Frontier Forts of Kenore, part 1

Perhaps my favorite “module” of all time is Judges Guild’s Frontier Forts of Kelnore. The concept is that an ancient kingdom built a series of forts along its border. The idea is reminiscent of the real-life Roman Empire’s milescastles that were built along Hadrian’s Wall, though the map of the fort is clearly different than that of a milecastle.

The cover of the first edition. The illustration is an accurate representation of the fort.

In the untold centuries since the kingdom collapsed, each fort has become somewhat different. From the book itself:

Though originally built exactly alike, later garrison commanders made certain changes on their own. Also, after being ruined and abandoned, the forts have been rebuilt or altered by subsequent occupants. Thus, each fort is no longer exactly like all the others. The degree to which the structure of the buildings have deteriorated is dependent upon how long they have been exposed to the weather and what damage was done to the buildings when the troops left. Subsequent alterations, additions, and repairs are determined by the skills, numbers, and length of stay of succeeding occupiers.

The book then goes on to give a series of tables that generates a unique adventure for a specific fort. I thought it would be fun to go through the process here.

Table 1: Site & Surroundings

The first roll we’re told to make is to determine the location of the fort. Because I’m going to use it in my world of Crowfield, I know that the surroundings are desert. I’m going to roll anyway to see if it inspires anything. I get a 14, Farmland. Interesting. The fort can be located at an oasis, surrounded by fertile land. That could be useful.

Table 2: Approximate History (Condition)

The book says that the second roll (1d6 this time) determines the fort’s “approximate history.” Looking at the results, however, I would say it’s more of a determination of the fort’s current condition. Results range from an ancient ruin (1) to someone’s stronghold (6). I roll a 4: Occupied.

I’m liking this. It’s definitely located in an oasis now, and someone is living here. Nice.

That result also determines the number of rolls to make on the next three tables:

• 1 roll on the Ruins Table (Table 3)
• 2 rolls on the Alterations Table (Table 4)
• 2 rolls on the Additions Table (Table 5)

Table 3: Ruins

The ruins table tells us that something in the fort has decayed. Maybe it’s burned or collapsed or rotted. I roll a 10 on 1d20, and that tells me that the Storerooms Roof/Wall Walk has collapsed.

If you look at the cover image above, the storerooms are the two doors you can see on the far back wall. If you walked in through the main gate and kept going straight, you get to the store rooms. That roof is now missing, which means you can’t use it to walk from the right-hand wall to the second floor doorway on the building on the left. (This would be easier if I could show the map, but out of respect for the author’s and artist’s copyright, I will not).

Why haven’t the current inhabitants fixed it? Maybe I’ll just remove the store rooms altogether.

Table 4: Alterations

Alterations are just what it says–things that have been changed from the basic floorplan. I have to roll (1d20) twice.

The first roll is a “2”: “Escape tunnel dug from Crypt (5), exits in rock pile 200 yds. to east.” I’m going off script here. It would be weird if every time I roll this it’s always from Crypt (5) and goes 200 yards. There are 5 rooms in the basement (4 crypts and a cellar). I’ll roll 1d6; I get a 5, so it will actually be Crypt (5) this time. Also instead of 200 yards, I’ll roll 2d4 × 50: I roll a 7, so 350 yards. So there’s an escape tunnel in Crypt (5) that goes 350 yards to a rock pile. I need to note that on the external map. Maybe the players will be able to use that as a way in.

The second roll is a “7”: “Door made from Mess Hall (14) into Storeroom (13).” Perfect. I couldn’t have planned this better. Storeroom (13) is one of the ones with the missing roof, and I mused if maybe the whole room should be removed. Now it makes even more sense that there’s no room there… they’ve made a door into the courtyard there.

Table 5: Additions

There’s no mystery what this table is about. Things that have been added to the fort over time. Two rolls, 1d12 for each.

Roll 1: “12”: “Stables built outside fort walls.” That’s interesting. The right hand wall of the fort is already stables, and someone added more. Maybe whoever lives here are horsemen of some kind. (Side note: Isn’t it stupid to build stables outside the walls? Yes, but I’ve visited Goodrich Castle and that’s exactly what they did. And, as you would expect, the enemy did a sneak attack and burned down the stables.)

Roll 2: “7”: “Pits and stakes placed around walls.” Oh! Someone who lives here is definitely trying to keep others out! Or, maybe the people outside are trying to keep something in.

Table 6: Principal Creature/Leader

Now it’s time to figure out who’s living in our fort. The notes for “Occupied” from Table 1 tell us that “Occupied forts are inhabited by a Leader character and some subordinates with one third of the chambers empty. Only a few vermin would be present in the empty rooms.”

Table 6 is actually six separate tables, one for each possible result from Table 2. For the Occupied sub-type Table 6 will give us the leader. It’s a 1d20 roll. I get an “11” which means our leader is a Half-Orc.¹

Whenever I have an NPC with an unknown gender, I determine it with a die roll. I roll 1d6 and 1–4 is male and a 5 or 6 is female. (The dividing line changes based on a lot of factors). In this case I rolled a 6, so the leader is a female Half-Orc. I’ll call her Ka'Taka.

