Fellowship Phase & Sanctuaries

[delazar]

I'm a bit confused about the use of Sanctuaries.

1) Does every player start with Esgaroth as a Sanctuary, plus his place of origin? (like, Dale for a Barding, Rhosgobel for a Woodman, etc)?

2) During the Fellowship phase, is it correct I can always safely return to one of my Sanctuaries? For example, our latest adventure we were in Woodland Hall, but can I choose to spend my Fellowship phase in Esgaroth? Or do I have to "play out" the journey back there? Or can I only spend my Fellowship phase in Woodland Hall?

3) In Heart of the Wild, there are several additional undertakings that can be chosen depending on the region you spend your Fellowship phase in. In order to start that undertaking, does that region have to be one of my Sanctuaries? Or do I just need to be there at the end of my last Adventuring Phase?

4) In order to have a new Sanctuary, the whole party has to spend a Fellowship phase there. What if not everyone wants to have that specific place as a Sanctuary?

[Rich H]

I'm a bit confused about the use of Sanctuaries.

1) Does every player start with Esgaroth as a Sanctuary, plus his place of origin? (like, Dale for a Barding, Rhosgobel for a Woodman, etc)?

Unless as LM you want them to, no PC starts with any settlement(s) as a Sanctuary.

2) During the Fellowship phase, is it correct I can always safely return to one of my Sanctuaries? For example, our latest adventure we were in Woodland Hall, but can I choose to spend my Fellowship phase in Esgaroth? Or do I have to "play out" the journey back there? Or can I only spend my Fellowship phase in Woodland Hall?

I'd still recommend playing out the journey if someone wanted to travel to another location than the one they found themselves in at the end of an Adventuring Phase. Wilderland is a dangerous place after all.

3) In Heart of the Wild, there are several additional undertakings that can be chosen depending on the region you spend your Fellowship phase in. In order to start that undertaking, does that region have to be one of my Sanctuaries? Or do I just need to be there at the end of my last Adventuring Phase?

I don't have the book to hand but I think it should state whether such undertakings can only be picked if the location is a Sanctuary.

4) In order to have a new Sanctuary, the whole party has to spend a Fellowship phase there. What if not everyone wants to have that specific place as a Sanctuary?

As per the RAW, I believe all PCs need to open a Sanctuary together. Personally, I don't require this within my campaign as, for instance, Thranduil would never let the dwarf PC open his Halls as a Sanctuary but the elf PC in the company should have no such limitation.

[delazar]

1) Adventurer's Book - page 169 "At the beginning of the game, there's only one place that adventurers may consider already a sanctuary: the town of Esgaroth on the Long Lake."

So I thought everyone would have Esgaroth as a Sanctuary, plus his own Home? Or is Home and Santcuary two very different things? It actually looks like Home is somehow less important than Sanctuary, since when you try to Heal Corruption, you have only one roll at Home, but two rolls in a Sanctuary.

2) I just did a re-read (smart phone FTW), page 169 says the journey during the Fellowship Pahse takes place "behind the scenes" without Fatigue Tests and consequences. Still, it suggest to choose a place within a reasonable distance from the area they were during the latest adventuring phase.

This looks a bit difficult to implement, since for example Beornings and Woodmen "returning Home" seem to be crossing the Mirkwood regularly... mh.

3) Eh, I'll have to have a re-read at home, don't have HotW on my phone.

4) Yes, I think I'm going to do the same. I won't force all the players to take this undertaking together. Actually, I'm starting to think I may give Sanctuaries "for free".

I think I'll add an additional question:

5) In order to spend a Fellowship Phase somewhere, does that somewhere need to be one of my Sanctuaries?

[Jakob]

to 5:
As I understand, no. A sanctuary simply offers the additional chance of rolling twice for Heal Corruption, but you can spend your fellowship phase pretty much everywhere you like.

And about home/sanctuaries:
In my short-lived campaign (only one Fellowship phase), I treated homes as sanctuaries - in that case, Thranduil's Halls and Dale.
I would also suggest handling sanctuaries individually for the players - they can all spend their fellowship phase together at a potential sanctuary, doing their usual Fellowship Phase activities; and if one or more of the players want to have the place as a sanctuary, they can spend their fellowship phase on that, individually. I kind of see the intent behind the RAW (to strengthen the bond between the player characters, they choose their sanctuaries together), but in practice, I prefer to let each player decide himself if his character wants in on the sanctuary thing.

[Rich H]

Sorry, don't have the books to hand as not at home...

1) Adventurer's Book - page 169 "At the beginning of the game, there's only one place that adventurers may consider already a sanctuary: the town of Esgaroth on the Long Lake."

