What is a Sanctuary?

[Rich H]

I see a bit akin to the Social Warfare rules in A Song of Ice and Fire RPG. Why do you need a mechanic to do something that could just as easily be Rp'd out? It certainly makes for a more interesting game that way, IMO.

Depends what you class as RPing. I've always played RPGs as:

1) The players states their PCs' intentions. If appropriate, the GM does the same for the NPC(s).
2) You roll the dice and establish success/failure/etc.
3) You then role-play out the results.

As I've always done it this way, apart from the first few years when I was 'learning about the hobby', I've never come across the problems others describe with regard to social mechanics, mind control, etc.

Lots of gamers seem to role-play first then roll dice and establish success/failure after RPing and then moan about dice rolls not matching up with someone who's RP'd out, for instance, an awesome bit of persuading. GMs try and resolve this issue by handing out massive bonuses for great RPing etc but then if that's the case why bother rolling the dice or does such RPing really match up with a PC who has a low skill in the particular action being performed.

[Beran]

To use the example of the Woodman settlement I mentioned above; the main part of the Adventure Phase would be saving it from the orc raiders. Once that is done I see opening the settlement as a sactuary, as an extension of the Adventure Phase, being carried out by RPing through the request to the village head man at the feast to celebrate the victory.

[Rich H]

To use the example of the Woodman settlement I mentioned above; the main part of the Adventure Phase would be saving it from the orc raiders. Once that is done I see opening the settlement as a sactuary, as an extension of the Adventure Phase, being carried out by RPing through the request to the village head man at the feast to celebrate the victory.

That makes sense. I'd just do that within my Fellowship Phase if it was the end of the adventure. If it wasn't then it'd just be agreed during the adventure that the players would open it as a sanctuary so they could RP it. When applying the rules and options a little common sense needs to be used as always!

[Angelalex242]

Opening a new sanctuary tends not to happen too much anyway.

Usually, players have more important things to do, like sing away their shadow scores, or improve any 'improvable' virtue that you can burn 1 XP on and get more oomph out of. (Hound of Mirkwood, Elven Magic, Broken Spells, Healing, and so on.)

[Woodclaw]

On the subject of opening individual Sanctuaries it's something that wouldn't normally allow. In general I think that Sanctuary is a place where a the whole Fellowship is welcome, not just one or two of them. The point in my head is that when the group spend the Fellowship Phase to a Sancturay they can benefit from both the camraderie of the Fellowship and the security of home away from home (one of the reasons why a Sanctuary allows double rolls to get rid of Shadow among other things). Allowing for individual Sanctuaries seem a bit counterintuitive to me since if would make the above point invalid.
On the subject of having certain areas being open to certain characters but not others, well, I would like to point out one thing. Imagine that you invite one of your friends to pass a couple of days at your place and he arrives with 3-4 other people from his workplace. This is not something you'll be happy about. This is another reason why I think that opening a sanctuary is a collective effort. The fact that one of my players has a good reputation, or even a holding in one place, this doesn't make all of his friends automatically cool with the locals.

Darkening of Mirkwood p111 for Thegn of Dale and p. 83 for Hero of the Woodman. Now, it does say the person receiveing the tile of Thegn does get a plot of land in Dale to dwell on and that the Hero of the Woodman can have the use of lodging in the Woodman Halls. But, it does not say specifically that the PCs can use those location for santuraies; I guess it depends on LM interpretation.

Thanks.

Opening a new sanctuary tends not to happen too much anyway.

Usually, players have more important things to do, like sing away their shadow scores, or improve any 'improvable' virtue that you can burn 1 XP on and get more oomph out of. (Hound of Mirkwood, Elven Magic, Broken Spells, Healing, and so on.)

Maybe I misread the rules a bit, but I thought that improving spell and similar abilities were part of the basic character upgrade, not a Fellowship Undertaking.

[Angelalex242]

Nope. Read 'em carefully.

Improving Wood Elf Magic, Broken Spells, Hound of Mirkwood, etc, takes 1 XP AND A fellowship phase undertaking.

Thus, improving these abilities means you can't open sanctuaries if you're improving your magic (or your dog, or your healing.) Improving these abilities also prevents you from removing shadow.

