DM Dilemma - It's OK to say "No"

I've gotten some very nice email inquiries and comments about the sandbox posts and I'm very appreciative of that, thank you. One of the common themes of the inquiries seems to be regarding my boundary of "no in-town adventures" so I thought I'd talk about that for a minute, because boundaries/edges and player expectations are a dilemma that I read about DM's having.

That "no in-town adventures" boundary came about as a result of adopting Ben Robbin's "West Marches" campaign style. I bought it whole-cloth, including the "You must begin/end in civilization" and "No in-town adventures - civilization is boring - wilderness is exciting!" themes. I'm extremely up front about that in my player handouts and game introductions. 

No capes! And no in-town adventures, dah'ling! Too ordinary!

Someone asked me "why" the restriction and it's a fair/good question. The best answer I can come up with is that I find them incredibly boring.

"But Michael!" you may gasp (and I've been asked in same emails). "What if the players want it!? What if they DEMAND it?!"

Simple. I would say "No."

Well, why I would do something that I have absolutely no interest in? Why would I waste their time and mine? Why is there the expectation that the DM is someone who simply supplies entertainment on demand (I really wanted to put "is supposed to be a whore?" here, but figured that would distract some. Wait, I did it. Oops...) to the players who are within their rights to expect whatever they want.

Crazy, right? I see this all over the place though - DMs who think that they have to do XYZ, or that the player's fun should come at the expense of the DM's fun. Bullshit.

Now I am clear and up front about what I will and won't do. I don't bait and switch and even if a long-running player got pissed and threatened to leave unless I provide an in-town adventure.. well... sorry man, thought it would work out, hope you find a game you can enjoy. That's not to say that I don't appreciate player input, that we don't discuss rules, that I ignore player requests or feelings. At the same time, I've got my own ya-yas. I've got what works for me and I know what doesn't work and trust me, an intrigue-filled, plot-rich mystery of Lord So-in-so who may be a vampire in the Enonian Keep zzzzzzZZZZzzzzz... huh? Wha'? Let me know what's beyond the woods over to the east in the wilderness. I may spend 10 days hex wandering, but by god I'm filling in my map and making plans for my keep to go there, my village to go there and I'll move those goblins right the fuck out! See? I'm cursing and getting all excited about the prospect. (Now you know why I needed 29,000odd hexes...)

Look, this isn't a post about why in-town scenarios suck. It's a post that says you as the DM have every right to run, to enjoy, to demand a game that you like as much as you try to provide a game that other people like. I know that in Chicago, I am extremely lucky to have a big population and lots of opportunties. I have a pool of players that enjoy the kind of game I run, that enjoy the way I do things. Not everyone has that... but in consideration, if I were in a player-poor environment, I still would not run in-town scenarios. Why would I play basketball if I suck at it and don't like it? Answer, I wouldn't. I'm not a masochist, emotional or otherwise. I'm not doing this to be of service to everyone else. I'm doing this to share what I do enjoy, to be with like-minded people and to have awesome games doing it.

So it's OK to say "no". It's OK to tell the players "you can't" and it's OK to set limits, boundaries and edges. Just be up front, be clear and be consistent. Be prepared to wow them with what you CAN do, with what you WANT to do and let the love of THAT shine through and you won't get asked for the things you don't want to do. 

The sandbox problems and the DM skill level

Yesterday's cross-blog discussion with JB of B/X Blackrazor over his post on sandbox gripes went surprisingly civil [1], so I thought I'd continue the discussion with some points that he brought up in his comment. They're good ones but most importantly, they reflect that issues with sandboxes end up being DM and DM skill specific, not necessarily a reflection on sandboxes in general. I tried to be very careful in disupting the myth about sandboxes, not to bash on JB's DM skills.

