grounded campaign, I'd probably try to come up with a rough system and few tables.
* Roll to create a campfire
* Roll for campfire visibility
* Roll for other camp effects (scent, noise)
Campfire increases risk of humanoid encounters substantially, reduces animal encounters (unless cooking meals).
Create a "stress" track to judge how much effort the player characters are taking to remain concealed. Eventually stress track progression could impose other conditions.
As others have pointed out, depends on the fire and also when.
Camp fires produce smoke. This can be seen from potentially many many miles away.
Camp fires at night can be spotted from a similar amount of distance.
But.
Things like terrain, especially a dense forest can obscure a camp fire really fast. This I learned from outdoor school. Light forest and really sparse forest are going to allow spotting from longer ranges. Same for spotting from the air.
In older versions of D&D you had things like infravision and ultravision which might skew things way off kilter depending.
Quote from: S'mon on July 10, 2021, 05:49:45 PM
Tonight IMC the PCs spotted a campfire in the woods and attacked the orcs round it. So yeah.
Didn't go that well - Gruumsh was definitely with the Orcs! Three PCs at 0 hp, one PC (their scout, who was a bit incautious) dead by the time the fight was over.
If you want to give them a negative for having a campfire etc, you need to give them a positive to explain why anyone would do it.
So you can have things like a comfortable night's sleep gives you a +1 to Constitution to the next day, and hot food +1 to Strength, a scop/bard's song gives +1 to Wisdom, that sort of thing.
Certainly if there are hirelings and men-at-arms, the conditions ought to affect their morale and loyalty. It's not just gold, after all, what will people use gold for? Making life comfortable.
Most people don't realise just how much you need to carry if you're carrying everything you need, and how long it takes to set up camp etc. This video goes into the gear carried.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2021, 05:43:57 AM
If you want to give them a negative for having a campfire etc, you need to give them a positive to explain why anyone would do it.
That's a good point. Or, to keep it simple, just don't penalise them for having a camp fire - just assume that the default rate and chance of random encounters applies WITH one.
Well, two things.
If a campfire is the default, then players will choose not to have one - however miserable it would actually make their characters and hirelings, unless that's encoded in the rules, most players will just shrug and let their characters suffer.
Secondly, players being human respond better to a choice between two positives than a positive and a negative. For example,
"You can have a campfire, hot food and good sleep, and get +1 to Str/Con tomorrow, OR you can not have a campfire, eat iron rations and have a restless sleep, and have +1 to avoid wandering monsters."
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2021, 05:43:57 AM
If you want to give them a negative for having a campfire etc, you need to give them a positive to explain why anyone would do it.
Very much this.
One problem is that negatives from fatigue, cold, uncooked food or general discomfort aren't well modeled in D&D, or rpgs generally. And layering them on after the fact is both cumbersome mechanically, and resisted by players. So there's no obvious mechanical reason for a fire, when really there'd be a lot of reasons for one.
And the general problem is the urge to model or fix just one thing, without thinking about how it interacts with the rest of the game. To "fix" fires attracting attention means you also need to think about the rest of the game, and how much detail other systems get into.
And as an aside, there are in fact ways to build a fire with much less smoke and visibility than the typical modern campfire. I'd assume a ranger or other character with bushcraft would know how to do this, and roll it into "assume PC competence" rather than just decree that the players made a big smoky fire out in the open.
Another tangent - I make fire scary to some monsters, as well as natural animals. For one example I run ghouls as being cowardly but hungry, so fire or flares can scare them off for a time.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2021, 05:43:57 AM
If you want to give them a negative for having a campfire etc, you need to give them a positive to explain why anyone would do it.
I went with a very simple reason for my game. In order to recover health from a rest you need adequate food, water, heat, protection from the elements, and so on. If you need heat or you need to cook your food, you need a fire.
Quote from: Premier on July 11, 2021, 07:19:36 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2021, 05:43:57 AM
If you want to give them a negative for having a campfire etc, you need to give them a positive to explain why anyone would do it.
That's a good point. Or, to keep it simple, just don't penalise them for having a camp fire - just assume that the default rate and chance of random encounters applies WITH one.
You make a fire for warmth, prepping food, to keep animals away.
And if you are in potentially hostile lands then all of the above are penalties because they up the chances you will be spotted.
Efforts were made during WWII to counter this problem. Things like smokeless heating materials I believe.
A spell like Heat metal would be very useful for cooking without fire or smoke.
Consider though that cooking food no matter can attract attention too.
But if I recall right AD&D at least notes that the encounter rates are based on a party that is being careful. If they are not then the chances should be increased.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2021, 08:08:40 AMIf a campfire is the default, then players will choose not to have one - however miserable it would actually make their characters and hirelings, unless that's encoded in the rules, most players will just shrug and let their characters suffer.
Excellent point. Maybe also, 'making camp' could involve a Survival roll to see how well they made camp. Whatever the roll was, could become the DC of someone to spot the camp that wasn't otherwise looking. Adventurers that have survival are going to know a few things about making camp that might otherwise be obvious, but aren't obvious to the players themselves.