[Rich H]

On the subject of opening individual Sanctuaries it's something that wouldn't normally allow.

Agreed - I think earlier posts suggest that's the case; that it's more of an exception than the rule.

In general I think that Sanctuary is a place where a the whole Fellowship is welcome, not just one or two of them. The point in my head is that when the group spend the Fellowship Phase to a Sancturay they can benefit from both the camraderie of the Fellowship and the security of home away from home (one of the reasons why a Sanctuary allows double rolls to get rid of Shadow among other things). Allowing for individual Sanctuaries seem a bit counterintuitive to me since if would make the above point invalid.

I don't necessarily see that as so much of a problem. You can still spend time with your Fellowship members but those that hold the place as a sanctuary get more mechanical and in-game advantages. For example, the one companion that doesn't hold it as a sanctuary doesn't feel as comfortable in the place and therefore doesn't have 'access' to the same undertakings as the others - eg, can only Heal Corruption once rather than twice.

On the subject of having certain areas being open to certain characters but not others, well, I would like to point out one thing. Imagine that you invite one of your friends to pass a couple of days at your place and he arrives with 3-4 other people from his workplace. This is not something you'll be happy about. This is another reason why I think that opening a sanctuary is a collective effort. The fact that one of my players has a good reputation, or even a holding in one place, this doesn't make all of his friends automatically cool with the locals.

Hmmm, not sure that analogy works as colleagues from work and staying at someone else's place in the modern world isn't really comparable to anything in Middle Earth as such attitudes of hospitality and protection from the perils of Wilderland simply don't exist in our modern western world in the same way that they do in Middle Earth, so I'd suggest that someone inviting some work colleagues over to your place isn't really the same as a character someone knows and welcomes to their stronghold as if it were their home (ie, it's a sanctuary) and who brings along some companions they have fought side-by-side with. YMMV but I really don't see the two as comparable. In addition, my posts suggest there are two different ways this could be applied - both handled differently. As those thoughts are spread out over multiple posts, I'll summarise them here:

1) If one PC held place as a Sanctuary but other PCs didn't, I'd request a test (Courtesy, Persuade, etc) for the PC who holds the place as a sanctuary to allow the others to stay.

2) If one PC didn't hold the place as a Sanctuary but other PCs did, then they could just vouch for that companion.

Like I said earlier, this is more an exception than the rule and was primarily created in my game to allow Gilbrannon (the elf PC) and Iwgar (the woodman PC) access to Thranduil's Halls as a Sanctuary when it wasn't an option for Thogrim (the dwarf PC).

[Woodclaw]

On the subject of having certain areas being open to certain characters but not others, well, I would like to point out one thing. Imagine that you invite one of your friends to pass a couple of days at your place and he arrives with 3-4 other people from his workplace. This is not something you'll be happy about. This is another reason why I think that opening a sanctuary is a collective effort. The fact that one of my players has a good reputation, or even a holding in one place, this doesn't make all of his friends automatically cool with the locals.

Hmmm, not sure that analogy works as colleagues from work and staying at someone else's place in the modern world isn't really comparable to anything in Middle Earth as such attitudes of hospitality and protection from the perils of Wilderland simply don't exist in our modern western world in the same way that they do in Middle Earth, so I'd suggest that someone inviting some work colleagues over to your place isn't really the same as a character someone knows and welcomes to their stronghold as if it were their home (ie, it's a sanctuary) and who brings along some companions they have fought side-by-side with. YMMV but I really don't see the two as comparable. In addition, my posts suggest there are two different ways this could be applied - both handled differently. As those thoughts are spread out over multiple posts, I'll summarise them here:

1) If one PC held place as a Sanctuary but other PCs didn't, I'd request a test (Courtesy, Persuade, etc) for the PC who holds the place as a sanctuary to allow the others to stay.

2) If one PC didn't hold the place as a Sanctuary but other PCs did, then they could just vouch for that companion.

Like I said earlier, this is more an exception than the rule and was primarily created in my game to allow Gilbrannon (the elf PC) and Iwgar (the woodman PC) access to Thranduil's Halls as a Sanctuary when it wasn't an option for Thogrim (the dwarf PC).

Fair point.
I agree that my analogy was a bit out of context. And I think that your exception makes sense.