See for me, I AGREE that sandboxes should be "living/breathing/moving" things...that's exactly WHY I say they're a crap-ton of work! Or as I said in my whole quote:
"It requires a crap-ton of energy on the DM’s part to keep the campaign world LIVING/BREATHING/EVOLVING/RESOLVING..."
See? The work (and I'm just as lazy as the rest of y'all if not moreso) comes from trying to make a "living world;" that and the "keeping a couple steps ahead" of my players...which I don't do.

JB, I think you're overestimating how much work is involved - it's not as much as you might think, or made it be in your previous games.

The living/breathing world is a combination of how I see the world and how the players see the world. In so many ways, the players themselves shape the coming adventures. And while this may involve writing a sentence or two in a notebook as compared to the work of:

Players were expected to play their character/role in whatever scenario (I hesitate to even call them “adventures”) that the DM devised. The DM was expected to come up with adventures.

 I'd be willing to bet it's about the same amount of time. In truth, the time I spend ends up being more reactive than proactive.

Here's an example - I had a dungeon full of ko-balds in an area held by ko-balds. The players wiped them out. A few weeks later, the players wanted to go back. I grabbed an encounter table and rolled up an owlbear and goblins. Since goblins are in the next forest over, and once the owlbear was killed by the freaked out players, the players wondered out loud if the goblins were going to move in. BOOM! There's my future story line "GOBLINS MOVE INTO FORMER KOBOLD BASE - WAR IMMENENT?" That added flavor and set up stuff for the future.

My point is that staying ahead of the players, for me, has been a combination of some prep (probably about the same time it takes to prep a module or grab the latest ScoobyDo adventure and rewrite it in fantasy format) and more of figuring out how the world reacts to the players. I listen to how the players see the world and it helps me to guide my hand. It's not always the truth - my players have come up with some crazy shit that just doesn't fit the bill, but that's OK. Heroes often get derailed on red herrings and I'll let them, they'll figure it out.

There's another quote I want to pull and this one is from Matt Finch's first adventure design book. I'm bastardizing it a bit, but it's the same jist: "Meaningful player decisions should have meaningful results." (Actually, his full quote is: "A good adventure should maximize meaningful player decisions." but you can see how I derived my interpretation.)

The players guide the sandbox a lot more than I let on because that's my job. I'm a con artist. I'm a scammer. I have this great sandbox with all the pieces, but in truth, the players do as much of the building as I do, through the things they do, or the things they don't do. I'm not some improv wizard, if I was, I'd be making money in comedy than being a boring IT manager. When my players make meaningful decisions, I want it have consequences, even if not right away, but it will in the future.

So what constitutes a meaningful decision? Well, that's one of those things that each DM and each player is going to differ on. For me, meaningful decisions involve - where are the players going? How do they interact with the elements of the destination (monsters, important objects)? What do their actions result in? What would be the reaction of all those involved who are not PCs?

Each adventure is not a meaningful decision kind of adventure in a world sense. Sometimes a "kick the door, grab the loot, kill 'em all" is exactly that. That doesn't mean that the weird sword someone grabbed from a kill/loot game now doesn't have meaningful results later on. It could. I planted a magic sword a long time ago and then in a place of Chaos, it shattered. Nobody has asked why, or what to do, or how to pursue it, so it remains open, but there's that potential. I'm not going to beat the players about the head with it, but at the same time, that thread is there. It's a line in my notebook.

This is a long winded way of saying that the two steps ahead thing and the Just In Time creation doesn't have to be about DM skill in crafting worlds - it can be just as simple as letting the players do what they do best and then letting the world react to that. And if you really need inspiration, grab that d12. 1-2, the world reacts badly, 3-5 the world is unhappy, but waiting, 5-7, the world is neutal, doesn't care, 8-10 the world is OK, but wants to see more, 11-12 it's the best outcome for the players' interest. Done. Next!

Whew. OK, JB continues...

And while I WANT my players to be independent and "go off doing their own things," I have a shit-hard time reconciling MULTIPLE players wanting to do DIFFERENT things at once...ESPECIALLY in a campaign world where the "maps" are static, even if the "world" is not.

