monk
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 237
|
Post by monk on Jul 27, 2015 19:43:16 GMT -6
Postscript: these days, the city goes all the way to the mountains, and the wildlife has all moved on. It really is true that you can't go home again. There's a opossum living under my beer fridge in the garage. Just sayin'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 20:10:25 GMT -6
It's stuff like this that make me think it's the phrasing that is your only point of disagreement. I'm not talking about any kind of D&D after TSR. Read OD&D again: OK I get that point, in regard to the XP quote, I don't use that and never did. One of my house rules. That applies to 3rd edition and later Dungeons & Dragons and some other games. But neither do I run games as collaborative stories. Story is what you tell others about the game after it is over. Spotlight balancing is the most common conception of modern RPG game balance. It's not the form you're referencing. Never heard that term before, but I as the ref and regardless of whether I have three players or 30 players tried to make sure no one gets loss in the shuffle. ]This is the version of "modern game balance" you're referring to. It's about how old school D&D is balanced. Demon Lords are in dungeon level 10. Level 0 farmers don't even rate XP. They don't set next to each other on the game board. I never put demons in the game, I don't roll that way, I have plenty of powerful monsters without going there. Bog standard dungeon exploration. Monsters have lairs in the dungeon. Players can run into these monsters when home or not if gone. Monsters also have territories like 20 miles around their castles that they claim. And they wander when not in their lair allowing for a chance (die roll) for other monsters (the PCs) to Encounter them. This doesn't mean they see each other. Or a confrontation occurs. Or a combat or conversation. It is only moving near each other. What it means simply is players can play a game of seeking out or avoiding monsters in a populated area. These are wandering monster rolls. Tempting them is a risk taken by players in most any location. OK I understand what you saying now. Odd way to word things, but I get it now. I have to tell you though that it just seems like a waste of time that I don't have to spend on such things. I just create things and use them, I am not going to analyze and second guess myself. Don't have that much time and would not even if I did have that much time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 20:22:05 GMT -6
Challenge Rating is just another term for AD&D's Monster Level. It serves the same purpose. The only difference is that you can rate traps and other non-combat challenges with a CR so it isn't just for monsters. 3e had another term called Encounter Level which was similar to a roll on that level's encounter table as it took into account the number of monsters. So a single Level 4 encounter could be one gargoyle, two ogres, ten orcs, or a ghast + two ghouls. You would actually determine the Encounter Level first and then choose monsters to reach that EL. In effect, it worked similar to Dave's old protection points. I have a family, I work a full time job and I have other things going on in my life. I get to game once a month for about 4-5 hours, 6 hours on a good night. I grab a little time here and there throughout the month to prepare. Why would I want to spend any time creating CRs for monsters, traps and other things. I do not now and never have spent time creating an EL and then choosing monsters to meet that. I don't have time for those kinds of things. I create it and I use it. I try to vary it and keep it fresh. I have fun, the players have fun and come keep coming back. I try to keep doing new things and creating new twists, rather than dotting i's and crossing t's to meet some rating or other. Third edition get's a bad rap for this but I don't think it's deserved. The stocking rules from 3.5 (pg 49 of the 3.5 DMG) recommend that 20% of encounter be above level and that 5% of encounters be essentially unwinnable. So, by the book, a first 3e level dungeon could include a room with an Ettin or two Manticores. Compare this to AD&D's dungeon stocking chart which generally only has above level encounters 10% of the time (on a roll of 19 or 20). Whether people actually played that way is another issue. I completely ignore those things, I use my own tables and those percentage are not ever a consideration at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 21:17:45 GMT -6
Oh, Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ on a surfboard, it's happened here too.
Two people insisting on a definition of a word that nobody else uses.
"Mornard's Derivative of Godwin's Law... when an internet discussion devolves into a circular argument over word definitions, the discussion is effectively over."
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 27, 2015 21:51:02 GMT -6
There is no CR in od&d, CR is a WotC innovation.
In the dungeon, wandering monsters are determined by a table offering a range of monster levels dependent on dungeon level encountered on. Keyed monsters are placed arbitrarily by the referee or inserted when game-play dictates.
In the city, monsters are rolled for on the city table.
In the wilderness, monsters are rolled for with no discrimination between monster strength, other than mountains yielding more dragons, woods yielding more lycanthropes, and the optional encounter tables specifying swamps and arid planes to be full of dinosaurs and alien creatures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 8:12:51 GMT -6
There is no CR in od&d, CR is a WotC innovation. Monster level, the early D&D version of CR, doesn't show up explicitly until the AD&D DMG and it's then listed in the monster description starting with the Fiend Folio. Monster levels can be inferred by looking at the OD&D dungeon level monster charts since each monster is only on one chart. The AD&D charts, even the later Fiend Folio one, continues this trend by putting monsters on one chart only (except for monsters with variable strength such as dragons or NPCs). Interestingly, to me anyway, the Monster & Treasure tables have the same monsters on multiple charts with different No. Appearing. So 1d4+1 Orcs are a level one encounter, 3d4 for level two, 4d6 for level three, and finally 4d10 for level five. B2, the module I started with, has orcs appearing on multiple levels and in multiple numbers on the same level which is similar to M&T but not AD&D. The Moldvay basic set also returns to monsters only on one chart (although the expert set includes the same monster on multiple charts but the No. Appearing don't vary so it's probably just a case of not having enough monsters of the appropriate level). I suspect that the M&T method is probably closer to how the charts are supposed to be and the other charts are simply minimized for space reasons. That being said, it appears that I'm the only person that even considers actually using these charts so I guess it doesn't matter to anyone else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 8:39:55 GMT -6
That being said, it appears that I'm the only person that even considers actually using these charts so I guess it doesn't matter to anyone else. A lot of us made our own charts with some newly minted monsters or tweaked monsters on them and then it makes a difference if you have been playing for two years, ten years or 40 years. Given the tiny number of people posting in this thread compared to the number of people reading this thread, I think you have plenty of company in using those charts. In my case the longer I do this the less and less I actually refer to the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 28, 2015 8:55:44 GMT -6
fix your quotes @theperilousdreamer
|
|
|
Post by sulldawga on Jul 28, 2015 10:20:52 GMT -6
I have never, ever, EVER heard of somebody assigning a level to wilderness zones. Sounds like needless pedantry combined with a total lack of common sense combined with toilet training issues. Have you ever heard of the West Marches campaign? Here's a quote from the creator's blog: "West Marches was intended to be a campaign environment, where characters would start at low level (1st actually) and then push farther and farther out into the wilds as they advanced. When I was creating the game map I marked each region with a specific encounter level (EL) to gauge the kind of threats that were normal there. The logical pattern was a rising gradient of danger: the farther you get from the safety of town, the more dangerous the land became."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 11:08:50 GMT -6
fix your quotes @theperilousdreamer Thank you!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 22:46:24 GMT -6
I have never, ever, EVER heard of somebody assigning a level to wilderness zones. Sounds like needless pedantry combined with a total lack of common sense combined with toilet training issues. Have you ever heard of the West Marches campaign? No.