I stand corrected. That makes sense, I suppose, as Esgaroth is a trading point for most/all cultures. I'm not sure I've gone with that in my campaign though.

So I thought everyone would have Esgaroth as a Sanctuary, plus his own Home? Or is Home and Santcuary two very different things? It actually looks like Home is somehow less important than Sanctuary, since when you try to Heal Corruption, you have only one roll at Home, but two rolls in a Sanctuary.

I'm inclined to allow a PC's home as a Sanctuary from the outset - it's certainly what I've done for my campaign.

2) I just did a re-read (smart phone FTW), page 169 says the journey during the Fellowship Pahse takes place "behind the scenes" without Fatigue Tests and consequences. Still, it suggest to choose a place within a reasonable distance from the area they were during the latest adventuring phase.

This looks a bit difficult to implement, since for example Beornings and Woodmen "returning Home" seem to be crossing the Mirkwood regularly... mh.

That's why I've pretty much adopted the opposite of that as getting from, say, Dale to the Shire would be a significant adventure and I wouldn't want to do it "behind the scenes". Dale to Esgaroth, Dale to Erebor, etc - sure, those are okay to do behind the scenes but more significant journeys should be handled during an Adventuring Phase in my opinion.

3) Eh, I'll have to have a re-read at home, don't have HotW on my phone.

... Yep, like I said, I don't have the book to hand so not sure!

4) Yes, I think I'm going to do the same. I won't force all the players to take this undertaking together. Actually, I'm starting to think I may give Sanctuaries "for free".

It works for me, and I've not come across any issues doing it this way... yet. Players with somewhere as a Sanctuary simply feel more at home or have access to 'things' (either physically or narratively) that others don't have access to.

I think I'll add an additional question:

5) In order to spend a Fellowship Phase somewhere, does that somewhere need to be one of my Sanctuaries?

No, it can just be a place where the characters have finished their adventure beforhand. The LM may require some interaction with those that live there in order to stay for a Fellowship Phase (eg, if it's Beorn's Hall) or not (eg, if it's Dale) as depending on the circumstances staying for such a time may require more than, or something other than, mere money to pay for food and board.

[Hermes Serpent]

AB p169 says "A number of locations are considered sanctuaries, special places particularly suited to support the needs of a company of adventurers, and inhabited by a host willing to welcome them. At the beginning of the game, there is only one place that adventurers may consider already a sanctuary: the town of Esgaroth on the Long Lake. Other locations may be gained access to by visiting them and choosing the Open New Sanctuary undertaking (see on page 173).

Characters in a sanctuary dedicate their time to telling and listening to stories and to the exchange of adventuring experiences."

AB p173 say this of Opening a New Sanctuary "In the course of their exploration of the Wilderland, the company of adventurers will sooner or later find new places they might consider suitable for resting during a Fellowship phase. If, during an Adventuring phase the company has entered a location and has established friendly relations with its denizens, they can make it a sanctuary, securing permission to enter it regularly to spend there a Fellowship phase.

To turn a suitable location into a sanctuary, all companions must spend the phase there and choose Open New Sanctuary as their current undertaking.The collective undertaking cements their relations with the important personalities of the place."

These two taken together imply to me that the company must spend some time (an Undertaking) in a location schmoozing with the notable(s) and generally getting their feet under the host's table. Having your home as a Sanctuary doesn't mean that your companions would be welcome to spend a couple of months leeching off the locals. A Sanctuary is a place where you are welcome and can spend time relaxing, playing instruments and telling tales, undertaking crafts and arts to aid the mind in dealing with the difficulties of life as a hard-bitten wanderer. The rules make in plain that getting somewhere to like you is a bit of an effort unless like Esgaroth it's a crossroads that is used to providing hospitality for strangers in exchange for money. No doubt Bree and the Prancing Pony would provide another example of such an almost automatic Sanctuary.

The benefits of a Sanctuary are such that it acts a communal second home to the whole company and a rushing off to your own home is hardly the action of someone with very close friends who have built a strong bond on the road dealing with extraordinary hardships.

[Rocmistro]

I strongly agree with Rich on the whole issue of each Fellowship Member opening and treating their sanctuaries individually instead of as a group. Some pretty substantive problems come about if you use the group opening mentality. For example:

1. Say a group has been playing for a couple years (in game) together. They've gone through a good chunk of the initial published stuff and have opened The Easterly Inn, Mountain Hall, Stonyford, Beorn's Hall, Rhosgobel and Woodland Hall as Sanctuaries. Then a hero dies and his player replaces him with a new character. This new character has shared in none of those original adventures, and so he has none of those places as Sanctuaries. Now, the original heroes don't want to commit a fellowship phase to "opening a new sanctuary" for the new hero because they have already done so! They will probably want to use their heroic undertaking for more important things (for them) like healing corruption. So, essentially, the new player will never really get the chance to open those old areas as sanctuaries for himself.

