Developing the Sandbox: Villages, Hamlets, and Thorps

This post is part of my series on developing the sandbox. You can read other posts in the series here. The series will, when necessary, go into detail on the development of my sandbox for Dungeon Module B1: In Search of the Unknown, but will also discuss sandbox development more generally. You can read play reports from my B1 campaign here.

The subject of this post is the development of villages, hamlets, and thorps - that is, small settlements. For larger settlements like towns and cities, see my earlier post on the subject. The process of developing a small settlement will look similar to that for developing a large settlement, so it's worth it to revisit that post before proceeding.

Villages, hamlets, and thorps are the bread and butter of low level D&D. This is, I think, because they are relatively small environments filled with simple people with simple problems and a relative lack of agency in solving those problems themselves. It is much easier to come up with a low level adventuring hook like "Kobolds are stealing chickens" or "Bandits plague the roads" when there aren't high level character-type NPCs around to solve those sorts of problems themselves (although as I've argued in past posts, there are plenty of reasons why these powerful NPCs would not deal with these problems themselves).

Players characters tend to have more agency in these environments, regardless of their level, which makes them a great place to start adventuring, relative to towns and cities. Their actions have more impact in small settlements - they can offer immeasurable aid to its inhabitants, push them around, and make the places theirs, for better or worse.

That isn't to say you don't also need towns and cities. The latter offer a more complex, fantastic, and dangerous urban gameplay experience, alongside greater utility. It doesn't make much sense for the player characters to be able offload their vast sums of treasure in a poor village, hamlet, or thorp. There probably aren't many henchmen in such a place, nor are there likely to be high level NPCs to offer training, or sizeable factions to contend with. That's what towns and cities are for.

I don't find true-to-life medieval demographics to be much use in D&D, but they can occasionally serve as a helpful reality test. Take donjon's Fantasy Demographics generator, for example. Here is an example of what sorts of tradesmen might be found in the average AD&D thorp (population 50):

I don't really care how many chicken butchers and rugmakers there are in my D&D game, but things like blacksmiths, furriers, inns, jewelers, locksmiths, magic shops, spice merchants, and taverns can all be extremely relevant.

Here is an example representation of the average AD&D hamlet (population 250):

Here is an example representation of the average village (population (population 750):

And finally, for comparison, here is an example of the average town (population 4,000):

It's not until you get up to town-sized settlements that you start to have most of the trades reliably represented. Again, most of this is useless for your D&D game, but it is a handy reference point when conceptualizing these locations. If the player characters are truly in need of some specific good or service, they can't count on a village, hamlet, or thorp to have it. They must seek out the town or city.

What then are villages, hamlets, and thorps for? As stated previously, they are a great place for the player characters' adventure to start. They offer low level hooks and agency. They are a training ground for the more complex urban gameplay environments to come.

As with towns and cities, the first step in developing these locations will be to create a minimalist sketch including the settlement's population, any character-type NPCs who live there, who rules there, and the general population or ruling power's initial attitude towards the player characters. You can do this exactly the same way as you would for towns and cities. The population will be smaller, which means fewer character-type NPCs, which means less work for you.

The only settlement of this type in my B1 sandbox is Ebongrove, a thorp of about 30 people. There are 26 humans, 2 dwarves, 1 elf, and 1 half-elf. There are no character-type NPCs. I'll make a point to detail the four demihumans that live here, since they will stand out. If there were character-type NPCs, I'd detail those as well, and since there would be so few, I could really go into detail if I wanted to.

Since the thorp lies in the shadow of a castle to the north (Fayette's Hold), I decide that it is under that stronghold's protection. However, the stronghold has been taken over by brigands, who have imprisoned its ruler. The brigands are agents of Lambrecht (the Evil wizard who rules Timbershore) but are now in conflict with him. They lord over the thorp and terrorize the surrounding countryside. I place a detachment of 20 brigands with a 3rd level fighter leader in the thorp as an occupying force.

Another thing which distinguishes these locations from towns and cities is their size. Obviously, they are smaller. Unlike towns and cities, where the player characters must crawl from district to district and from one location to another within each district, possibly incurring random encounters, these settlements are all basically one "district", and the player characters can travel from one location to another more or less as they please. Nonetheless, I like to have a few locations and their relations to one another laid out, like so:

This is a small settlement in AD&D, so of course there are trifling treasures buried in cellars and gardens and hidden in taxidermized animals, saddlebags, and under floorboards. I also note where NPCs can be found at different times of day. There isn't really any rhyme or reason for the number of locations or nodes, aside from the fact that I wanted a seven-node "flower".

Since the thorp has a population of 30, I decide there are three militia people among them, which the party can recruit to help fight against the brigands:

The "-2 to recruitment attempts" is just an interpretation of a standard reaction roll. In this case, I rolled either a 4 or a 5 for this NPC, which is an "unfriendly" reaction. As you can see, I justified this modifier by leveraging the NPC's relationship to another NPC in the settlement.

Here, then, is the list of the remaining NPCs:

Because these settlements are smaller and more tightly knit than towns and cities, we get to zoom in on these otherwise unremarkable NPCs and focus on their relationships with one another, the small favors the player characters can do for them, and the favors the NPCs can offer in return. Player characters can earn the NPCs' aid by simply going up to them and asking them (which is where the modifier/reaction roll comes in), by doing them a favor, or by earning another NPC's trust (similar to how militia people are more likely to lend their aid if their family members have already been helped). This creates a web of relationships which is much denser than what I would prep for a town or city.

This is ultimately what distinguishes small settlements from larger ones. Because there are so many people in large settlements, we have to focus on the most important ones, and the rest become fuzzier as a result. Small settlements offer a different sort of "slice of life" gameplay wherein even woodcutters, charcoal burners, and shepherds become important. The player characters can show up and simply fight the brigands and run them out of town (or thorp, in this case), but they also have a bunch of places where they can get help, if they need it.

Again, there's no real rhyme or reason to the number of NPCs I've chosen to detail here. Including the militia (and not including the brigands' leader), I've detailed 14 here, which is almost half the thorp's population. That's probably a bit much, but I just tried to think of who all might be here and what sorts of aid they might be able to offer. Five or six NPCs might have been a perfectly fine amount.

Also worth noting are single dwellings, which are home to just 1d12 occupants, but appear in 3% of all hexes according to the AD&D stocking method. These may seem rather dull and unimportant, but they're a lot of fun. With just 6 or 7 occupants on average, you can really flesh these out as homesteads with either multiple families or as single family dwellings with lots of children, elderly parents, adult siblings, hired hands, and the like. 