Smoke can be reduced by using dry firewood, avoiding green wood, and allowing airflow. If magic is available, you might use some low-level wind manipulation to keep the smoke under control.
One trick I've been wanting to do for a while is using alchemy or magic to change the fire's color to a deep red or violet. Red light has a higher wavelength, so it's less visible from longer distances.
Quote from: Mishihari on July 11, 2021, 01:06:16 PM
I went with a very simple reason for my game. In order to recover health from a rest you need adequate food, water, heat, protection from the elements, and so on. If you need heat or you need to cook your food, you need a fire.
Sure. In D&Dish games though, PCs will usually have magical healing. So they're happy to live a rather shitty lifestyle otherwise. Which is kind of counterintuitive, since instant availability of water, food, heat or cooling and entertainment hasn't made modern Westerner exactly stoically spartan, has it?
I'm toying with the idea of a more realistic-themed D&D. In this you'd max out at 3 hit dice of hit points, higher levels would allow you to reroll with the extra dice (eg 4th level fighter rolls 4d10 and keeps 3 highest, 8th level rolls 8d10 and keeps 3 highest, etc). Magic would be slower, for example Cure Light Wounds means poultices and things, and you get the HP back overnight rather than instantly.
In this kind of world, having a campfire or not would be a serious choice. If you're a typical 5th level D&D party, not so much, usually.
It's a given that it doesn't make sense to try to have meaningful mechanics about campfires in a game world if low-level wizards can just create extraplanar spaces to camp in.
In my D&D-like system, I've set it up so that magic doesn't recover nearly so well without the food and shelter. It's not slots or mana points but you can think of it in those terms for comparison to D&D. Moreover, the magic is geared to normally take about a week to fully recover. So what you get overnight is not dependable and not full. Having good food and shelter improves your chances.
I did this specifically to counteract the tendency of magic to not make food and rest matter so much at higher levels.
Campfires are the default, as you note. If it bothers you, assume that incredibly spiteful wizards with long memories reach high levels and then go back over their old haunts to every place where they had their rest ruined by nighttime ambushes, and set up long-lived night-time traps with Continual Flame tailored to mimic a campfire, persistent illusions of sleeping adventurers, and Explosive Runes everywhere, and that the random encounter roll isn't for whether the orc patrol can see the campfire from miles away or not, but if they think it's worth the risk to approach.
The other big reason for having a campfire is one I'm not sure how to make important in an RPG - just being able to see after sundown. Light is handwaved in most RPGs in actual play and sometimes in the rules as well. If you can't see it's hard to do maintenance and you're at a big disadvantage in a night time attack where your enemies can see well in the dark. Without a light you're pretty much done for the day when the sun goes down.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2021, 05:43:57 AM
If you want to give them a negative for having a campfire etc, you need to give them a positive to explain why anyone would do it.
So you can have things like a comfortable night's sleep gives you a +1 to Constitution to the next day, and hot food +1 to Strength, a scop/bard's song gives +1 to Wisdom, that sort of thing.
Certainly if there are hirelings and men-at-arms, the conditions ought to affect their morale and loyalty. It's not just gold, after all, what will people use gold for? Making life comfortable.
Most people don't realise just how much you need to carry if you're carrying everything you need, and how long it takes to set up camp etc. This video goes into the gear carried.
I guess most people dont go do hike in camping with their kids. Having done it, you really understand that any adventurer who can afford it is going to have pack animals or porters, or both.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 12, 2021, 04:16:27 PM
I guess most people dont go do hike in camping with their kids. Having done it, you really understand that any adventurer who can afford it is going to have pack animals or porters, or both.
Definitely. I've done hiking/camping with my son for scouts, and even with modern lightweight tents, bags, stoves, etc, it gets pretty freakin' heavy after a few miles. Especially up steep hills and over >:( sand.
Quote from: Mishihari on July 12, 2021, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on July 12, 2021, 04:16:27 PM
I guess most people dont go do hike in camping with their kids. Having done it, you really understand that any adventurer who can afford it is going to have pack animals or porters, or both.
Definitely. I've done hiking/camping with my son for scouts, and even with modern lightweight tents, bags, stoves, etc, it gets pretty freakin' heavy after a few miles. Especially up steep hills and over >:( sand.
A lot of that weight is conveniences and comforts for modern standards, rather than necessities. The same goes for campfires. People can live for quite a while on preserved foods like pemmican, and especially if there is moonlight, eyesight is good enough for practical purposes.
If the characters are trying to sneak behind enemy lines or similar, then I think not lighting campfires would be reasonable and practical. On the other hand, normal travel shouldn't be that dangerous. I try not to punish players for behaving in normal ways to keep their lives comfortable.
Quote from: jhkim on July 12, 2021, 05:34:32 PM
A lot of that weight is conveniences and comforts for modern standards, rather than necessities.
Well, the way I see it, most medieval villagers never went more than twenty miles from their home village - a day's walk, doss down in the next village's inn or someone's kitchen in front of their fire, walk home the next day. Going further than that would mean some long-term discomfort and hardship. If there were better convenience and comforts available, then more of them would have gone further from home!
The closest we have in our modern world to adventurers is the army. And even those guys are pretty well-supplied. Still I think I can say that adventuring really would be a miserable business, most of the time.
