Quote from: Shasarak;1112977Fantasy frontier towns are tactically indefensible because they only ever get attacked if the DM wants them too.

Quote from: Daztur;1113007One factor that people haven't mentioned yet is:

Is the world full of danger around every corner which is why the PCs keep on getting tangled up in it everywhere they go?

Or is the bulk of the world pleasant and peace and it's just that the PCs actively seek out the most dangerous bits in order to loot them.

If it's the first then you need lots of fortifications all over. The second... not so much. Kind of like in action movies the heroes always end up neck deep in violence but the overall world is peaceful enough to not need fortifications around the vast majority of towns.

Quote from: Lunamancer;1113316Gamers: Castle walls make no sense in a fantasy world because dragons and wizards can just fly over them.
Also Gamers: Settlements need more walls.

All good answers.

Since PCs show up to defend these unbarricaded towns on the rare occasion that they are threatened, it would not be accurate to say that they have no defense.

PCs are the wall.

Historically, settlements of the middle bronze age in Europe were open villages or clan steads. They were typically found on grain laden hillsides overlooking rich river basins. About 6500 BC the first Horse Lord invasions occurred from the East and the settlement pattern abruptly changed, with the central european settlements suddenly being found on hilltops with a wooden or stone palisade wall built upon ramparts that encircled most, or all of the town or village.

PCs arrive in town.

"Oh shit everyone get inside and batten down the hatches.  It must be time for a monster attack!"

Quote from: TJS;1113358In regard to the first, depends how common wizards and dragons are.  

But there's always been a disconnect between gamers who want their games to be grounded in historical reality even if that might mean fudging some of the implications of the games rules and gamers who wanted to treat the games fantasy rules as sci-fi technology and have armoured griffin cavalry and magic powererd railways and the like.

One of the things I admire about "Gygaxian fantasy" RPGs is that it's good at doing both. If you run 1E with 0th level humans and no magic, it will do historical play really well. The "optimal" weapons will match historical expectations (within a reasonable range allowing for disagreement among historians). On the other hand, if everyone's got at least a few levels and a few magic items, you'll find what is "optimal" will match expectations of myths, legends, and fiction--again, within a reasonable range allowing for people to disagree what the mythology actually is and what fiction best suits their fancy.

If you do a mix, you've got PCs who more closely resemble heroes of myth rather than historical figures while the NPCs in the background will more closely resemble historical standards. So you can get a heroes myth feel against the backdrop of a historical setting. It's perfectly doable. You just need the RPG to have a broader scope than what "modern" RPGs offer, which despite their varieties and differences ultimately boil down to ragtag band of wandering borderline psychopaths get caught up in wacky adventures.

The fallacy in the first is assuming the walls aren't useful because they can't protect against everything. If the cost of the wall is 20% of the overall castle and manages to keep out 80% of would-be invaders, then it's a fantastic investment. And it's probably closer in fact to 10% of the cost and keeps out 95% of invaders.

The fallacy in the second is looking only at one side of the equation. Yes. Walls would be really nice for defense. However, the cost might not be justified, particularly if wealth is minimal. In general, there is a certain minimal level of defenses, call it ix, that is needed for a settlement to be viable. Walls are a good defense. But not the absolute minimum level. And the other side of it, is there is a certain maximum level of defense that can be justified/economically viable. Call that y. The actual defenses you should expect to see could be anywhere between x and y. Walls. No walls. Whatever.

On the frontiers, the x is really high because monsters. And y is really low because less trade/networking. More often than not, x will exceed y. This keeps population sparse on the frontier, and also keeps pushing the frontier in check. In AD&D, this works out because populations on the frontiers have a much higher percentage of characters with classes & levels than more central locations, and that's how the x > y is reconciled. The differences in demographics are found by comparing the % of leveled characters found in the "Men" section of the Monster Manual with the % of leveled characters given in the DMG under recruiting henchmen. This explains the village of Homlet quite well.

These things were well-thought out a long time ago, and we had working solutions.