These places are extremely vulnerable to depredations by monsters, so you can have the same sort of "Kobolds stealing chickens" hooks, or even something like "Our kid wandered off and there are wolves out there." There's also always at least a 1% chance that any of these people can be character-type NPCs. One of these days I'm going to roll up a single dwelling with just a 20th level wizard living there inexplicably and it's going to be awesome.

Since my B1 sandbox has just the one thorp, you can check out my B2 sandbox for an example of a village and some single dwellings or my B3 sandbox for a bunch of villages and a hamlet, albeit much less fleshed out than the example provided here. You can see how I'm able to give each of the character-type NPCs just a little bit more detail as a result of there being fewer of them overall.

Hopefully I've demonstrated how villages, hamlets, and thorps differ from towns and cities. It may be tempting to include just a grand city to cover all your bases, just a village because it's easier, or just a town because it sits in the sweet spot in between, but different types of settlements offer different things, both in utility to the player characters but also in terms of gameplay experience. Not every sandbox will have both. Not every sandbox needs both. But the variety will make your sandbox - and the gameplay which takes place there - richer for everyone.

Developing the Sandbox: The Town

This post is part of my series on developing the sandbox. You can read other posts in the series here. The series will, when necessary, go into detail on the development of my sandbox for Dungeon Module B1: In Search of the Unknown, but will also discuss sandbox development more generally. You can read play reports from my B1 campaign here.

(It's actually surprisingly hard to find a map from a classic D&D adventure of the sort of town I'm referring to here, since so many famous modules deal in either villages or cities - very little in between.) 

What I'll be discussing in this post are settlements which are big enough that it's not worth it to spend time detailing each individual location, where it's instead better to break the whole thing down into a few thematic "chunks" (for example, "Herald's Market" and "Alchemist's Ward" in the image above, which is taken from donjon's Fantasy Town Generator).

What I won't be discussing here is smaller settlements - thorps, hamlets, and even villages - where the whole place is essentially one big area. Development of those locations will look different, and I'll discuss that in another post.

If you refer back to my post on Prioritizing Points of Interest, you'll find why I decided to detail the town of Timbershore first and foremost when developing my B1 sandbox. The road into the region leads straight into town. Unless the players decide to go around it, it's the first location they'll interact with in their adventure.

However, a town like Timbershore is a complex environment, and it will require a great deal of development. It's one of those locations, like a tentpole megadungeon, which a DM could theoretically sink limitless hours into as the campaign progresses, fleshing it out as demanded by in-game events and the players' interests.

You can read a lot about how best to utilize settlements like this in play. There was a whole blog bandwagon about it (technically this was about cities, but any advice on that subject is equally applicable to towns as well). Of course, the most important writing on this subject is my own. Or, at least, being familiar with my writing on the subject will likely aid you in understanding my perspective and this post in particular. Check out my posts on settlements in general and the implied setting of towns and cities in AD&D specifically.

So, where to start? If you refer first to my post on minimalist location sketches for sandboxes, you'll find that, knowing that this first location is a town, I'll next want to know its population, any character-type NPCs who live there, who rules the town, and how the powers that be respond to the player characters when they first arrive there.

Let's start with population. This will determine the number of character-type NPCs in the town, which will in turn determine their level distribution, which will in turn determine who are the town's "bosses". I determine population using AD&D's INHABITATION table:

A town's population is 1d6 x 1,000 + 500. For Timbershore, I rolled a 5, so its population is 5,500. You are also free to look at your hex map and determine the hectares of airable land in the region and do some realistic calculations based off of that. I hope you have fun. I'm going to go with the dice roll.

My towns and cities and such are primarily populated by humans. Large groups of dwarves and elves and halflings don't live in such places - at least not at this scale (though perhaps they used to). They are "monsters" with wilderness "lairs". But, some of them do live in human towns and cities.

To determine racial demographics, you could use this table:

Or even this table:

I prefer the first. What's the difference? The first one is 80% human, 5% dwarf, 5% elf, 2% gnome, 5% half-elf, 2% halfling, and 1% half-orc. The second is 70% human, 8% dwarf, 5% elf, 2% gnome, 8% half-elf, 2% halfling, and 5% half-orc. Do you want fewer humans and more dwarves, half-elves, and half-orcs? Use the second table. Or make up your own arbitrary percentages. It doesn't really matter.

Timbershore has a population of 5,500. That's 4,400 humans, 275 each of dwarves, elves, and half-elves, 110 each of gnomes and halflings, and 55 half-orcs. This isn't really important, except:

While this excerpt applies specifically to the recruitment of henchmen, I extrapolate from it that 1 in 100 of the human and half-orc populations and 1 in 50 of the remainder are character-type NPCs. This is, incidentally, why I prefer the demographic breakdown which yields more humans and fewer of everyone else - it's fewer character-type NPCs that I have to deal with, which is less work.

Using our demographics and this rule of thumb, Timbershore has:

• 44 human character-type NPCs
• 5 to 6 of each: dwarf, elf, and half-elf character-type NPCs
• 2 to 3 of each: gnome and halfling character-type NPCs
• At most 1 half-orc character-type NPCs

That's 63 to 69 NPCs with character levels. That's a lot, and if we were detailing a city, it'd be even more. Surely we're not going to detail them all (not yet at least - you can do it, but it's totally optional). Instead, we're going to figure out who are the important ones, and detail those first. How do we determine who's important? 

First, let's go back to that excerpt on Number of Prospective Henchmen. 1 in 1,000 people in the general population will be interested in employment as henchmen. I generalize this a bit by saying 1 in 10 of those identified character-type NPCs will be interested in employment as henchmen. For Timbershore, that's 4 to 5 humans and, at most, 1 of any other given race. 

You can roll a d10 to determine this, with the number of total character-type NPCs of each race serving as a percentage chance that one is interested in employment as a henchmen. For example, if there are 5 dwarves in Timbershore, then there's a 50% chance that one is recruitable as a henchman.

Henchman are locked in at levels 1 through 3:

For these NPCs, I'll just determine their level (1d3), and give just those of 1st level (because 2nd and 3rd level henchmen can only be recruited at higher levels) a name, a class, and an alignment, then put them aside. Nonhumans will have a chance to be multi-classed (see Race and Multi-Class above). Their alignment can be anything. I will usually have demihumans tend towards their Monster Manual alignment (dwarves will often be Lawful and/or Good, elves will often be Chaotic and/or Good, and so on), whereas for humans I'll roll 2d3 to determine it. I determine class by rolling on the Character Subtable ("Used For Encounters On All Dungeon Levels" - but ignore that!):

(Note that just because this is all AD&D stuff does not mean you must be playing AD&D. You can change out the races for whatever you like. You could rule that a result of "Ranger" is actually a 50/50 chance of being a ranger or barbarian. A result of "Illusionist" could instead be a sorcerer or warlock. These are generally very useful worldbuilding tools regardless of your prefer system. I am merely attempting to demonstrate their usefulness. Adjust to taste!)