So if you
did take some of those conveniences and comforts, the morale of your hirelings and men-at-arms would be a lot higher.
It's possible to know a lot about medieval life and also NOT know a lot.
Pilgrimages, and not just to the Holy Land were definitely a thing and not just for nobles. If you have Platemail, you should probably have pilgrim travelers. Canterbury Tales was 1392. Santiago de Compestela became a pilgrimage site in the 800s. If a sick grandma with boils on her bottom could make the trek, it wasn't as harsh as you might think.
Remember that History 'is written by the winners' and a lot of original scholarship was along the lines of 'things are pretty great now, even though we live in one-room row homes with no plumbing g or electricity. I'm not saying that life was grand, but it wasn't perhaps as 'nasty, brutish, and shodt' as you've been led to believe.
Quote from: jhkim on July 12, 2021, 05:34:32 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on July 12, 2021, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on July 12, 2021, 04:16:27 PM
I guess most people dont go do hike in camping with their kids. Having done it, you really understand that any adventurer who can afford it is going to have pack animals or porters, or both.
Definitely. I've done hiking/camping with my son for scouts, and even with modern lightweight tents, bags, stoves, etc, it gets pretty freakin' heavy after a few miles. Especially up steep hills and over >:( sand.
A lot of that weight is conveniences and comforts for modern standards, rather than necessities. The same goes for campfires. People can live for quite a while on preserved foods like pemmican, and especially if there is moonlight, eyesight is good enough for practical purposes.
If the characters are trying to sneak behind enemy lines or similar, then I think not lighting campfires would be reasonable and practical. On the other hand, normal travel shouldn't be that dangerous. I try not to punish players for behaving in normal ways to keep their lives comfortable.
Since I'm the one who packed and carried it, I can tell you that most of it I considered necessities. Necessity is in the eye of the beholder though. In warm weather you can certainly survive without a tent. But being rained on some days, waking up wet from dew every day, and spending your morning all wet would be pretty awful.
And modern equipment is crazy better than back in the bad old days. My hiking tent is 5 pounds. If water is available I carry a 1 pound purifier rather than a gallon or so of actual water.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on July 12, 2021, 08:13:10 PM
It's possible to know a lot about medieval life and also NOT know a lot.
Pilgrimages, and not just to the Holy Land were definitely a thing and not just for nobles. If you have Platemail, you should probably have pilgrim travelers. Canterbury Tales was 1392. Santiago de Compestela became a pilgrimage site in the 800s. If a sick grandma with boils on her bottom could make the trek, it wasn't as harsh as you might think.
Remember that History 'is written by the winners' and a lot of original scholarship was along the lines of 'things are pretty great now, even though we live in one-room row homes with no plumbing g or electricity. I'm not saying that life was grand, but it wasn't perhaps as 'nasty, brutish, and shodt' as you've been led to believe.
Greetings!
That's right, deadDMwalking. The pilgrimages--to many places throughout the land--often involved tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people, *every year*. There were entire industries and livelihoods established to specifically cater to the needs, desires, and expectations of hordes of traveling pilgrims. Taverns, roadside inns, relic merchants and peddlers of every kind of religious trinket, souvenir, and memorabilia. Ferries to cross rivers, watering stations, even smaller shrines and celebrated locations of "St. Hippo's Epic Journeys, who stayed here, and healed people here!" and the like. I certainly think that many of your more *isolated* rural folk may have lived very isolated lives, but there is significant evidence that a lot more people--ordinary people--not just nobles and rich merchants, engaged in considerably more travel than many people once believed.
I'm fond of "Nasty, Brutish, and Short!" though! ;D Lots of wallowing in mud, sleeping with pigs and chickens, and dying young!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 12, 2021, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: jhkim on July 12, 2021, 05:34:32 PM
A lot of that weight is conveniences and comforts for modern standards, rather than necessities.
Well, the way I see it, most medieval villagers never went more than twenty miles from their home village - a day's walk, doss down in the next village's inn or someone's kitchen in front of their fire, walk home the next day. Going further than that would mean some long-term discomfort and hardship. If there were better convenience and comforts available, then more of them would have gone further from home!
The closest we have in our modern world to adventurers is the army. And even those guys are pretty well-supplied. Still I think I can say that adventuring really would be a miserable business, most of the time.
So if you did take some of those conveniences and comforts, the morale of your hirelings and men-at-arms would be a lot higher.
I have a bunch of quibbles about this - but I agree with the core point that realistically, adventuring would be a miserable business. However, if the GM sets out to make adventuring miserable for the characters, that can detract rather than enhance the experience of the game.
I think the simplest route is just to skip all the details that make travel miserable. If I want to push more realism and have the PCs take wagon trains and caravans to supply long journeys, I try my best to make it fun for them rather than a constant drag of nitpicking them with details and vulnerabilities.
In practice, I've seen a lot of GMs push back if players try to have an expedition with lots of porters, pack animals, and other support characters for them -- because it comes across as unheroic and breaks assumptions.
Quote from: jhkim on July 12, 2021, 08:42:09 PMif the GM sets out to make adventuring miserable for the characters, that can detract rather than enhance the experience of the game.