Uhh, don't. Let them do it. It's not your job. You set the stage. They play in it. If  they want to go in different directions, LET THEM! They'll figure it out, or they won't. Either way, you've done your job and you'll do your job as impartial referee.

Here's yet another example.

I have two main themes in my world - Chaos (the Dark Ones) is on the rise and the Bestials (orcs, goblyns, ko-balds) are wanting to kick human ass. My third theme is "you need gold. Lots of gold. There's riches out there. Go get it." but it's not the main oppositional them.

The first two YEARS of my campaign have seen the players wander from goal to goal. First, they wanted to clear out the monastery. No, they wanted to raid the ancient dwarf mine/kobold outpost. Wait, no, they want to explore the woods and rescue New Hope. No, wait, let's dig through the Inn and find the rumored magic sword. No, wait, wait... there's a second level the dwarf mines. Let's loot it! No, I found a map to a gold mine out in the Plains of Irecia. Let's go there! No, no, we should find my god's holy site! No, the chaos is stronger in the monastery, we have to clear it!

You get the point. :) They've finally focused lately and it shows. They've decided the orcs are too powerful right now and they want to eliminate the nearer threat of the chaos under the monastery.

And that's OK. They wandered, they had a good time, they learned and their skills as players have improved. My skill as a DM has hopefully improved.

Please forgive the length of this post, but there's another aspect I want to explore from JB's reply:

I was writing how they don't work for ME (at least the last three or four I've tried), and how there may be another "primitive" way of playing that still has some merits.
I think it's cool that you guys all do the sandbox thing...I think you have a lot of good tips for a newbie sandboxer like myself. So long as my players get to develop their own characters over time...strange as it might sound (coming from me) that's what I prefer to see more than the development of a campaign "world."

When I read your post yesterday, my goal in the rebuttal was to address the underlying myths that get perpetuated,  you just happened to hit a crap ton of them. There's no way in hell I can judge you for being a good or bad DM unless I play in your game, so I tried to be real careful about not coming at you, but at the underlying themes.

I think all good or skilled DMs have that same approach - allowing the players to develop their characters. I know I do. I'm perfectly happy to let the players farm mustard, go genocidal on the countryside or even let Enonia burn while they set up their own new town. I've been happy to let them figure their world out for the last 28 months because it's been fun, we've all been learning and we all are getting invested in what we do. That's independent of how we construct the world we all play in.

I'd also like to say that there is no primitive way, no better way, no ONETWUEWAY of making a world tick. Sandbox is a tool, just like story telling is another tool. I've happily and liberally stolen as much shit as I can from all the blogs I read and all the games that I've watched or played in. Every DM has their thing that works and their thing that doesn't. I know that each game I walk away from, I feel like there's a dozen things I could do better. I could describe rooms/exits/layouts better. I could set better atmosphere. Hell, my fucking combat rounds sometimes are like keystone kops because I get so excited about fighting that Philotomy's sequence falls out my ass and I can't remember who is doing what. But I try to learn and improve my skills.

We keep coming back to that skill thing - and each style of play takes a skill but I think all these skills can be learned. It may not be easy, but it's worth the attempt, if you're interested. I have about zero interest in running a plot-driven campaign, but I will stick my toe in it now and then to see what I can learn from the experience. If you don't like sandboxes, think they're shit, cool... but I hope you learn something from learning about them. To me, that's no different than trying new video games to learn tricks, or trying a new sport to exercise a different part of the body. I'm a firm believer that if we don't push at the envelope, we don't grow, we don't find new areas to explore - and that at the end of the day is what drives me to do the things I do... to grow, to learn, to learn new things and express the crap in my head in new ways.

Well, if you read all the way through, you're a trooper and thanks for hanging in there.