Table 7: Random Location

Table 7 is optional. It determines where the leader hangs out. 

While I think the old commander’s quarters would be the most logical, I’ll roll anyway. If I get a result that seems stupid, I’ll go with my instinct instead. In this case, I roll an 11, “Tower.” That makes sense to me, so I’ll keep it.

Table 8: Alignment

Another optional table. This one determines the occupants’ alignment. According to the basic rules, Orcs are neutral or chaotic. I like throwing neutral orcs at the party, but I don’t want to do it too often. I’ll roll 1d100 and I get an 8: Chaotic Evil. I only use the original three point alignment system,² so I just call them Chaotic.

Table 9: Leader Level

This table tells us three things:

1. The leader’s level
2. How many henchmen she has
3. How many hirelings she has

Technically speaking, “level” doesn’t apply to monsters, but I think Half-Orc in this case was meant to an NPC rather than a monster, so I’ll use it. It’s another d100: I get a 30, which tells us that Ka'Taka is 6th level. 

I want to use this for a first level group, and I think a 6th Level character might be too tough for them.  I’m going to lower her to level 4. Looking at the level 4 line, she has:

• 2d4+2 henchmen. I rolled 7.
• 3d6+2 hirelings.  I rolled 13.

Table 10: Leader Vocation

A simple 1d20 roll tells us that Ka'Taka is a cleric. Being chaotic, she's clearly a cleric dedicated to Gob. In OD&D tradition, I'll call her an anti-cleric.

Tables 11–14: Henchmen & Hirelings

Judges Guild has a habit of throwing tables at the reader with no instructions how those tables should be used. This hasn’t been the case for this book, until now. We have 20 Henchmen and hirelings to roll for, and this is our guidance:

If specific occupations for followers are required, roll on Tables 11 Attendants, 12 Retainers, or 14 Warriors for Henchmen and on Tables 13 Servants and 14 Warriors for Hirelings.

But no guidance telling you how to pick which table, or how many on each. Let’s wing it!

We’ll roll once on each table (except warrior–we’ll roll once for henchman warriors and once for hireling warriors) and see how that feels.

• Table 11, Attendants: I roll a Courtier. I’ve never been exactly sure what that is, so I look it up in a dictionary. “One who seeks favor, especially by insincere flattery or obsequious behavior.” Oh, I can have fun with this one. Clearly a character trying to suck up to Ka'Taka. Let’s say that it’s a female orcish cleric. First level student of Ka'Taka. The student is convinced that she’s being groomed to lead the clan.

• Table 12, Retainers: Kinsman. Ka'Taka has a relative in the fort. Let’s say that it’s Mu'koto, her younger Half-Orc brother.

• Table 13, Servants: Scullion. Makes sense. Someone has to cook for everyone. Let’s say he’s a young orc boy named Tupo. He’s a product of his environment, but deep down he has a heart of gold. Combine that with the constant abuse he suffers from the others, and he’s ripe for becoming the party’s ally.

• Table 14, Warriors:

• (first roll): Light Foot Swordsman.

• (second roll): Heavy Foot Bowman.

It makes sense (in my mind, at least) for there to be more footmen than bowmen. So the five remaining henchman will be heavy bowmen and the twelve remaining hirelings will be light foot swordsmen.

In this usage “light” means that they wear leather armor and “heavy” means they wear plate. “Foot” means they’re not cavalry, so what’s up with all the stables from table 5?

Maybe they’re horse thieves! Or maybe the “stables” are pens where they hold human prisoners. That last one would explain the spikes and pits (also from table 5).

Or maybe we’ll make it a little of both!

Half-time

This post is getting pretty long, so I’m going to end it here. Next week I'll go through the rooms and generate the treasure and do the finishing touches.

What do you think so far?

---

1. Something I find interesting: Both printings of Frontier Forts of Kelnore say “Approved for use with Dungeons & Dragons” on the cover, yet the Half-Orc appears in AD&D but not D&D. Other Judges Guild products say “Approved for use with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons” on the cover, but not this one.↩

2. The original (1974) rules only had three alignments: Law, Neutral, and Chaos. Just over two years later, in the 6th issue (technically volume 2, issue 1) of The Strategic Review was an article called “The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and their Relationships to Good and Evil.” In this article the alignments were increased to five: lawful-good, chaotic-good, neutral, lawful-evil, and chaotic-evil. The 1977 edition of D&D (the “Holmes edition”) kept those five. The AD&D game added four more (neutral good, neutral evil, lawful neutral, and chaotic neutral) for a total of nine alignments. Like Table 6, Table 8 seems to be based on AD&D as there are nine alignments listed in the table. Also, I think this is my longest footnote ever.↩