Quote from: Lunamancer;1113497One of the things I admire about "Gygaxian fantasy" RPGs is that it's good at doing both. If you run 1E with 0th level humans and no magic, it will do historical play really well. The "optimal" weapons will match historical expectations (within a reasonable range allowing for disagreement among historians). On the other hand, if everyone's got at least a few levels and a few magic items, you'll find what is "optimal" will match expectations of myths, legends, and fiction--again, within a reasonable range allowing for people to disagree what the mythology actually is and what fiction best suits their fancy.

If you do a mix, you've got PCs who more closely resemble heroes of myth rather than historical figures while the NPCs in the background will more closely resemble historical standards. So you can get a heroes myth feel against the backdrop of a historical setting. It's perfectly doable. You just need the RPG to have a broader scope than what "modern" RPGs offer, which despite their varieties and differences ultimately boil down to ragtag band of wandering borderline psychopaths get caught up in wacky adventures.

The fallacy in the first is assuming the walls aren't useful because they can't protect against everything. If the cost of the wall is 20% of the overall castle and manages to keep out 80% of would-be invaders, then it's a fantastic investment. And it's probably closer in fact to 10% of the cost and keeps out 95% of invaders.

The fallacy in the second is looking only at one side of the equation. Yes. Walls would be really nice for defense. However, the cost might not be justified, particularly if wealth is minimal. In general, there is a certain minimal level of defenses, call it ix, that is needed for a settlement to be viable. Walls are a good defense. But not the absolute minimum level. And the other side of it, is there is a certain maximum level of defense that can be justified/economically viable. Call that y. The actual defenses you should expect to see could be anywhere between x and y. Walls. No walls. Whatever.

On the frontiers, the x is really high because monsters. And y is really low because less trade/networking. More often than not, x will exceed y. This keeps population sparse on the frontier, and also keeps pushing the frontier in check. In AD&D, this works out because populations on the frontiers have a much higher percentage of characters with classes & levels than more central locations, and that's how the x > y is reconciled. The differences in demographics are found by comparing the % of leveled characters found in the "Men" section of the Monster Manual with the % of leveled characters given in the DMG under recruiting henchmen. This explains the village of Homlet quite well.

These things were well-thought out a long time ago, and we had working solutions.

If the minimum necessary defenses exceed the maximum justified defenses, then shouldn't the settlement simply not exist?

I don't think I've ever DM'd a village that didn't at least have a palisade and a ditch.

Given the existence of dungeons in fantasy RPGs, it is not much of a stretch to imagine underground defenses for villages and towns that have no walls/palisades.  Think of places like Derinkuyu or Naours.  Or even something like the erdstall tunnels, which may have been used as a defense, or not.  Nearby caves -- modified or not -- made for places to shelter from marauders.  Or nearby castles.  Not every settlement in Fantasyland© needs a defensive perimeter  when there are alternatives.

This thread should dovetail with the old thread talking about the ecologies of monsters... because it glaringly reveals how insane modern D&D's assumptions of fantasy are. These settings largely do not comport to the realities people assume from the game rules.

But it also simply illustrates - no one cares enough except us GM's that prune as needed. I'll go out on a limb and say *most* gamers today run modules and self-contained adventures that renders these concerns moot.

The only people that really care are those of us that run sandbox-style. Why *should* anyone else care, save for a little color? C'mon that Russian village looks awesome.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113505If the minimum necessary defenses exceed the maximum justified defenses, then shouldn't the settlement simply not exist?

Well, let's be perfectly clear here. My exact words were "More often than not, x will exceed y. This keeps population sparse on the frontier." My intention was to not even open this can of worms. But since you asked it, the answer is no--minimum necessary defenses exceeding maximum justified defenses does not mean the settlement will simply not exist. Two key reasons. Time and Probability.

Probability: Just because monsters are favored to win, does not mean they automatically win. Some--I'm not going to guess the exact percentage, but some--settlements will be lucky enough to fend off the monsters long enough to optimize what works and gain some XP and levels to convert it into a permanent condition. That's where you get things like the village of Hommlet.