It's just one of the things to consider when planning the expedition - and once it's done, generally it can be forgotten about at the game table.
QuoteIn practice, I've seen a lot of GMs push back if players try to have an expedition with lots of porters, pack animals, and other support characters for them -- because it comes across as unheroic and breaks assumptions.
Those GMs are dumb. We call it an adventuring
campaign for a reason. There's a reason it's 30-300 bandits - someone's got to cook the gruel, after all.
Too many gamers have never read the
AD&D1e Player's Handbook back section, from p.101 onwards. "THE ADVENTURE" first paragraph tells us to gather information and hire men-at-arms, get mounts and so on if we can.
Quote from: jhkim on July 12, 2021, 05:34:32 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on July 12, 2021, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on July 12, 2021, 04:16:27 PM
I guess most people dont go do hike in camping with their kids. Having done it, you really understand that any adventurer who can afford it is going to have pack animals or porters, or both.
Definitely. I've done hiking/camping with my son for scouts, and even with modern lightweight tents, bags, stoves, etc, it gets pretty freakin' heavy after a few miles. Especially up steep hills and over >:( sand.
A lot of that weight is conveniences and comforts for modern standards, rather than necessities. The same goes for campfires. People can live for quite a while on preserved foods like pemmican, and especially if there is moonlight, eyesight is good enough for practical purposes.
If the characters are trying to sneak behind enemy lines or similar, then I think not lighting campfires would be reasonable and practical. On the other hand, normal travel shouldn't be that dangerous. I try not to punish players for behaving in normal ways to keep their lives comfortable.
No alot of that weight is not modern comforts for modern standards. Hike in camping is not the same as pulling up the car. If you have to go 3+ miles in and 3+ miles to get back out, you are not carrying the cot/chairs/tables, etc. I agree about the normal travel though. But only in regularly patrolled areas with fairly strong government forces of some sort. When my players take a trip through the border kingdoms of Hyboria, they know they are in no man's land and they take plenty of hired swords for the trip. So they make fires and cook meat, because they are smart enough to take their protection with them. There is a reason people did not travel far from their place of birth in the Dark and Middle ages.
If anyone's interested, Marjorie Kempe's autobiography makes for an interesting read. She was a commoner who lived in the 14th and 15th century England, wrote the first autobiography in the English language (though she couldn't read or write), had at least 14 children, believed she heard the voice of God, had visions, wore a hair shirt, wailed in religious devotion, was put on trial for heresy (many times), ran 2 businesses (home mill and brewery), wrote about her lecherous inclinations, managed to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, then visited many holy sites in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, and across England, all while exasperating everyone who met her.
Quote from: Pat on July 12, 2021, 09:02:25 PM
If anyone's interested, Marjorie Kempe's autobiography makes for an interesting read. She was a commoner who lived in the 14th and 15th century England, wrote the first autobiography in the English language (though she couldn't read or write), had at least 14 children, believed she heard the voice of God, had visions, wore a hair shirt, wailed in religious devotion, was put on trial for heresy (many times), ran 2 businesses (home mill and brewery), wrote about her lecherous inclinations, managed to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, then visited many holy sites in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, and across England, all while exasperating everyone who met her.
Greetings!
Goddamn, Pat! That book by that medieval chick sounds like pure *awesome*! I will be sure to get it. Very cool!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on July 12, 2021, 09:07:57 PM
Goddamn, Pat! That book by that medieval chick sounds like pure *awesome*! I will be sure to get it. Very cool!
It's a trip. She defies pretty much every expectation people have about medieval women, while still being very alien to the modern mindset.
A couple online editions:
http://english.selu.edu/humanitiesonline/kempe/showcase/webapp.php
https://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/publication/staley-the-book-of-margery-kempe
Quote from: Zelen on July 11, 2021, 09:43:05 PM
It's a given that it doesn't make sense to try to have meaningful mechanics about campfires in a game world if low-level wizards can just create extraplanar spaces to camp in.
In D&D at least you cant to one degree or another. (Dont know about the magic expansion for O. Think at least Rope Trick shows up there?)
In O and BX no such safety spells exist.
It is not till AD&D that Rope Trick shows up in the main rules as a level 2 spell. It only lasts 10min per level of caster. Not long enough to camp in and possibly hardly any to even rest in. And the Tiny Hut as a level 3 spell. Lasting 1 hour per level of caster. But all it does is provide a tent of magic force that provides no protection from attacks. Does protect from the weather, heat and cold though and up to 50mph winds.
2e is where things get interesting. Rope Trick now lasts 20 min per level of caster and can not be attacked into from outside. The hut now lasts 4 hours +1/level of caster but is otherwise more or less the same. But it is 2e where Leomund's Secure Shelter at spell level 4 and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion at spell level 7 make it into the core books. The Shelter is pretty well protected and lasts 1d4+1 hours +1hr/lvl. The Mansion finally is where you get your extradimensional space. Lasting 1 hour/lvl. Not going to get access to that though till level 14. NOT a low level mage's thing. Secure Shelter Will not get access to till level 7.