[1] Not that JB isn't civil, but my experiences in the past haven't been so good on these in other areas, so this was nice that I could say "bullshit" and someone got what I was saying. :)

The sandbox myths - they continue and I stomp 'em

The A to Z thing has really taken a lot more of my creative time/energy than I thought, so I was wondering WTF I was going to write about today, and JB over at B/X Blackrazor has given me the perfect subject.

JB writes some good shit, but I have to disagree with him perpetuating the myths of sandbox play.

• Players often end up with a “huh, don’t know what to do” attitude (looking for clues or suggestions or direction from the DM)
• Some players DO have a strong idea of what they want to do, but it’s “off the grid” (i.e. something the DM hasn’t prepped), leading to them being forced to go for the direction offered by the DM
• PCs spend a lot of time combing through “tavern want ads” which is no more or less ridiculous than DQ’s “Adventurer’s Guild” (aped by many computer fatasy RPGs since).
• The players (and sometimes the DM!) get BORED with the world/setting long before they’ve exhausted all the adventure avenues the DM bothered to prep, thus leading to (what I see as) a waste of the DM’s time and energy.
• It requires a crap-ton of energy on the DM’s part to keep the campaign world living/breathing/evolving/resolving as the PCs podunk around the imaginary country-side.

I wrote about this two years ago (JESUS! Two years ago!?! Who the hell was I two years ago??) and even run local workshops on 2 hour sandbox campaign preps, but like birth certificate disputes, gas prices and bad pennies, this one comes up again and again. So let's once again dispel the myths and have some discussion about it.

Players often end up with a “huh, don’t know what to do” attitude (looking for clues or suggestions or direction from the DM)


I think it's a fallacy that sandboxes don't provide hooks or opportunities to adventurers. What sandboxes don't do is beat the players about the head with the chosen adventure of the month. If the players decide that the opposition is too tough, they know there are other opportunities, or they go looking for them. I think a sandbox doesn't hide, but it also doesn't force - they are just there. If players are too afraid to enter the bar, local Merchants Guild, talk to the local priest or lord ... well...

I can honestly say that in the 2 1/2 years in my sandbox, or in the solo game, I haven't seen the players have a "what do we do now" attitude because I present a living world. If you don't believe me, go look at the list of quests from both campaigns. It doesn't take a lot to do that either... just have a sheet of paper and when the players talk to NPCs or you drop a clue or announce what has happened between games, keep a note of it. Trust me, properly motivated (ie., poor) players will remember that 6 months ago, you mentioned that there was rumors of a gold mine beyond the ko-bald/goblyn infested forests.

This isn't rocket science, but it's also not requiring you build a rocket. Just leave hints and clues and let events transpire to guide you to how those clues/events build and develop.

Some players DO have a strong idea of what they want to do, but it’s “off the grid” (i.e. something the DM hasn’t prepped), leading to them being forced to go for the direction offered by the DM

That is exactly what I want! It's a fallacy that the DM has to "prep" for every player decision, in fact that's why sandboxes work! You put the pieces in place. You set the stage, but you also have broad concepts and brush strokes for those moments when the players do want to go "go off grid" and you have clear boundaries.

One aspect of my campaign that I do not hide is that I will not run in-town, in-kingdom adventures. I just don't do it. If the players wanted to pursue some sort of internal vendetta against the King, I would not run such an adventure. That's not my game, that's not my campaign and I'm really damn comfortable with that decision. If I'm a baseball player, why am I going to insist that the tennis players get up on a mound and throw tennis balls like baseballs to me? I'm not an in-town intrigue kinda DM. So my players know what to expect and they know the boundaries of my sandbox.

Within that, there's a whole world for them to explore and there's nothing "off-grid". If they want to ride 10 days to the Sithasten mountains, do I have 10 dungeons prepped? Nope, but I also give them and myself enough leeway that I *can* come up with something. My deal with the players to run a game is they tell me about 3 to 4 days prior what the mission is they want to do and who's coming. And I prep. If game day comes and we suddenly shift gears, I have no problem asking them for 15 minutes to figure out what is going to go on ... and I make some serious notes, grab some great tools and away we go - within the broad brushstrokes of my world and based on where the world has dynamically flowed since the first time I wrote those ideas down.

