In anyone's campaigns has the use of campfires in any setting (Underground, woodland, etc) caused unwanted attention? Such as hungry animals, enemy patrols or scrying wizards? Reason I bring it up is that campfires are a beacon to anyone/thing in the area and would seek out the source. Which could cause the party to have more night time encounters than they wish. Or have the campaigns glossed that over to keep things moving? I tend to have the party take the risk of cooking meat, dim light from even a small campfire and smell of smoke if they do make one. After all if in humanoid territory those night patrols are going to come visiting if they notice a campfire in the distance which means the wizards will have to read their books before it gets too dark or by casting globe of lights. Not to mention eating rations instead of cooking a meal whose smell carries for a good distance. Thanks.

Quote from: leo54304 on July 10, 2021, 02:43:44 PM
In anyone's campaigns has the use of campfires in any setting (Underground, woodland, etc) caused unwanted attention? Such as hungry animals, enemy patrols or scrying wizards? Reason I bring it up is that campfires are a beacon to anyone/thing in the area and would seek out the source. Which could cause the party to have more night time encounters than they wish. Or have the campaigns glossed that over to keep things moving? I tend to have the party take the risk of cooking meat, dim light from even a small campfire and smell of smoke if they do make one. After all if in humanoid territory those night patrols are going to come visiting if they notice a campfire in the distance which means the wizards will have to read their books before it gets too dark or by casting globe of lights. Not to mention eating rations instead of cooking a meal whose smell carries for a good distance. Thanks.

Animals not so much... most instinctively fear fire. Its the intelligent critters you've gotta worry about and that is VERY dependent on the creature's goals and practicality.

As a practical matter, anyone who can make a fire can also make a weapon so if you're looking for food its a second choice to something unarmed like a deer. Mostly those who will investigate fires are local warriors (to see if they're a threat) and bandits (hoping to acquire loot). In either case they're going to scout you before attacking.

In the case of warriors, if you're just passing through and look sufficiently armed that someone could die, why risk it... they aren't staying in your territory. Particularly stringent ones might opt to approach a heavily armed party under the color of law and as a warning  ("you're camping in the Lord's Forest; Pack up and depart immediately" or "You're camping in the Lord's Forest, we can issue a permit for X gp/head" depending on the Lord and or troops). If they look weak, it really depends on what the goals of the warriors are and how they think your camping party might fulfill those goals.

Bandits will similarly judge based on risk vs. reward. That guy in robes with a staff tipped with a ram skull means stealth or a con job might be better than trying to rush them.

I roll up campfire issues into the more general issue of getting good sleep, good food, and avoiding attention.  Without getting specific on mechanics as it varies by system, what I typically do is make a call on the quality of the location.  Finding a decently sheltered location, with plenty of time to set up a campfire and get it down to coals (i.e. not much smoke) before it gets late means normal rules for being spotted and normal rules for healing.  So that is the default that the party is aiming for.  Having to eat cold food in the rain while something is stalking you means no natural recuperation.  Something between those is usually some kind of modifier to rolls or results or both.  (Of course, when doing this, I also give bonuses for locations that are much better than the default.)

In my own system I've got a few rules for it.  I've done house rules for it in a few systems.  However, in effect it means that the players put in a little effort to have shelter, have food, etc. and thus avoid invoking those rules.  So a little GM judgment can go a long way once the players are in that mindset.  Maybe that's just my players, but when I convey to them just how grubby and nasty they are getting in bad conditions, they usually want to do something about it.

Quote from: leo54304 on July 10, 2021, 02:43:44 PM
wizards will have to read their books before it gets too dark or by casting globe of lights.

On a dark night a real-life human with normal vision can spot a match being struck one mile away.  In a pre-industrial society or in the real wilds, you would expect a globe of light to attract as much attention as a campfire.  Perhaps if the moon is full and the light is mostly contained, it might not be an issue... 

But generally, trying to determine whether a hasty campfire that is put out at dusk or a fire that burns through the night (especially assuming they take some effort to hide it from notice) is an awful lot of work that you can just offload to encounter probability tables.  If you roll and encounter, and you roll gnolls, you can assume that they came because of the fire.  If you don't roll an encounter, you can assume that the wild animals were discouraged by the light. 

Tonight IMC the PCs spotted a campfire in the woods and attacked the orcs round it. So yeah.

If running a pretty grounded campaign, I'd probably try to come up with a rough system and few tables.

* Roll to create a campfire
* Roll for campfire visibility
* Roll for other camp effects (scent, noise)

Campfire increases risk of humanoid encounters substantially, reduces animal encounters (unless cooking meals).
Create a "stress" track to judge how much effort the player characters are taking to remain concealed. Eventually stress track progression could impose other conditions.