While Rope Trick is not viable for camping in, it can make for a nice little hidy-hole long as foes dont think to look up if the rope is still outside. If the rope is in with the party then its probably going to be pretty hard to spot depending on where it is and the edition.
Past 2e the spells have shifted in various ways.
Quote from: Mishihari on July 12, 2021, 03:55:50 PM
The other big reason for having a campfire is one I'm not sure how to make important in an RPG - just being able to see after sundown. Light is handwaved in most RPGs in actual play and sometimes in the rules as well. If you can't see it's hard to do maintenance and you're at a big disadvantage in a night time attack where your enemies can see well in the dark. Without a light you're pretty much done for the day when the sun goes down.
Actually as was taught to us in outdoor school. The campfire actually near near blinds humans to anything outside the firelight radius if its bright enough and even lower lights can still impede sight to some degree. Campfire will make being snuck up on actually easier in a way. I believe torches have the same effect? Theres some vids up about this. Would lay good odds the military has tons of date on it too and just what the thresholds are.
Great if you need to read or repair something. But potentially horrible if you want to actually be safe from anything not afraid of fire that wants to get to know you better. In the not better sort of way.
Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2021, 11:13:53 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on July 12, 2021, 03:55:50 PM
The other big reason for having a campfire is one I'm not sure how to make important in an RPG - just being able to see after sundown. Light is handwaved in most RPGs in actual play and sometimes in the rules as well. If you can't see it's hard to do maintenance and you're at a big disadvantage in a night time attack where your enemies can see well in the dark. Without a light you're pretty much done for the day when the sun goes down.
Actually as was taught to us in outdoor school. The campfire actually near near blinds humans to anything outside the firelight radius if its bright enough and even lower lights can still impede sight to some degree. Campfire will make being snuck up on actually easier in a way. I believe torches have the same effect? Theres some vids up about this. Would lay good odds the military has tons of date on it too and just what the thresholds are.
Great if you need to read or repair something. But potentially horrible if you want to actually be safe from anything not afraid of fire that wants to get to know you better. In the not better sort of way.
I was actually thinking of wolves, which see much better in the dark than we do. You may not be able to see them lurking outside the firelight, but at least it's a much more even match if they come after you. For people you are correct - I recently saw a good youtube series on the topic. I actually think it posted on a discussion here.
Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2021, 11:13:53 PMCampfire will make being snuck up on actually easier in a way. I believe torches have the same effect? Theres some vids up about this. Would lay good odds the military has tons of date on it too and just what the thresholds are.
Interestingly, in the army (Australian, at least) they give you filters to put on your torch, and there's a red filter you use at night. Red light does not destroy your night vision. It's basically impossible to read maps or pencilled notes, you can read dark pen, though - and have enough light to find small items in your pack, etc. It also doesn't carry and attract others' eyes in the dark the way white light will. There are other colours like blue and yellow and green, too, but nobody could ever tell us what they were for, they probably just came as a package deal with the torches.
Continual Light - Red?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 13, 2021, 07:53:11 AM
Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2021, 11:13:53 PMCampfire will make being snuck up on actually easier in a way. I believe torches have the same effect? Theres some vids up about this. Would lay good odds the military has tons of date on it too and just what the thresholds are.
Interestingly, in the army (Australian, at least) they give you filters to put on your torch, and there's a red filter you use at night. Red light does not destroy your night vision. It's basically impossible to read maps or pencilled notes, you can read dark pen, though - and have enough light to find small items in your pack, etc. It also doesn't carry and attract others' eyes in the dark the way white light will. There are other colours like blue and yellow and green, too, but nobody could ever tell us what they were for, they probably just came as a package deal with the torches.
Continual Light - Red?
Red light is also used by pilots at night; during my instrument flight training I spent quite a bit of time flying at night using a red penlight to read maps and the like. Modern books with their nice black print are also pretty readable.
Some sort of magic that produced a mix of red and infrared light would cover most of the actual adventuring needs (heat, light that doesn't wreck night vision) for fire.
I'll just point out that if your 'solution' to campfires aren't realistic enough is to create a magic spell so the wizard is the best outdoorsman as opposed to the ranger, you're exacerbating a much bigger problem.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on July 13, 2021, 09:28:54 AM
I'll just point out that if your 'solution' to campfires aren't realistic enough is to create a magic spell so the wizard is the best outdoorsman as opposed to the ranger, you're exacerbating a much bigger problem.
If you presume my game even has a ranger class or, if there were a ranger class, that the spell wouldn't be ranger exclusive are equally problematic assumptions.
There is a difference between spending a couple days outdoors, and living outdoors year-round.
You can do minimal camping with just a bedroll and a pot to boil water in, but only for a couple of days. You'd be eating iron rations, which you would not be able to replenish with the equipment at hand. But it could be done for a scouting expedition.
For living outdoors year-round, you're looking at something much more like an American Indian village. Semi-permanent structures that will keep you dry and warm. A lot more support equipment to allow you to cook a broader variety of food, maybe grow some crops, and harvest a broader variety of resources. You would also have the tools to replace or rebuild nearly all of your equipment. You can pack up and move, but you can't live on the move, and typically you would abandon a lot of stuff and rebuild it in the new location when you get there. You can also have your entire family with you.