Henchmen are one of the most important NPCs to detail first because the players have a good chance of interacting with them early, if for example they feel the need to bolster their numbers before beginning their adventure. The next most important will be the high level NPCs - those who run thieves' and assassins' guilds, rule strongholds, and command factions within the town.

These high level NPCs will be drawn from those remaining - let's say 40 humans, 5 dwarves, 5 elves, 5 half-elves, 2 gnomes, 2 halflings, and 1 half-orc. What to do with these? I start with breaking them down based on a loose notion of "tiers" comparable to D&D 5e's "tier of play". 65% are Tier 1 (levels 1 to 3, or 1d3, but not interested in employment as henchmen), 20% are Tier 2 (levels 4 to 7, or 1d4+3), 10% are Tier 3 (levels 7 to 12, or 1d6+6), and 5% are Tier 4 (levels 9 to 20, or 1d12+8).

That gives me 26 Tier 1 humans, 8 Tier 2 humans, 4 Tier 3 humans, 2 Tier 4 humans, and so on. Start with the highest level NPCs and work your way down, detailing them the same way you did henchmen. Don't generate all of them. For now, you only need to worry about those NPCs which have strongholds. They are the ones who will have large amounts of henchmen and followers to command, which means they'll be factions.

These high level NPCs and the factions they command will provide the most basic level of color to your large settlement - a town ruled by an evil wizard is much different than one ruled by a paladin, and a city with half a dozen thieves' guilds is much different than one with a like number of temples.

So then, who can rule a stronghold? Luckily, I wrote a whole post about this. At 8th level, clerics can build places of worship, and monks can build moat houses and friaries. At higher levels, fighters, paladins, rangers, thieves, magic-users, illusionists, assassins, and bards can build strongholds as well (note that druids do not build strongholds in towns and cities - you might rule that rangers, monks, and bards do not, either, according to taste).

You might prefer a system in which a character can build a stronghold at any level provided they have the means and the desire to do so, but I find that woefully unhelpful when trying to develop a location like this. I for one really appreciate AD&D's black and white approach to this. "X class can rule a stronghold at Y level" is a very useful rule of thumb for a DM trying to build a setting.

So for now, we need be on the lookout for character-type NPCs of 8th level or higher only - that's our Tier 3 and Tier 4 NPCs. When I rolled up these NPCs, I got a LN human fighter 7, a N human magic-user 7, a LG human ranger 8, a LN human magic-user 11, a CE human cleric 13, and a NE human illusionist 16 (since AD&D 2e has specialists of all eight schools of magic, I treat the illusionist instead as a specialist and roll d8 for their specialization, determining that this one is instead a diviner). 

Surprisingly, that gives me just two NPCs who rule strongholds (fighters and rangers get their strongholds at 9th level, and magic-users get theirs at 12th level). I determine that the human cleric 13 rules a large shell keep and that the human diviner 16 rules a large walled castle with a keep, using this table:

I make some reaction rolls and determine that the cleric is unfriendly and the diviner is friendly. This suggests to me at least that the cleric will be uncooperative with the party and that the diviner is willing to work with them - he is NE, so this doesn't mean he's altruistic, only that he thinks he stands to gain something by working with the party.

Remember that while the powers that be may be willing to work with the party to accomplish their goals, high level NPCs view adventurers as a threat to the established order, and none will be permitted to grow too powerful without being checked by their overlords.

This bit tells me that NPCs with strongholds will have 1d4+1 henchmen and several men-at-arms:

And this bit tells me what level these NPCs' henchmen ought to be:

The 13th level cleric will have 2-5 henchmen of at most 8th level, and the 16th level diviner will have a like number of henchmen of at most 10th level. Some of those lower level characters I rolled up (the LN fighter and N magic-user) can fill those rolls (the LG ranger's alignment is incompatible with both). Since the LN magic-user 11 is too high level to be a henchman to either and also falls into that "Tier 4" 9th to 20th level range, I'll make her an important NPC too, even if she isn't high enough level to rule a stronghold.

With my three most important NPCs identified, I'll make some contested reaction rolls to determine how they feel about one another. I determine that the diviner is aligned with the magic-user (friendly) and has an uneasy truce with the cleric (indifferent/neutral), and that the cleric wants the magic-user dead (hostile). 

I mill this over a bit and determine that the diviner and the cleric have some sort of agreement wherein the cleric is allowed to collect tithes and is exempt from taxation. Although the diviner is higher level, AD&D clerics get a small army and tons of fanatical followers when they build a stronghold, whereas magic-users must rely on paid men-at-arms and henchmen, so the cleric actually wields the more threatening force in town. The place is probably crawling with the cleric's agents. 

At the same time, the diviner possesses powerful scrying magic and is aware of everything that goes on in his domain, rarely needing to leave his stronghold at all. The cleric is certainly not a good influence in town, but her agents sow chaos and keep the people divided and frightened, which makes them easier for the diviner to control.

The magic-user is, in turn, the diviner's boots on the ground agent, carrying out his laws and orders. She is on the cusp of being able to build a stronghold, so perhaps she is dutifully serving the town's overlord in hopes that he will grant her permission to begin construction when the time comes. Since the magic-user is an agent of law and order, the cleric wants her eliminated, which may push the town over the brink into all-out chaos. She's not bold enough to take out the magic-user herself, but would perhaps align herself with some outside agents to get the job done.

I think that's a pretty good initial sketch for my town. After this, I would move on to sketching out my other locations, then circle back around for another pass at the town.

Somewhere in all of this, you're going to have to stat out these NPCs. You can wing it to a certain extent. For example, if you know an NPC is a 7th level human fighter, it's easy enough to run them at the table by simply looking up the relevant statistics when needed. The tricky part is in the finer details, like what magic items the NPC possesses, or, if they're a wizard, what's in their spellbook, and what spells they usually have prepared. 

I don't particularly like figuring all that out at the table. And if the high level wizard happens to have a ring of three wishes or some other powerful magic item, I like to know that as soon as possible, as that is potentially game-altering information. Once I'm done with my initial location sketches, I will usually do a second pass through all of my locations, during which I jot down stats for monsters and NPCs and roll up their treasure hoards. 

This can be really tedious when dealing with a place like a town where there's a high density of high level NPCs. There's not really an easy way to do it - I just put my head down and power through it. The players are unlikely to decide to try and confront some high level NPC in their first session, but players are unpredictable, so I like to be prepared in case they do.