PCs spend a lot of time combing through “tavern want ads” which is no more or less ridiculous than DQ’s “Adventurer’s Guild” (aped by many computer fatasy RPGs since).


I also have to respectfully say "So the fuck what?" No more ridiculous than 99% of what we do anyway - wandering monsters, encounter tables, d30 tables, etc. If the players want to go to the Merchants Guild Job board, what do I care? 99% of those jobs are boring and the players are going to end up not caring. And if they do, then that's the world they want to play in. I'll run mustard farmers. It's not all that hard to drop hints and hooks to take the PCs away from "want ads." (see #1 above) and sometimes you go with a trope because it works. I can honestly say that the only time the PCs went to the Merchant's Guild Job board in Skalfier in my online game is because that's the mechanism I use to introduce players into how my world is structured AND that's my mechanism for dropping hooks or giving players a bit of income till they get the lay of the land. I don't force them to do so, but that's also not their primary mechanism for finding things to done once they get their feet wet.

The players (and sometimes the DM!) get BORED with the world/setting long before they’ve exhausted all the adventure avenues the DM bothered to prep, thus leading to (what I see as) a waste of the DM’s time and energy.


That's an interesting observation because I don't think that reflects sandboxes as much as it reflects the type of games/players/DMs involved in the campaign. I don't have bored players and if I do, they end up causing their own messes that get them quickly involved soon enough. It's also a fallacy that DMs have to prep every adventure that the players are going to participate in. I'm constantly a "just in time" preparer. I'm maybe 2 game sessions out, unless I'm using a module or third party adventurer. If the players run into something that I'm not ready for, I invoke the 15 minute rule or I'm not afraid to put up the "Under construction" sign.

If players are bored - ask why? Sandboxes are not static worlds - they shouldn't be. I set the pieces in place, but I also wind up the key and start the little toy soldiers staggering about. If the players get involved, the world reacts. If the players don't get involved, the world moves on. Broad brustrokes, remember? I don't have to "waste [my] time and energy" until the players are ready. When they are, I'll meet them there.

It requires a crap-ton of energy on the DM’s part to keep the campaign world living/breathing/evolving/resolving as the PCs podunk around the imaginary country-side.


Bullshit. Pure and simple. This is the single-most biggest fallacy I have seen to date and I don't know how it persists. OK, if you look at World of Greyhawk, First Fantasy Campaign, Conley's Majestic Wilderlands and so on, yes it looks like a crap ton of energy - THAT HAS BEEN BUILT UP OVER ONE/MANY DECADES!

I started Dark Ages with three dungeons of 1st level only. One was James M's monastery. Took me 10 minutes to adapt it. I added another module (which I can't reveal - yet) as the 2nd and beyond levels. As the players go through it, I spend maybe 10 to 15 minutes adjusting stuff prior to a game. Another dungeon was generated through Gozzy's online tool and I spent about an hour stocking it and tweaking it. As the players cleared it out, and I dynamically refilled it, that took maybe 15 minutes. And so on.

The area around Enonia, my PC's homebase - I took an hour or two. The map you're gonna see this afternoon as my "L" entry - all 29,000 odd hexes? I have about 10 filled with some sort of crap. And this is a 28 month ongoing campaign.  My wife's solo campaign has nothing but one page maps for each 30 mile hex.  As I need them. And it takes me maybe 15 minutes per map to generate it, figure out the general "feel" for the area and have it ready. I probably spend way more time painting the minis for her game than the actual writing.