Note too that, in general, "comfort" equals safety. If you are roughing it with just a bedroll, and you get caught in a blizzard, you are in real danger of freezing to death. If you get sick, or get injured, you could die within walking distance of your home base. Lose any of your equipment: your bedroll, your knife, your food or your cooking gear, and you'll be struggling just to make it back alive.
Please excuse my shorthand.
If your game requires 'magic' to do things that real-world elite special forces soldiers routinely do even without advanced technology, I think you're missing something fundamental. Even without magic it is possible to conceal a fire. Here's One Link (https://survivial-training.wonderhowto.com/how-to/build-hide-campfire-from-your-enemies-dakota-fire-pit-0116303/) talking about how to do it.
People with wilderness skills/non-weapon proficiencies/appropriate backgrounds (depending on system rules), ought to be able to do things that are pretty incredible. Obviously there are limits to what 'mundane' characters can do, and there really aren't any limits to 'magic', which by definition breaks the rules of physics - but when you codify a magical spell (just like adding a feat), you imply that you MUST have the spell in order to achieve the effect. Essentially, you've moved something from 'anyone can attempt this' to 'only characters with this special ability can attempt this'. Feats have a bad rap here for doing exactly that, but spells can do the same thing.
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 13, 2021, 10:01:46 AM
There is a difference between spending a couple days outdoors, and living outdoors year-round.
You can do minimal camping with just a bedroll and a pot to boil water in, but only for a couple of days. You'd be eating iron rations, which you would not be able to replenish with the equipment at hand. But it could be done for a scouting expedition.
For living outdoors year-round, you're looking at something much more like an American Indian village. Semi-permanent structures that will keep you dry and warm. A lot more support equipment to allow you to cook a broader variety of food, maybe grow some crops, and harvest a broader variety of resources. You would also have the tools to replace or rebuild nearly all of your equipment. You can pack up and move, but you can't live on the move, and typically you would abandon a lot of stuff and rebuild it in the new location when you get there. You can also have your entire family with you.
Note too that, in general, "comfort" equals safety. If you are roughing it with just a bedroll, and you get caught in a blizzard, you are in real danger of freezing to death. If you get sick, or get injured, you could die within walking distance of your home base. Lose any of your equipment: your bedroll, your knife, your food or your cooking gear, and you'll be struggling just to make it back alive.
Well, you can be a hobo or a pilgrim with nothing but a backpack, so long as there are villages, etc. at which to replenish along the way. You don't need to supply all your own food to "live outdoors year round." I lived this way myself for almost a decade, walking through mountains for 3-5 days at a time to get from one town to the next. Essentials I carried in the 20th century:
- backpack
- warm sleeping bag
- tarp
- foam pad
- stainless steel pot
- water bottle
- flashlight
- lighter
- knife
I also found good boots and a wide-brimmed hat indispensable for living outdoors. The heaviest thing I carried was invariably food and water. Water in particular weights 8 lbs per gallon; carrying enough to drink between water sources can get very heavy quickly.
Regarding the OP, I definitely avoided fires any time I was camped near civilization.
Quote from: Zalman on July 13, 2021, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 13, 2021, 10:01:46 AM
There is a difference between spending a couple days outdoors, and living outdoors year-round.
You can do minimal camping with just a bedroll and a pot to boil water in, but only for a couple of days. You'd be eating iron rations, which you would not be able to replenish with the equipment at hand. But it could be done for a scouting expedition.
For living outdoors year-round, you're looking at something much more like an American Indian village. Semi-permanent structures that will keep you dry and warm. A lot more support equipment to allow you to cook a broader variety of food, maybe grow some crops, and harvest a broader variety of resources. You would also have the tools to replace or rebuild nearly all of your equipment. You can pack up and move, but you can't live on the move, and typically you would abandon a lot of stuff and rebuild it in the new location when you get there. You can also have your entire family with you.
Note too that, in general, "comfort" equals safety. If you are roughing it with just a bedroll, and you get caught in a blizzard, you are in real danger of freezing to death. If you get sick, or get injured, you could die within walking distance of your home base. Lose any of your equipment: your bedroll, your knife, your food or your cooking gear, and you'll be struggling just to make it back alive.
Well, you can be a hobo or a pilgrim with nothing but a backpack, so long as there are villages, etc. at which to replenish along the way. You don't need to supply all your own food to "live outdoors year round." I lived this way myself for almost a decade, walking through mountains for 3-5 days at a time to get from one town to the next. Essentials I carried in the 20th century:
- backpack
- warm sleeping bag
- tarp
- foam pad
- stainless steel pot
- water bottle
- flashlight
- lighter
- knife
I also found good boots and a wide-brimmed hat indispensable for living outdoors. The heaviest thing I carried was invariably food and water. Water in particular weights 8 lbs per gallon; carrying enough to drink between water sources can get very heavy quickly.
Regarding the OP, I definitely avoided fires any time I was camped near civilization.
You left out the A number 1 essential in that list. Money. without that, I think your experience would have been quite different.