Time: But even if that's definitely not in the cards, then so what? Do the settlers have perfect knowledge enough to know this an advance and never settle there in the first place? Or do the monsters instantly teleport in the second the settlers get there? No. The ultimate demise is going to take time. How much time? A month? A year? A generation? That's plenty of time for the PCs to stumble upon the village, have a wacky adventure, then continue along their merry way.


I feel if you want to really, really take ecology seriously in an RPG, ecology shouldn't be a perpetual equilibrium state where the world makes perfect sense at all times. It's a process where unstable arrangements arise from time to time and then are snuffed out. Mistakes are okay. They're more than okay. Their comings and goings are the most worthy things to include in an adventure RPG. To wit, if you pick up a module and your first reaction is "What terrible design! This village would crumble instantly," then shut up and put your money where your mouth is. Run a campaign where your PCs burn it to the ground. Or perhaps hand the village over to them and send your monsters after it and see if the players can keep it. Find out whether or not it is defensible. Never assume you already know the answer.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113505If the minimum necessary defenses exceed the maximum justified defenses, then shouldn't the settlement simply not exist?

Even if the defenses are insufficient, the settlement will exist for a time before it gets wiped out. Possibly just long enough to carve the word "CROATOAN" into a nearby rock or tree.

Quote from: Omega;1113193Why are s many people ignorant of the fact not all 'frontier' towns had or have now walls for whatever reasons?

I have no clue. But this thread sure shows a-lot of ignorance of this.

I live in Fort Worth, which as the name suggests, was founded as an army outpost for dragoons after the Mexican War. For the first ten years, this fort was nothing more than barracks, officers' quarters, stables and smith (in other words, several wooden shacks and barns) and a split-rail fence. The fort did have one side facing a 15-foot drop-off overlooking the Trinity River, and had the shacks arranged in a square, but other than that, there were no real defenses other than the small arms of the soldiers:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3982[/ATTACH]

There were a number of farms nearby, but they were very spread out and attacks by Comanches and bandits in the area required regular patrols from the fort. So in addition to having no serious defenses, a good part of the garrison would be away at any given time. Still, the area surrounding the fort became a kind of village with shops of various kinds that started off by servicing the troops but also became the trading post for farmers, travelers and even Comanches and other indigenous peoples (one local town is still called White Settlement, a name given by the Comanches to place where they traded horses for iron goods).

Quote from: Bren;1113608Even if the defenses are insufficient, the settlement will exist for a time before it gets wiped out. Possibly just long enough to carve the word "CROATOAN" into a nearby rock or tree.

Fort Worth (the actual fort) lasted four years before being torn down -not by Comanches or outlaws, but by newly arrived homesteaders looking for building materials for their own use.

Quote from: Elfdart;1113866Fort Worth (the actual fort) lasted four years before being torn down -not by Comanches or outlaws, but by newly arrived homesteaders looking for building materials for their own use.

If you don't watch them constantly, peasant farmers and their leaders will tear up roads, walls, forts, and castles to get existing building materials to use for their own constructions. Happened a lot in Europe.

Quote from: TJS;1113447PCs arrive in town.

"Oh shit everyone get inside and batten down the hatches.  It must be time for a monster attack!"

I've started two campaigns that way: You're in a village (or town): what do you do?

A few minutes later: The village (or town) is under attack.

Quote from: Elfdart;1113947I've started two campaigns that way: You're in a village (or town): what do you do?

A few minutes later: The village (or town) is under attack.

I've had PCs that decided to raze a village a few minutes after arriving. They swore that somebody was a cultist and somebody else a thief (or something like that) and it was easiest to just knock everyone out (yes, 5e allows you to use your lethal weapons at full effectiveness as Nerf sticks) and then go from there.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113993(yes, 5e allows you to use your lethal weapons at full effectiveness as Nerf sticks) and then go from there.

Does that apply to arrows and crossbow bolts?