I don't think my campaign takes me any more energy than the work I see going on with the story-based games, with the "gonzo-include-em-all" games. Over the years, yea, it's gonna build some layers and you're gonna see a lot of work, but it's no different than a Pendragon campaign, a Battletech/Mechwarrior campaign, a *gasp* White Wolf campaign and so on. The fact that sandboxes are some mythical high energy requirement type of deal is perpetuated only because someone went down that path because they bought the fallacy.

You can do this. No, really. You just have to get away from the one central myth that I hope to crush as mercilessly as I can... that you have to spend a ton of time and energy to provide a living/breathing space for your players to play in without having some sort of railroad or just abandoning the idea altogether.

If all else fails, I think you can build an awesome starting point by taking a gander at  Jeff Rients "RPG Stud God"'s latest awesome work - the twenty questions for a campaign. I don't think, after answering those questions and sticking to my Myth Buster suggestions, any DM that can run a game would have a boring sandbox, unless they really want to believe those myths. And if that's the case, well, I can't help ya then.

Chainmail - Battle of McGuillicuddy's Farm, Fall 46 AD

Sunday, I solo-gamed the small Chainmail scenario that I had planned out last week. Rather than three-peat the play-by-play and questions here, I'll point you to the OD&D Board thread and Knights & Knaves Alehouse thread where I have some specific questions. This post... is a flight of fantasy... a tale of bravery and woe.

It was a bit before dawn on the 13th day of Fall, 46AD and Gilroy squinted off into the distance. A bit of light bobbed and weaved, much like a will-o-wisp of legend. Gilroy spat into the ground and nudged his partner, Vomin. Vomin was a young lad, newly enlisted into the guard. Most landowners and homeowners within the town walls would grudgingly serve their requirement, but Vomin was excited to be doing something to mark his ascent into adulthood. Gilroy didn't begrudge him that, but it was still annoying all the same.

"That's someone with a torch." Vomin said, peering off into the pre-dawn gloom. "He's runnin' awful fast."

Gilroy grunted in response and waited. Soon enough, they heard gasping shouts as the figure approached. 

"Wassat he's sayin?" Gilroy asked.

"I ... I think he's yellin' goblins." Vomin said, a twinge of excited fear in his voice. Gilroy sighed and started to tighten his helmet. He hoped it was nothing more than an excited farmer's nightmare, but deep down, a disquiet grew in his stomach.

Horses neighed and snorted as the knights pulled up before the troops. Most of the Town Guards were red and puffing from the long forced march, while the Keep's soldiers drew deep breaths and drank some water. The bowmen were already stringing their staves and checking their quivers.

William shifted his lance and watched in pride as Marshall Henrick Roehm rode out before the troops and squinted off into the distance. The old warhorse had been out with his knights to do a small patrol when the word came in that goblins, goblins!, had come raiding. The Marshall hadn't blinked an eye, but upon querying the frantic farmer, he rounded up some lances of his cavalry, a few platoons of foot soldiers, collected the Town Guard that had been summoned and immediately marched north. William couldn't remember a time when old Hardtack Henrick hadn't been decisive, although some said he had often gotten into more trouble than he could handle. Rumor had it that his son was soon to be raised in status and leadership within the Keep, a sign that Henrick was relinquishing control due to his age. William hoped it wouldn't be true soon... he trusted the old warhorse more than he could name.

"Alright men! It looks like the goblins are setting themselves up in a line just beyond McGillicuddy's farm. Let's ride forth and see what they're up to. Archers and foot, form a line and follow behind!" Henrick bawled. William turned his horse in line and drew his sword. Today would bring victory, with Henrick in charge!

"Bah! They're moving the archers forward, cowards!" Henrick snarled. "Damnable creatures."

He waved to the cavalry. "We ride through the archers! By the time those green-skins know what hit 'em, we'll be through them and can trap the others between! Then we'll get on down the road. I know what those cowards are after, our harvest!"

Gilroy watched the horsemen line up and begin to ride as the lieutenants and sergeants bawled their commands and got the foot and archers moving up behind. He watched Henrick wave his lance and everyone cheered them on. As they advanced the archers fired volleys of arrows over the cavalry's charge to pepper the goblins. The knot in his stomach tightened further as the missiles didn't seem to have much effect...