As others have pointed out, depends on the fire and also when.

Camp fires produce smoke. This can be seen from potentially many many miles away.
Camp fires at night can be spotted from a similar amount of distance.
But.
Things like terrain, especially a dense forest can obscure a camp fire really fast. This I learned from outdoor school. Light forest and really sparse forest are going to allow spotting from longer ranges. Same for spotting from the air.

In older versions of D&D you had things like infravision and ultravision which might skew things way off kilter depending.

Quote from: S'mon on July 10, 2021, 05:49:45 PM
Tonight IMC the PCs spotted a campfire in the woods and attacked the orcs round it. So yeah.

Didn't go that well - Gruumsh was definitely with the Orcs! Three PCs at 0 hp, one PC (their scout, who was a bit incautious) dead by the time the fight was over.

If you want to give them a negative for having a campfire etc, you need to give them a positive to explain why anyone would do it.

So you can have things like a comfortable night's sleep gives you a +1 to Constitution to the next day, and hot food +1 to Strength, a scop/bard's song gives +1 to Wisdom, that sort of thing.

Certainly if there are hirelings and men-at-arms, the conditions ought to affect their morale and loyalty. It's not just gold, after all, what will people use gold for? Making life comfortable.

Most people don't realise just how much you need to carry if you're carrying everything you need, and how long it takes to set up camp etc. This video goes into the gear carried.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2021, 05:43:57 AM
If you want to give them a negative for having a campfire etc, you need to give them a positive to explain why anyone would do it.

That's a good point. Or, to keep it simple, just don't penalise them for having a camp fire - just assume that the default rate and chance of random encounters applies WITH one.

Well, two things.

If a campfire is the default, then players will choose not to have one - however miserable it would actually make their characters and hirelings, unless that's encoded in the rules, most players will just shrug and let their characters suffer.

Secondly, players being human respond better to a choice between two positives than a positive and a negative. For example,

"You can have a campfire, hot food and good sleep, and get +1 to Str/Con tomorrow, OR you can not have a campfire, eat iron rations and have a restless sleep, and have +1 to avoid wandering monsters."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2021, 05:43:57 AM
If you want to give them a negative for having a campfire etc, you need to give them a positive to explain why anyone would do it.

Very much this.

One problem is that negatives from fatigue, cold, uncooked food or general discomfort aren't well modeled in D&D, or rpgs generally. And layering them on after the fact is both cumbersome mechanically, and resisted by players. So there's no obvious mechanical reason for a fire, when really there'd be a lot of reasons for one.

And the general problem is the urge to model or fix just one thing, without thinking about how it interacts with the rest of the game. To "fix" fires attracting attention means you also need to think about the rest of the game, and how much detail other systems get into.

And as an aside, there are in fact ways to build a fire with much less smoke and visibility than the typical modern campfire. I'd assume a ranger or other character with bushcraft would know how to do this, and roll it into "assume PC competence" rather than just decree that the players made a big smoky fire out in the open.

Another tangent - I make fire scary to some monsters, as well as natural animals. For one example I run ghouls as being cowardly but hungry, so fire or flares can scare them off for a time.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2021, 05:43:57 AM
If you want to give them a negative for having a campfire etc, you need to give them a positive to explain why anyone would do it.

I went with a very simple reason for my game.  In order to recover health from a rest you need adequate food, water, heat, protection from the elements, and so on.  If you need heat or you need to cook your food, you need a fire.

Quote from: Premier on July 11, 2021, 07:19:36 AM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2021, 05:43:57 AM
If you want to give them a negative for having a campfire etc, you need to give them a positive to explain why anyone would do it.

That's a good point. Or, to keep it simple, just don't penalise them for having a camp fire - just assume that the default rate and chance of random encounters applies WITH one.

You make a fire for warmth, prepping food, to keep animals away.

And if you are in potentially hostile lands then all of the above are penalties because they up the chances you will be spotted.

Efforts were made during WWII to counter this problem. Things like smokeless heating materials I believe.

A spell like Heat metal would be very useful for cooking without fire or smoke.

Consider though that cooking food no matter can attract attention too.

But if I recall right AD&D at least notes that the encounter rates are based on a party that is being careful. If they are not then the chances should be increased.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2021, 08:08:40 AMIf a campfire is the default, then players will choose not to have one - however miserable it would actually make their characters and hirelings, unless that's encoded in the rules, most players will just shrug and let their characters suffer.

Excellent point. Maybe also, 'making camp' could involve a Survival roll to see how well they made camp. Whatever the roll was, could become the DC of someone to spot the camp that wasn't otherwise looking. Adventurers that have survival are going to know a few things about making camp that might otherwise be obvious, but aren't obvious to the players themselves.