Quote from: Zalman on July 13, 2021, 10:23:47 AM
Well, you can be a hobo or a pilgrim with nothing but a backpack, so long as there are villages, etc. at which to replenish along the way. You don't need to supply all your own food to "live outdoors year round." I lived this way myself for almost a decade, walking through mountains for 3-5 days at a time to get from one town to the next. Essentials I carried in the 20th century:
- backpack
- warm sleeping bag
- tarp
- foam pad
- stainless steel pot
- water bottle
- flashlight
- lighter
- knife
I also found good boots and a wide-brimmed hat indispensable for living outdoors. The heaviest thing I carried was invariably food and water. Water in particular weights 8 lbs per gallon; carrying enough to drink between water sources can get very heavy quickly.
Regarding the OP, I definitely avoided fires any time I was camped near civilization.
No offense, but what you're describing is tourism. I don't mean to be nasty, it actually sounds like a great time. But I'd call that a number of "minimal camping trips" strung together, with civilization at each endpoint. You bought all your food, and if you did it today, you probably would have cellphone service the whole way.
When I said "living outdoors year-round" I meant living independently far outside of civilization.
I suppose there is also an "expedition" type of experience, which is camping, but done for months or years. Expeditions start out with truck, wagon or boatloads of supplies, mostly food, and either go until they run out of supplies, or establish a permanent base of operations and arrange for resupply. Or they build a colony.
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 13, 2021, 01:44:18 PM
I suppose there is also an "expedition" type of experience, which is camping, but done for months or years. Expeditions start out with truck, wagon or boatloads of supplies, mostly food, and either go until they run out of supplies, or establish a permanent base of operations and arrange for resupply. Or they build a colony.
Given the traditional D&D dungeon with its abundance of dressed stone and a defensible position, an extended expedition or even colony probably isn't a bad plan of approach. If you want an eventual stronghold, a dungeon is either a good foundation or a quarry for dressed stone. General laborers and carts to strip the walls/floors are a lot cheaper and faster than hiring a stonemason to make new dressed stone.
It's impossible to live for years in the wilderness without constant resupply
Or not (https://www.oddee.com/item_98706.aspx).
It doesn't always end well, but, well, everyone dies eventually. The fact is it is possible to live off the land for years at a time. Like, that's the nature of existence that humans evolved to live.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 13, 2021, 11:37:28 AM
You left out the A number 1 essential in that list. Money. without that, I think your experience would have been quite different.
Not at all, I started with less than $500, worked along the way. There are lots of occupations that befit a homeless lifestyle! Forestry, migrant farm work, fishing boats, trail crews, etc., all of which operate from some outdoor living situation.
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 13, 2021, 01:44:18 PM
When I said "living outdoors year-round" I meant living independently far outside of civilization.
Cool, but that's not how PCs typically "live outdoors" in my experience. I typically combined store-bought goods at stops along the way with hunting, fishing, and foraging; the longest I was in the wilderness personally was 24 days. You have an interesting definition of "tourism"!
Quote from: Zalman on July 13, 2021, 07:16:30 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on July 13, 2021, 11:37:28 AM
You left out the A number 1 essential in that list. Money. without that, I think your experience would have been quite different.
Not at all, I started with less than $500, worked along the way. There are lots of occupations that befit a homeless lifestyle! Forestry, migrant farm work, fishing boats, trail crews, etc., all of which operate from some outdoor living situation.
You make my point for me. You needed money the entire time. I never said you have to start with a million bucks. But it was a needed commodity for the duration.
Greetings!
Well, as a Marine veteran, I certainly became well-acquainted with living and surviving in the wilderness. Being heloed into some shithole in the gawdforsaken wilderness, marching overland in full gear ready to rock for 15, 20, and 25 miles, just to arrive at a *bivouac* sight reconned out ahead of the main force definitely forces you to reach down for new motivation and to remember--or discover--what you are made of, as a man, and a warrior.
Granted, except for forays into survival training--where I ate insects, leaves, and what the fuck I found in the wilderness--we had the wonderful and gracious benefit of being tossed three rubber-pouches of MRE's. Each MRE was a meal, and we had to make sure they lasted until the next food truck arrived--usually every day, but not always. Supplementing our yummy GI food out in the field, besides the aforementioned bugs and mint leaves--was whatever you managed to stow in your gear, which was often just bags of pogey-bait or something fairly decent, like trail-mix. That was it, along with canteens of water. Then, we got to get together with a buddy and *DIG* a fighting-pit. Lower stepped, about 4-ft. deep and 6-ft. wide. I, being the machine gunner, had to set my SAW up nice, and ensure ammo was ready to rock. That fucking fighting pit was what we got to sleep in, come rain or shine. I remember many, many nights feeling the rain fall on me as I watched on guard duty in the dark of night, while my buddy caught some exhausted sleep right next to me. Four hours later, I would wake him up, and he would be on guard duty, while I got to sleep a royal four hours in the mud and rain. And the fucking dark. Thankfully, I wasn't also being entirely eaten alive by bugs, but they tried stubbornly. Day after day, for weeks or a month, living like this, my SAW on the ledge in front of me, and my M-16 between my legs. Mud up to my ankles, rain pouring on me constantly.