The next most important step - really the last one to get your town ready for your first session - is to break it down into districts. This is an idea I took from Brave, and I find it really brings settlements like this together in a simple, gameable way. There's this nifty little table:

Personally, I'm only really looking at the Districts row, though you may find the rest of the information illuminating. A town has 1d4 districts. Instead of rolling, I base it on population size. Timbershore has a population of 5,500, which is about 85% of the maximum population for an AD&D town (6,500). Since the maximum number of districts is 4, I multiply that by .85 and get 3.4. Thus, Timbershore will have three districts, with a 40% chance of a fourth. I check for a fourth and determine there are indeed four districts.

I want one of these districts to be where the diviner lives and one to be where the cleric lives, so I create the High Ward - a wealthy administrative district at the town's center, with the diviner's castle atop a high hill - and the Chapel Ward - filled with hostels, almshouses, and minor shrines (remember there are no other clerics of high enough level to have actual temples here), with the cleric's religious stronghold at its center. The town is on a river and right next to the forest, so I also have a River Ward with docks and warehouses and a Timber Ward with lumber yards and sawmills.

I draw up a little flowchart map to show how the districts connect and create a brief description for each, including what general sorts of locations and people are found there:

• Chapel Ward (NE): Blanchefleur’s Keep looms over this district. Features minor shrines, cult safehouses, “charity” kitchens, mortuaries, hostels, graveyards, and catacombs. Flagellant processions make their way through the streets daily. Devotees of Blanchefleur, desperate wretches, cultists, and hospice workers live here. Connections: Timber Ward (S), High Ward (SW)
• High Ward (C): Situated atop a hill. Surrounds Lambrecht’s Castle and observatory on an even higher hill ("the High Hill"). Features markets, spell licensing offices, the courthouse, elite guard barracks, and residences of wealthy merchants and officials. Senior officials, licensed magi, wealthy traders, and administrators live here. Connections: Chapel Ward (NE), Timber Ward (SE), River Ward (S)
• River Ward (S): Noisy, profitable, and corrupt, where outsiders enter town when sailing downriver. Features docks, warehouses, guildhalls, caravan yards, river shrines, taverns and flop houses, smuggler dens, and toll houses. Boatmen, dock workers, traders, caravan guards, smugglers, and transients live here. Connections: High Ward (N), Timber Ward (NE)
• Timber Ward (SE): The working population center, closest to the forest. Features woodcutters’ lodges, charcoal burners, sawmills, tanneries, cheap inns, labor markets, militia mustering yards, fence yards and animal pens, repair shops, and the hunters’ guildhall. Laborers, trappers, foresters, hunters, and militia families live here. Connections: Chapel Ward (N), River Ward (SW), High Ward (NW)

From here, it's pretty easy to improvise where different things might be located in town. Need healing or want to visit a shrine to a deity? Go to the Chapel Ward. Want to yuck it up with the elite or auction off a captive dragon? Go to the High Ward. Want to secure passage downriver or fence some stolen goods? Go to the River Ward. Want to sell some giant beaver furs or hire a guide to help you navigate the forest? Go to the Timber Ward.

From there I can flesh out a few additional locations, like an inn in each district, a graveyard in the Chapel Ward, a bath house in the High Ward, a smuggler's den in the River Ward, a boxing yard in the Timber Ward, or whatever. I try to think of what the players might want to do in town (looking over your list of downtime activities is a good place to start), then create a few locations that make sense for each, with maybe a sentence or two of description. For example, my list of locations for the High Ward looks like this:

For now, there's just one thing left to do, and that's encounter tables. You can pretty much get by simply riffing on AD&D's CITY/TOWN ENCOUNTERS MATRIX, but I like to be a little more prepared. I generate four encounters each for day and night in each district (that's eight encounters per district, so 32 total for Timbershore). This is probably overkill - I didn't roll up any encounters in either of our sessions which took place in town, so you can probably get by with like, one prepared encounter per district per time of day, improvising as needed.

Since the encounters are by district, the district in which they occur should color the encounter. A demon or devil encountered in the Chapel Ward was probably summoned by the high level cleric herself. A high level magic-user encountered in the High Ward could be the diviner (or a projected image of the diviner) wandering the streets. A press gang makes a lot of sense in the River Ward, but less so elsewhere. Laborers in the Timber Ward might be woodcutters, but in the River Ward they would be dockworkers, and so on.

These encounters can also aid you in fleshing out the town. Some encounters will include character-type NPCs with levels. You can use these to "backfill" those other character-type NPCs which were too low-level to detail up front, adding them to your roster as you go. By doing this, I was able to determine the identities of all my remaining character-type NPCs. For example, the River Ward's roster looks like this:

One can also encounter monsters like fiends, lycanthropes, and undead wandering the streets. Because these are unusual, they're worth rolling up ahead of time. These can further flesh out the town by allowing you to add monster lairs as locations. If I roll up doppelgangers in the High Ward, I may want to add a location to that district where a wealthy family has been replaced by imposters. If there's a vampire wandering the Chapel Ward, it probably lairs in some old mausoleum where the locals fear to tread. If there are wererats in the River Ward, there's probably a sewer or an abandoned ship where they make their lair. This is all worth adding to your rumor tables as well.

When rolling up these encounters, remember to disguise them using vagueness and similarity, and that dealing with NPCs should be expensive and irritating.

We're not quite done with this town. We will need to come back and fill in any monster lairs as determined by our random encounters, and we will need to key our high level NPCs' strongholds as well. Since the party is likely too weak to confront either of these locations at the start of the campaign, we can circle back around to that later. For now, the town is probably quite ready for play.

Play Environments, Power, Complexity, and Agency in D&D

Location types exist in close proximity to one another but serve very different gameplay functions.

There are basically four main location types in D&D (and D&D-like games): settlements, strongholds, dungeons, and lairs.

You might disagree with this taxonomy. The Welsh Piper's Hex-Based Campaign Design identifies two other types of "major encounters" (or locations): religious orders and natural phenomena, as well as many more "minor encounters" (or locations): camps, beacons, construction sites, battlefields, crossings, gathering places, and more. Sachagoat's Re-Inventing the Wilderness identifies not just towns, lairs, and dungeons but also "scenes" and "utilities". Hexographer has icons for oases, geysers, windmills, wineries, and graveyards. 

You can't really boil all the locations player characters might encounter in their adventures down to just these four broad categories. But these are, I believe, the "core four" locations around which a D&D-like game tends to be structured. They are the major locations characters will be interacting with again and again. 