William couldn't believe his eyes! The goblins had moved more troops from behind the woods and they were bearing down on their right. Even more unbelievable, the goblin archers were tossing down their bows and reaching for their swords rather than retreat from the charge! Henrick was to his right and yelling at his knights to ware the flank, but they were already among the archers and lances and swords were flashing as man and bestial fought.

Goblin blood sprayed in the air as the horsemen pushed their way into the archer's lines. William stole a glance to his right and watched as Henrick's knights tried to halt their charge and face the flanking danger. Then...

Three goblins jumped at Henrick from the side and one plunged his sword into the old man's neck as the other two pulled him off his horse. His knights milled in confusion as the goblin foot soldiers beat them to the side and rear and more men fell as horses died and goblin blades drank human blood....

The cavalry finally halted their charge some twenty to thirty yards behind the now destroyed line of archers. Some fled away, broken by the advance, but the spirit had broken much harder for the Enonians. The goblins were cheering and hooting... and they were advancing!  

"Back at 'em!" called out one of the cavalry lieutenants. "For the Marshall!" William wheeled his horse around and gripped his lance tightly as the horsemen advanced towards the jeering foot. With a crash, the two lines hit each other. The last thing William saw were two goblin blades coming from either side of his horse...

"They're all dead! I don't see the horses anymore!" Vomin cried out. Gilroy nodded grimly. 

"Keep your eyes to the front, boy! Those goblins advancing on us only care if we're dead... and we don't want to end up on a goblin's spear!" 

The two lines crashed together as Enonian footmen hewed at the goblins who stabbed and gibbered as they thrust their blades at the troops. Men screamed and fell and slowly the Enonians were pushed back till they retreated.

Gilroy wiped goblin blood from his face as the sergeants pulled the men back in line to face the advancing goblins. "Stand ready!" they called out urgently. Beside Gilroy, arrows flew as the archers desperately tried to hold the goblins off, but again, few fell and then the goblins were among them.

Gilroy was sporting a deep gash in his arm from a goblin blade. Vomin seemed none the worse for wear but he was clearly frightened. Around them, the battle seemed to go well, but men were falling, much too fast. Already, the humans were starting to pull back, but the goblins seemed to be doing the same. Then, several goblins advanced towards them. More and more men were starting pull back from the goblins onslaught. Gilroy saw that they were about to be cut off.

"Get going!" he said as he shoved Vomin towards the retreating men. "I'll hold them off!"

Vomin's grateful glance heartened Gilroy and Gilroy's grim look burned itself into Vomin's memory.

There's too many of them! The Marshall's dead! Retreat! Get back to the city!" screamed a bloody lieutenant, his nerve broken. The few men remaining from the foot soldiers began to flee, their resolve having fled. Vomin started to run with them, casting glances backwards in vain attempts to see if Gilroy was among them... but he never saw Gilroy again.

---

History records that on the thirteenth day of Fall, 46 AD, the goblins launched a successful raid of a particular rich harvest. A diversionary force had been sent towards Enonia while the remainder of the goblins plundered the grain stores and livestock to be carried back to their dens within the Dark Woods. Unfortunately for Enonia, Marshall Henrick Roehm was killed in the Battle at McGillicuddy's Farm, where Enonian forces responding to the attack encountered the diversionary force.

The knights were virtually wiped out, with only a couple of nobles surviving, and the cavalry was lost as an effective unit. The Town Guard and Keep footmen, losing their nerve at so many of their fellows dying, as well as shock over their Marshall's death, fled the battle alongside the archers. The goblins never attacked the city itself, but the loss of grain and cattle caused a great deal of privation in the ensuing harsh winter. Victor Roehm, Henrick's eldest son, assumed the title of Marshall, but some say he never was able to get over the death of his father.