2. Even in a less dramatic scenario than the one above; for example 4 heroes have just finished of Leaves and Stewed Hobbit (from TfW). 3 of them want to open the Easterly Inn as a sanctuary. One does not; he decides to go home. Now the other 3 cannot open the Easterly Inn. So, in essence, one player holds the other 3 in check.

For these reasons, the RAW on opening new Sanctuaries does not seem right to me. I suggest each player tracks his own.

I'd also like to suggest that for adventures with a Social Encounter at the beginning with the proprietor/leader/owner of a Sanctuary, that an appropriately high roll(s) on the Tolerance matrix should allow for opening the sanctuary as a free undertaking. (ie, it's part of their "reward").

[Hermes Serpent]

As a counter to Rocmistro I'm going to push another viewpoint regarding a group Sanctuary.

Should the company lose a member to old age, ennui or even the claws of a troll the others can bring his replacement along, introduce him to the Host as their new companion and regale the assembled company with stories of how old Bingo sung the dragon to sleep or Ranulf's luck finally ran out and he succumbed to a basilisk deep in the bowels of Mirkwood or how this new person is the son, brother or other relative of old Angbold or how Luniel finally succumbed and has gone to the Grey Havens and her sister or brother has joined you. That connection and the bonding from the shared history could easily be used to provide the same benefits to a new companion as the others are receiving.

The whole idea of the gathering to tell stories and relate heroic deeds is so embedded in the material the Professor took as his models for the cultures in Middle-earth that it's hard for us, in a milieu where nuclear family groupings are not necessarily the norm, to understand how the communal living common in the early Middle Ages guided the social and religious practices of that society.

[Rocmistro]

As a counter to Rocmistro I'm going to push another viewpoint regarding a group Sanctuary.

Should the company lose a member to old age, ennui or even the claws of a troll the others can bring his replacement along, introduce him to the Host as their new companion and regale the assembled company with stories of how old Bingo sung the dragon to sleep or Ranulf's luck finally ran out and he succumbed to a basilisk deep in the bowels of Mirkwood or how this new person is the son, brother or other relative of old Angbold or how Luniel finally succumbed and has gone to the Grey Havens and her sister or brother has joined you. That connection and the bonding from the shared history could easily be used to provide the same benefits to a new companion as the others are receiving.

The whole idea of the gathering to tell stories and relate heroic deeds is so embedded in the material the Professor took as his models for the cultures in Middle-earth that it's hard for us, in a milieu where nuclear family groupings are not necessarily the norm, to understand how the communal living common in the early Middle Ages guided the social and religious practices of that society.

Hermes:

To me, that sounds like a narrative supporting the RAW. Basically it's doing exactly what I said needs to be done in order for the new guy to get the sanctuary open, which is that the whole fellowship returns to the old sanctuary and "reopens" it for the new guy. I don't disagree that it can be done, I disagree that it must be done that way (for the new guy).

You didn't see this scenario pop up in Tolkien's stories for 2 reasons:

1. No one ever really died (except Boromir). His player's new character (Faramir) would not have gotten Rivendell and/or Lothlorien as insta-Sacntuaries.
2. There was no "return" visit. The whole of the Lord of the Rings was one long path from Shire to Mordor.

[Hermes Serpent]

@Rocmistro The way I see it is that it's not so much Opening a New Sanctuary for the new guy but when the company chooses to visit in the normal course of things the new guy get's the introductions to the right people and the recommendations of people known to the host.

It's sort of "Hello, Rollo, this is Boethren, he's the son of old Amdal's sister. Oh, You hadn't heard about Old Amdal, well he had a run of bad luck and get eaten by a cold drake, you know Amdal always ready for a scrap. Now Boethren, Rollo here is the best, most generous, chief around these parts. He has a fund of stories that'll make the hair on your toes curl. I'll introduce you to his tanner, he's the finest tanner hereabout's and if you need good leather for a new piece of armour he's the man to see."

I think I'd go for a split Undertaking with the new guy getting the introductions while the other members of the company go about Crafting, Singing, gathering herbs, studying lampmaking or whatever. So only the new guy need make the Open New Sanctuary choice while the others could do whatever they needed.