There might be one settlement or stronghold which serves as a home base, a single megadungeon that props up the whole campaign, and one big bad monster lair such as a dragon's den or an orc camp which threatens the entire region until it is dealt with, or there may be many settlements to familiarize oneself with, many strongholds whose rulers must be obeyed or subverted, many dungeons to haul treasure out of, and many monster lairs to clear out or otherwise deal with.

Three of the four location types are those on the AD&D DMG's Inhabitation table:

Lairs are not included because it is assumed that these will be discovered when monsters are randomly encountered in their lair based on the % in lair statistic. I prefer to stock my sandboxes with these lairs ahead of time, which makes them set locations. Thus, when I create a sandbox, I'm populating it with these four location types. First I'm checking each hex for human inhabitation (including ruins). Once all areas of inhabitation are determined, I check the remaining hexes for monster lairs.

While I'm not going to argue that Gygax was right about everything or that his approach to designing D&D should color our perception of all such games in the present and into perpetuity, I do find this distillation of location types into a manageable few to be appealing. There are certainly others, but to me these feel very much like the most important, central locations in a campaign. (I replace religious orders, as defined by the Welsh Piper, with strongholds ruled by religious character-types like clerics, druids, paladins, and monks. And how many groves, stables, windmills, and wineries are keystone locations in the average campaign? I think it's not many.)

For further reading, I recommend my post on creating minimalist sketches of these four location types for the initial stages of sandbox prep. I think that's a good primer for better understanding the four location types and what I consider to be the most important information to know about each before diving into more detail-oriented prep.

What interests me about these four location types is what gameplay utility and experience each provides - that is, what is each location type for and how does it feel to interact with each?

Since my primary focus at this time is AD&D, I will be analyzing this topic through that lens. Not every D&D-like game will have settlements filled with unhelpful NPCs and burdensome taxes, strongholds ruled by character-types of a specific level with a specific number of men-at-arms, dungeons which conform to that particular early D&D logic, or lairs containing hundreds of orcs, but AD&D has come to color my perception of D&D and its derivatives as a whole, and many of the ideas here are still broadly applicable to similar games.

Settlements

I've already written a great deal about settlements in AD&D, the purpose they serve, and the vibe they give off. In short, they are incredibly useful places where player characters can accomplish mundane tasks such as reprovisioning, recruiting henchmen, and gathering information, as well as more fantastic efforts such as acquiring spellcasting services from high-level NPCs or even auctioning off captive dragons and selling monster organs.

While being useful, settlements are also often unfriendly, oppressive, and incredibly dangerous places where player characters are strangers and viewed as threats to the powers-that-be, where relentless taxes check their rampant accumulation of wealth, NPCs are sensitive jerks, diseases flourish, powerful factions war with one another in the streets, and almost everyone you encounter is trying to trick you, call the guards on you, rob you, fight you, or even kill you for looking at them funny.

Due to their nature as densely packed social environments with labyrinthine rules, odd taboos, and resourceful individuals and groups with independent interests in the player characters and what they do, settlements are immensely complex environments where the players must carefully consider and prepare for each move they make. 

It is this element of settlements which enables them to provide their other gameplay function (aside from sheer utility): political intrigue and high-level faction play. Above all, settlements are a test of the player's mastery of the complex social fabric.

Settlements are the lifeblood of an adventurer, allowing them to turn treasure into gold, gold into experience points, experience points into levels, NPCs into contacts, contacts into information, and information into further adventure. They also don't exist solely for the player characters' pleasure and utility. While they might serve as a home base to the characters, they are also highly dangerous. A wise player of a low level character will spend as little time as possible within a large settlement like a town or city before turning their attention back to those environs in which the adventurer truly belongs.

Dungeons

Dungeons are the low level adventurer's true home. Considering that low level player characters in a town or city might stumble into a high-level NPC who has a problem with them, a demon that's escaped a cleric's or wizard's control, or a vampire that wants to suck their blood, they really shouldn't be there if they can avoid it - or at the very least, they should avoid going out for a walk at night as much as they can. 

Similarly, they have no armies with which to contend with stronghold rulers or enough renown to be welcomed into the Keep on the Borderlands's inner bailey, and they are not strong enough to venture into the unpredictable wilderness and start clearing out dragon dens and orc camps. Dungeons, on the other hand, are much more suitable environments for early career adventurers.

Dungeons are "balanced". The 1st level of the dungeon is fit for exploration by 1st level characters. The monsters therein are drawn from a handful of tables including creatures that such characters could reasonably fight or otherwise overcome or engage with. It gets more dangerous the further down they go. Unlike the town or city, the dungeon is a simple environment with rules which are fairly easy to grasp. 

Obviously, that doesn't mean the dungeon is safe - there are monsters, tricks, traps, and other nasty things. Higher level monsters can wander up from deeper levels of the dungeon. A trick stairway might turn into a slide that sends the party down more levels than they wished to descend. A falling ceiling trap may instantly kill an adventurer of any level. They might get lost within, never to escape.

The value of a dungeon to an adventure is that it is a relatively simple environment with easily understood rules and structure. It is a place to collect treasure and experience points early in the game when the player characters are most vulnerable. Dungeons do not usually contain groups of monsters which require a small army to uproot, and there is not usually a powerful ruler sticking their nose in the party's business and exerting their will upon them.

That's not to say that dungeons are without intrigue. Just as settlements offer complex political faction play, dungeons have factions too - they're just (usually) smaller. The factions in dungeons aren't guilds of thieves and assassins with high-level cutthroats at their disposal or merchant consortiums that control the levers of power - they're groups of 2d4 hobgoblins, 4d4+2 kobolds, and d6+6 orcs (at least initially).

While factions and social play are important in dungeons, this is not the primary challenge of these locations. Rather, dungeons are a test of the player's mastery of a space. The primary mode of play in these environments is exploration. 

Play in dungeons is concerned with figuring out and dealing with whatever's in the next room. If there are monsters, how do the player characters overcome them, circumvent them, or collaborate with them? If there's a trick, what does it do? If there's a trap, how does the party disarm it or get around it? If there's treasure, how do they identify it and get it out? 

More advanced is not just confronting the dungeon room by room, but understanding the broader picture and how the room fits into the greater space. How does the room connect to others? Can the party use that information to plan an ambush or a tactical retreat? Where is it safe to rest? Where are the secret doors? The stairways? The hidden dungeon entrances and exits? What is the fastest route to the party's goal which allows them to minimize encounters with wandering monsters?