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Aug 7, 2015 8:38:57 GMT -6
Threads like this are why I come to this forum!
Great discussion I want to read in entirety.
Anymore I have a hard time getting these essential elements back.
When we were young players, we had them without trying!
Have to agree about XP with Fin and others. A point system based on rooms taken, monster HD and objectives reached or DM fiat seems best for people who can't play with the regularity of past years.
Thanks for posting Gronan.
|
|
|
Post by exploderwizard on Aug 18, 2015 9:09:01 GMT -6
Wilderness is outdoors, but, and this is important, not all outdoors is wilderness. Agreed, but someone is keeping out the wilderness there. Also in D&D, everyone is a Monster (including every player at the table and you too), everything is treasure, and everywhere is dungeon. Say what now? Everything that is not a player character is a monster. The PCs are not monsters. From classic D&D ( Moldvay Basic page B29): "Any creature that is not a player character is called a monster. Monsters may be friendly or unfriendly, wild or tame, normal beasts or fantastic. The DM will choose, from these monsters, the friends and opponents of the players." Everywhere is a dungeon? Nope. If everywhere is a dungeon then per the rules, players could NEVER earn XP for treasure gained. Treasure needs to be removed from the dungeon and brought back to the players' base of operations to count for XP. If the dungeon is everywhere then treasure could never possibly be removed from it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2015 11:16:00 GMT -6
Everywhere is a dungeon? Nope. If everywhere is a dungeon then per the rules, players could NEVER earn XP for treasure gained. Treasure needs to be removed from the dungeon and brought back to the players' base of operations to count for XP. If the dungeon is everywhere then treasure could never possibly be removed from it. Quoting Moldvay isn't going to do you much good around here. Also, OD&D only requires that you "obtain" the treasure. Taking it out of the dungeon was a requirement added much later. [OD&D Vol 1 Pg 18] Anyway, this thread is more philosophical in nature. Other PC are monsters in the sense that they might try to kill you. Everywhere is a dungeon because danger is everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 18, 2015 11:19:15 GMT -6
Say what now? Everything that is not a player character is a monster. The PCs are not monsters. You're right. The PC are not monsters. ... The players are the real monsters .
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Aug 18, 2015 11:39:21 GMT -6
Everywhere is *a* dungeon, not *the* dungeon. Treasure needs to be removed from *the* dungeon and brought to the PC's base of operations (even if it is *a* dungeon.)
|
|
|
Post by exploderwizard on Aug 19, 2015 6:20:11 GMT -6
Quoting Moldvay isn't going to do you much good around here. Also, OD&D only requires that you "obtain" the treasure. Taking it out of the dungeon was a requirement added much later. [OD&D Vol 1 Pg 18] Anyway, this thread is more philosophical in nature. Other PC are monsters in the sense that they might try to kill you. Everywhere is a dungeon because danger is everywhere. A base of operations doesn't imply an area free from danger, just an area outside the dungeon. The wilderness is dangerous also, but it too is not a dungeon.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 19, 2015 8:09:33 GMT -6
The explanation of monster in the 1981 Basic Set is somewhat simplified, but essentially correct. A monster is any being met by a party that isn't a member of that party. It is any being that is or could be an antagonist of the party. Henchmen/retainers and hirelings of the player-characters are not monsters once they join the party. The term is useful for speaking abstractly of the dynamics of the game or for writing rules, but not very useful when you're actually playing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 8:31:07 GMT -6
brought to the PC's base of operations A base of operations doesn't imply an area free from danger, Where is this "base of operation" stuff coming from?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 23, 2015 10:52:01 GMT -6
I think I'd have to say I agree with the sentiment behind each of the points in the OP (if not the exact wording), including Point 5 about most XP coming from treasure finds. Although I'm not such a big fan of XP for gold coin, I am a huge fan of the Blackmoor method of large chunks of XP for "prizes" - magic items. One thing to remember is that AD&D conditioned us to think XP should be divided among the party. OD&D need not be that way, and really shouldn't be for monster kills. As in EPT, the killing blow determines who gets the monster XP, and if the XP award for finding a magic sword is 1000, there is no reason not to give every PC 1000 XP.
|
|