And yeah, no showers, either. Bathing was washing your nuts with ice-cold water from your helmet. The morning came with the fucking dawn, a swallow of water, and a cigarette. Get your shit up, time to move out on a patrol. Usually 10 to 20 miles, up and down through the wilderness. Every day.
After a month of that, yeah. I stood in the hot shower covered in soap for an hour staright, just like everyone else. *Laughing* The feeling of coming back home after weeks or months of that, and heading into town, enjoying some hot food--real food!--and hitting a hotel with yeah, a real-live woman giggling at you, well, the feeling is difficult to describe. Just some of the perks that come with working for Uncle Sam. I definitely learned a few things about living in the wilderness, without any modern conveniences or pleasures.
Most civilians really aren't prepared for living like that. I expect adventurers to fucking learn quick though! Forget all the easy goodies from civilization, or from magic. No, fuckers, you need to suffer! Struggle! DIG!!! ;D
As difficult as it all was, I always keep fond memories of my many experiences in the field with my fellow Marines. OOH-RAH!!! ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on July 13, 2021, 09:04:57 PM
Well, as a Marine veteran, I certainly became well-acquainted with living and surviving in the wilderness.
There's this fun show
Alone, where they take people claimed as survival experts and ditch them in the wilderness, last one to either quit or get a medical discharge wins some cash.
The interesting thing is that the ones mentioning military experience quite often bail in the first week. There was some SEAL did well, but the rank-and-file types crumble. We don't always appreciate just how much support the typical grunt gets, all the hundreds of people involved in keeping him supplied with water, fuel and food - and of course clothes and tents and all that.
And those who quit, it's almost always simple loneliness. Grunts are rarely alone. Of course, an adventuring party is basically a section or squad, they're not alone, either. But still.
Quote from: jhkim on July 12, 2021, 08:42:09 PMIn practice, I've seen a lot of GMs push back if players try to have an expedition with lots of porters, pack animals, and other support characters for them -- because it comes across as unheroic and breaks assumptions.
Pfft on them. My wife and I
love logistics: we're the ones who pore over gear for optimum use. We come by this honestly; we met in a combat boffer LARP with many camping events a year. If anyone has any question on the matter, if you're going to be out all day swinging swords in 90+ degree weather, you want to have a good hot meal in your belly made from good food, you want to have slept through the cold rain last night in a dry tent, you want to have had a good night sleep in good bedding, and you want plenty of pure liquid to drink.
By contrast, people who figured they were young and tough, wrapped themselves in a cloak, dined on a half-bag of Doritos, tried to sleep on a hillside without shelter, no change of clothing ... nope. Didn't fight so well.
So yeah: if I'm a PC, I'm going to pay attention to logistics. If I can afford it, I'll absolutely pop for a pack mount, quality camping gear, good food. A GM who "pushes back" on that is a campaign I'm walking away from.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on July 13, 2021, 02:25:07 PM
It's impossible to live for years in the wilderness without constant resupply
I don't know about impossible, subsistence farming is certainly a thing. It's generally not what player characters do, though.
It's a lot more likely that your homesteader/mountain man/hermit/murderhobo will mostly live off their own resources, coming into town a couple times a year to sell stuff and pick up things like coffee, sugar, tools and bits of hardware that it makes sense to buy rather than make for yourself.
There's a movie Leave No Trace where a dad and his daughter live out in the woods. But he's got some sort of veteran's pension, and they occasionally go to town to get stuff.
On the other hand they don't have a permanent camp because they're not supposed to be living in the woods at all. If you can settle down in a place then you can grow things and all that, then you don't have to buy them. So really the money bought them mobility and obscurity.
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 17, 2021, 10:03:35 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking on July 13, 2021, 02:25:07 PM
It's impossible to live for years in the wilderness without constant resupply
I don't know about impossible, subsistence farming is certainly a thing. It's generally not what player characters do, though.
Reading fail - I pointed out that there are people that have gone completely off the grid alone or with their families and lived for years or decades. If someone lived on their own for 40 years, then died of old age, it's hardly 'impossible'.
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 17, 2021, 10:03:35 AM
I don't know about impossible, subsistence farming is certainly a thing. It's generally not what player characters do, though.
Even farming shouldn't really be necessary. According to some sources all humans were hunter/gatherers until about 12,000 years ago. If they did it back then, there's no reason we couldn't do it now, and it's certainly reasonable for characters in fantasy setting to be able to live that way.
Quote from: Mishihari on July 18, 2021, 10:27:04 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 17, 2021, 10:03:35 AM
I don't know about impossible, subsistence farming is certainly a thing. It's generally not what player characters do, though.
Even farming shouldn't really be necessary. According to some sources all humans were hunter/gatherers until about 12,000 years ago. If they did it back then, there's no reason we couldn't do it now, and it's certainly reasonable for characters in fantasy setting to be able to live that way.
Game was much more plentiful back then, and forage far more abundant.
And there were fewer people! But of course, in the implied setting of D&D - on the marches of a fallen civilisation - there aren't many people, either. France in 1450 it ain't. More like like northern Britain in 500. Much game! Many savages! The wind howling across the moors!