Exploration is key to settlement play as well, but like much of settlement play, the medium through which information is acquired is social. Players learn where to find an inn, where to buy equipment, and where to go to recruit henchmen by asking around. They learn how to buy and sell smuggled goods, where the assassins' guildhall is, and how to infiltrate the palace by leveraging their connections. They don't (usually) do it by mapping all the buildings on graph paper, looking for spatial discrepancies, and knocking on the right 10' section of wall (although they could, I suppose). Navigating the physical space of the settlement is less important than navigating its social dynamics.

Strongholds and Lairs

I feel compelled to address both strongholds and lairs together, since the two are difficult to parse. Is not a stronghold the lair of its ruler? Is not a monster's lair a place where it fortifies itself against intrusion by adventurers? A group of bandits, berserkers, brigands, or dervishes might rule a stronghold as their lair. A group of demihumans or humanoids or even a dragon might lair in a deserted stronghold.

It is worth pointing out that there are different kinds of monster lairs. What exactly a lair looks like is determined by the type of monster that lives there. It could be a cave, a camp, a village, a castle, or something else entirely. The most important distinction is not so much the type of place but the quality of creature therein - namely, is the monster intelligent or not, and does it appear in numbers or with minions?

The lair of an owlbear is a relatively simple - though still dangerous - environment, while a lair of orcs is more complex because of their greater numbers, ability to organize to repel invaders, and respond intelligently to repeated attempts to infiltrate their home. Whether they live in a cave, fortified village, or ruin will make a difference, but not a huge one. A dragon's lair might be comparable to an owlbear's if it's a dimwitted variety of dragon. It will be more complex if the dragon is intelligent or cunning, and even more so if the dragon has enlisted a small humanoid army as worshipers or mercenaries.

The idea for this post initially came to me after reading dungeon modules B1: In Search of the Unknown and B2: The Keep on the Borderlands. I felt that B1 is a good example of a prototypical dungeon (itself a deserted stronghold) and that B2's titular Keep and Caves of Chaos are good examples of a stronghold and a lair (or series of lairs), respectively. 

But reading through the Caves of Chaos, with their large homogenous populations of allied monsters who can all be mobilized to ward off intrusion together, along with their tightly-packed corridors where control of strategic chokepoints would prove essential, I wondered, "Is this really that different from a stronghold?" Whether the players choose to clear out the Caves or ally with their inhabitants to instead lay siege to the Keep, does the actual gameplay experience of doing either of those two things differ all that much?

Gus L. writes about this element of Gygaxian design better than I ever could in his post on All Dead Generations, Gygax's Fortress. In it, he writes about how many of Gygax's iconic adventurers like The Keep on the Borderlands, the Against the Giants series, and the Vault of the Drow (all of which detail what I would classify as "lairs") put siege-style gameplay front and center. Siege, you say...like the thing you do to a stronghold?

This is not to say that there is otherwise no overlap between all of these location types. The ruler of a settlement might dwell in a fortified tower. The Keep on the Borderlands is a place to provision and gather information as much as the Village of Hommlet. A settlement might contain a ruined manor which is essentially a dungeon, and a dungeon might house a large group of squatters or other inhabitants which form a de facto settlement within. Monsters might lair in settlements just as they do in the wilderness, and a wilderness elf enclave is a settlement of a kind. A ruin could have once been a stronghold. Monsters lair in ruins.

But the relationship between strongholds and lairs strikes me as different because they feel so similar when you consider how the players interact with them. If the players wish to roust an evil ruler from their castle, it's going to look very similar to clearing out the Caves of Chaos - a protracted series of forays into a defensible position held by an organized, (mostly) united enemy.

Much of this can be chalked up to aesthetics. A stronghold is a stronghold because it is a tower, keep, or castle. It has a gatehouse, battlements, oil cauldrons, ballistae, catapults, or whatever. A lair is a lair because it's a cave, an informal camp, or a hut in the woods. But it isn't always that - hobgoblins and orcs sometimes lair in above ground villages with ditches, ramparts, palisades, gates, and guard towers. Many giants and aquatic creatures like locathah and tritons live in castles.

You could also attribute the difference to ideology. A stronghold is a stronghold because the creature who rules it is viewed as a person or as part of the established order, regardless of their alignment or relationship to their neighbors. A lair is a lair because it is inhabited by crude monsters who are outsiders, without rights or the privilege of simply living. It's essentially Law versus Chaos.

That's all well and good (or bad, I guess), but it's unsatisfying to me because I'm primarily concerned with the gameplay function of these locations - what use do they present to the players, and how do the players engage with them? From that perspective, how are strongholds and lairs different?

One way to think of it is how the locations project power. Strongholds control a certain area around them and collect revenue from the settlements within their domain. They send out patrols of men-at-arms led by high level fighters. The stronghold's ruler might emerge to challenge the party to a joust, demand a tithe of treasure or magic items, or ensorcel the party to send them on some quest. Monsters in their lairs, on the other hand, just wait around for the party to come kill them and take their stuff.

But this is a disservice to monsters, and not entirely true. Monsters with a lair in the area should be included on wilderness encounter tables. Orcs can go out on patrol too, mounted bandits will surely raid any inhabited areas within their sphere of influence, and flying monsters like dragons can control and have influence over the entirety of a small region, even demanding tithes of treasure from settlements within their domain much the same way a stronghold's ruler might.

You could also make a distinction between the two on the basis of their relative locations. Strongholds are generally found in inhabited areas, whereas monster lairs are found in the wilderness. Strongholds are known locations and readily accessible to the players should they have the means to take them, whereas monster lairs are hidden and remote, requiring scouting to find and wilderness travel to reach.

This too does not hold up to scrutiny. More dangerous monsters are generally found in the wilderness, yes, but monsters lair in inhabited areas as well. Humans, demihumans, humanoids, giants, and even vampires can establish their lairs in close proximity to settlements, strongholds, roads, and cultivated farmland. If one of these creatures lairs in a fortified camp or stronghold, its location is likely known, and it is probably well within reach of player characters launching forays from inhabited lands.

You could attribute the difference to logistics. Taking a stronghold requires a small army and siege weapons - but clearing some monster lairs will require these as well. According to the AD&D DMG's Appendix C, a stronghold will have its ruler, up to five henchmen, and as many as 64 men-at-arms led by four low-to-medium level fighters. On the other hand, a gnoll lair can have up to 200 gnolls, 10 leaders, a chieftain, 20 guards, and either three trolls, 16 hyenas, or 12 hyaenodons. Humans, demihumans, and other humanoids also appear in numbers up to the hundreds with leader-types and (often) other monsters in their service. 

These will need to be faced with armies as well - and in many cases, armies which are larger than those needed to deal with strongholds. Facing a monster lair in the form of the aforementioned hobgoblins' fortified village or giants' castle will likewise require the use of siege weapons, just as strongholds do.

The distinction might also be a matter of politics. Strongholds are part of the established order - they are fortified positions in which armies can be mustered, which control a surrounding area and collect revenue from its inhabitants. Powerful people within the social fabric of the campaign will generally care one way or another about what happens to a stronghold, and they will be sticking their noses in the player characters' business if they get wind of a plot to usurp a local ruler.

But that's not to say that people won't care what happens to a monster lair. Goodly folk will likely be appalled if they hear that the party led an army to massacre a village of elves, and a powerful Evil magic-user who rules the local town will be none too pleased to find that the party has slain a manticore with which the magic-user was secretly aligned. Similarly, people's feelings about the fate of a stronghold can go both ways - fury if the party burns down a monastery inhabited by peaceable monks, or jubilation if they overthrow a tyrannical warlord.

The difference is utility. A stronghold is real estate which the player characters may now control. They are probably not going to take up residence in a cave cleared of goblins (and would not be able to raise an army there or collect revenue from it in any case), and might not be able to make much use of a castle proportioned for inhabitation by giants, but a conquered stronghold is a readymade base of operations for the player characters going forward, which will come with both perks as well as obligations.

All of these locations exist on a gradient which is perhaps best viewed through the lens of power, complexity, and player agency. Dungeons are relatively simple environments where players have a high level of agency despite their characters not having much power. There are factions within, but they are small. A local ruler might have opinions about what goes on in the dungeon and may lay claim to what is hauled out of it, but their ability to exert control over it is limited. Players of low level characters by comparison have much less agency in highly complex settlements, where powerful factions and high level NPCs rule, influence, and exert themselves upon those weaker than them.

Strongholds are somewhere in the middle. They are fortified, ruled by high level NPCs, and involved in regional politics, but they are not so formidable that they cannot be overcome by medium level characters, and their position (often) on the borderlands of civilization means that the more powerful rulers of settlements' influence over them will be somewhere between that of nearby dungeons and that of the settlements themselves. However the players address them will require some consideration and planning because they are of medium complexity.

So what then is the role of monster lairs? Because they can vary so much, they fluctuate along the gradient. They are stepping stones from one level of power, complexity, and agency to the next - the owlbear den is probably more dangerous than the dungeon levels the player characters have explored up to that point, but it is not any more complex (it might even be simpler), and the players have considerable agency in addressing it because it is unlikely that anyone will retaliate against them for clearing it out. These lairs give the players the experience (both in terms of experience points as well as accumulated knowledge) to later tackle more challenging locations like strongholds.

The lair of hundreds of organized men, demihumans, or humanoids may in some cases be an even tougher nut to crack than a stronghold ruled by a character-type, but past experience with such a stronghold (and the accumulation of revenue and mustering of an army in such a place, should the characters be able to hold it) will prepare them for the challenge. It is a more complex environment than the owlbear den because the monsters there will be true factions of their own - meaning powerful individuals will have opinions about them, which in turn will limit the players' agency. Like the owlbear den before it which provided the bridge to engaging with stronghold play, this type of lair will be the launchpad into high level play in towns and cities, with the player characters now powerful enough to assert their agency there.

We can summarize the complexity/agency gradient as a semi-linear progression as follows, from low complexity/high agency environments which require only a low level of player character power to engage with to high complexity/low agency ones which require greater player character power: dungeons > simple monster lairs > strongholds > complex monster lairs > settlements. 

There are of course more complex and challenging dungeons (or simply deeper, more dangerous levels of the same dungeons in which play begins), as well as simpler settlements (a thorp and a city are very different environments). We could complicate the progression like so: dungeons/simple settlements (thorps, hamlets, and villages) > simple monster lairs > moderate complexity settlements (towns)/moderate complexity monster lairs (where monsters are intelligent/faction-like but not huge in number (a clan of ogres, for example)/strongholds > complex monster lairs (a clan of 100 orcs, for example) > complex settlements (cities).

This is reflected nicely in my sandbox for B1: In Search of the Unknown. In that post, I anticipate that the players will begin by tackling Quasqueton, then venture into the wilderness to deal with the less complex monster lairs (the leprechaun, the giant eagles, and the owlbears), then graduate to the brigand stronghold and the slightly more complex/challenging ogre lair and adventurer camp, before finally being able to confront the evil illusionist who rules the local town.

None of this is prescriptive - the illusionists' stronghold is right in the middle of town, and the adventurer camp, brigands' castle, and ogre den are nearby. There's nothing stopping the player characters from checking those places out in the very first session, but they will face considerable challenge should they choose to try confronting them. This challenge might be readily apparent to the players, but if I'm conscious of it as well, I can be sure to signpost the danger in rumor tables and interactions with NPCs.

Regardless of how exactly we define it, understanding this progression is key because it informs how campaign play is structured. Player characters begin with a relatively small amount of power and a limited ability to affect the world. They begin play in less complex environments, which they can affect without entangling themselves in overwhelming complications. As they accumulate power, their ability to affect the world grows, allowing them to tackle more challenging environments while being equipped to deal with the complications which arise.

Each of these locations is essential to a standard D&D-like game not only because they provide different gameplay experiences to the players and utilities to the characters, but because each is a stepping stone to the next type of adventure environment, allowing the campaign to evolve in scale alongside the player characters' growing ability to affect the setting.

The Implied Setting of AD&D Towns & Cities: Four Themes

This is a topic I've been dancing around a lot for the past few months. As my observations have accumulated, I've begun to feel that it would be beneficial to collate my findings into a broader "master post" which paints a more comprehensive picture of the subject. To summarize my findings so far (more or less sorted beginning with broad ideas down to specific details):

• Player characters are assumed to be strangers to the land in which they adventure, including the local town or city, and will have to learn the lay of the land when they first begin their careers. Even things as simple as entering through the gate and finding lodging, a place to buy equipment, and where to meet fellow adventurers is intended to be a challenge.
• Towns and cities are home to high-level NPCs. They represent the established order, and view player character adventurers as a threat to that order. While they generally have no interest in adventuring themselves (allowing the player characters to rightfully be the main agents of change of the campaign), they are more than happy to use the player characters as pawns, both to accomplish their own ends as well as to remove these threats to some distant border region where they will pose less of a danger and hopefully build their own domain well removed from the NPCs'.
• NPCs are expensive and irritating to deal with, and because of the high density of NPCs in towns and cities, adventures in these places will as a result be particularly expensive and irritating. While towns and cities offer many amenities and services to the player characters, actually obtaining these is a challenge of the player characters' wealth and the players' patience.
• Encounters in AD&D towns and cities are intended to be disguised "using vagueness and similarity". The players are meant to never be quite sure who or what exactly they're encountering. While many encountered people and creatures will be indifferent to the party, many others will be actively seeking to prey upon them (using their mistaken identity to their advantage), or more than ready to throw a fit if they're offended or mistreated (likely because their identity is mistaken).
• AD&D towns and cities are supported by a robust system of duties, excises, fees, tariffs, taxes, tithes, and tolls - including tolls to use roads to dungeons. Towns and cities do not exist solely to house and support the player characters but also to lord over them and drain their resources. If the player characters conspire to dodge these annoying inconveniences, they might pay for it by way of the usual complications involved in engaging in criminal activity or by becoming indentured servants to the city guard or watch.
• Towns and cities are the best place to find henchmen and hirelings. 1 to 2% of NPCs are "suitable for level advancement", and of those, only 10% are looking for work as henchmen. Recruiting them takes time and - like other interactions with NPCs - is likely to be costly and frustrating. There's a cottage industry of criers, tavernkeepers, and printers who make substantial amounts of money on the side helping adventurers advertise to prospective henchmen. It's also suggested that there is a complex web of social taboos and expectations when recruiting henchmen, which may apply more broadly to interacting with other NPCs in towns and cities - alignment and religion are touchy subjects, and speaking the language of alignment is a social faux pas, reinforcing that in these environments the player characters should never know exactly who they are dealing with.
• Larger towns and cities will usually have a market for subdued dragons as well as other enslaved monsters, their eggs, young, hides, and other parts - that is, there exists in AD&D towns and cities an adventurer-fueled "monster economy" of sorts. Occasionally, adventurers (player characters or otherwise) will pull a subdued dragon, a train of giant beavers, a cartload of pegasus eggs, or a barrel full of mind flayer brains into town to sell, which is probably an occasion worth noting. If followed to its logical conclusion, this presupposes that wealthy and/or high-level NPCs will own pet dragons, griffons, and the like, and be decorated with the pelts of giant otters and winter wolves.
• Cities are infested with disease, which proliferates due to crowding, filth, and plague-bearing beggars and rats. These diseases can be quite lethal, and because curing them is relatively expensive and difficult at low levels, these characters would be wise to spend as little time in cities as possible.
• Most towns and cities will be home to both a Thieves Guild and an Assassins Guild. Thief and assassin player characters will need to choose whether to join them or supplant them. Even in the absence of such player characters, there will likely be conflict between these entities and their upstart rivals, generating conflict which the player characters can choose to avoid or become embroiled in.

To these points I'll add a few others before concluding. From the PHB, in the section titled MONEY, AD&D cities and towns are analogous to gold rush boom towns:

This not only justifies why equipment prices are so high compared to what might be "historically" accurate (I'm to understand that some people are concerned about this), but also lends additional character to the town or city. Towns and cities are vital places to adventurers due to the availability of goods and services, but they are also money sinks where opportunistic merchants and service providers will test them to see just how much they're willing to spend for what they need. Also, D&D is a Western.

From the PHB section titled THE ADVENTURE:

Town adventures are described as "interesting, informative, and often hazardous", requiring "forethought and skill". "Care must be taken in all one says and does" and in these environments one can find "many potential helpful or useful characters" as well as "clever and dangerous adversaries".

Later, in the section titled SUCCESSFUL ADVENTURES, we are told that, compared to underworld and wilderness adventures, "City adventures are the toughest of all":

Like underworld and wilderness adventures, successful adventures in the city depend on "Setting out with an objective in mind, having sufficient force to gain it, and not drawing undue attention to the party." Why then are city adventures "the toughest of all"? 

Probably it is some combination of the aforementioned high-level NPCs and powerful factions, hidden dangers, meddling officials, social landmines, and the overall size and complexity of the place. Crawling through a dungeon filled with monsters and traps is one thing, and assaulting a wilderness monster lair or stronghold is another - engaging in a protracted war with the Thieves Guild in the city streets is an order of magnitude more complex because of the many different characters and factions in proximity to the scenario, each of which will have their own goals and opinions about the matter and will intervene or otherwise react in ways befitting their personalities.

I would be remiss not to mention that in addition to criminals, officials, character-type NPCs, and other mundanities of municipal life like laborers, merchants, and rats, the city/town encounter table is also filled with demons, devils, dopplegangers, lycanthropes, and undead:

The town or city is home to Evil temples guarded by devils, wizards who conjure demons, deserted places, entrances to the underworld, and ruins where dopplegangers and shadows lurk, haunted charnel houses and graveyards, and shapeshifting beasts and vampires almost always in search of victims.

Each of these points reinforces one or more common themes in the portrayal of AD&D's towns and cities:

• They are fantastic places - maybe not as mythic as the dungeon, but nonetheless inhabited by the game's highest-level NPCs and warring guilds, and the sites of the occasional market day featuring the sale of everything from exotic monster pelts and eggs to live dragons. Conjured demons and devils, haunted graveyards, deserted ruins, predatory shapeshifters, and entrances to the underworld are common.
• They are also mundane places, where player characters are subject to real-world annoyances like overbearing taxes and other drains on their wealth, meddling officials, easily-offended nobles and merchants, beggars, drunks, rowdy laborers, and common diseases.
• They are useful places. Player characters can rely on them for common services and resources such as lodging, equipment, meeting with fellow adventurers, selling treasure, and recruiting henchmen. Due to the presence of the aforementioned high-level NPCs and the monster economy, they are also places where player characters can procure powerful spellcasting services and purchase rare ingredients needed to ink scrolls, brew potions, and craft other magic items.
• They are adversarial places. They are strange to the player characters, and will require some investigation to become familiar with. The player characters are viewed as troublemakers at best and threats at worst, and NPCs will require significant persuading before offering aid to them. These environments are social mine fields and money pits, with powerful authority figures and hidden dangers eager to exploit the player characters, do harm to them, or otherwise embroil them in trouble.

These themes help to lend a unique character to these environments which the DM can keep in mind when running scenarios therein. They also suggest that, like dungeons and wilderness environments, towns and cities serve a dual purpose when it comes to gameplay. 

Dungeons are dangerous places, but they're also a reliable source of treasure in a somewhat "balanced" gameplay environment suitable for lower-level characters. The wilderness is often even more dangerous and unpredictable, but the treasure hoards possessed by monsters there are often much greater in value, and the environment provides ample room for characters to establish and carve out their own domains around which higher levels of play are centered. Towns and cities are essential to characters because of the goods and services they offer, but rather than being purely beacons of safety, they are perhaps the most dangerous, complex places in which gameplay takes place.

In AD&D, no environment exists solely to benefit or serve the player characters. Nowhere is without peril or challenge - and towns and cities are no exception.