What's your typical number appearing in the dungeon?

[derv]

Recent discussion on here, along with Ways poll, had me wondering if others experiences are that different from my own. It seems the average number for a group of players falls in line with what I would have expected. Though, my norm has always been four players, even when I first started playing. But I have had as few as two. As a result, the parties I run have also been a standard four characters strong plus NPC hirelings. The exception is when we start a new campaign of 1st level characters. I will sometimes allow players to run two characters each because of the likelihood of high fatalities. So, a typical party of 1st level characters will generally be from 4-8 strong.

It occurs to me that my experiences with D&D effects the way I handle random monster stocking and wandering monsters. I’ve never really taken the time to record my general methods. I just kind of do it. I’m going to share how I understand p.10-12 of U&WA and I’m curious if others read it differently or if my methods are typical of what others do. Maybe there are very few who even attempt to approach this BtB, preferring to wing it on a case by case basis instead. But, even if you are winging it, I’d like to know what you base your “number appearing” on.

My reading of U&WA is that monsters of the same level (HD) as the dungeon they are encountered on will be a base number of one, modified by the number in the party (with 1-3 being the standard), and modified by the type of monster. If the party is from 4-6, you would multiply the results by two.

Where I read the word “modify”, I’m understanding that there is either a multiplier or a mechanic by which it should be randomly adjusted by. This would necessarily involve a die roll. Specifically a d6.

Where it says “type”, some might understand this as the dichotomy between “normal” and “fantastic”. I tend to instead rely on M&T’s reference table and adjust accordingly as is suggested in the footnote. The table itself has a heading of “monster type” that supports this idea.

I also assume that the base number of the party (1-3) that the method depends on takes for granted that they are of the same level or less than the dungeon level that the encounter occurs. Otherwise the number should be modified accordingly.

I diverge from the rules as written in this regard. Where U&WA breaks up the party by three’s, I prefer to use what has been my typical experience and divide it by fours. So, instead of 4-6 being multiplied by two, I use 5-8 being multiplied by two or adding an additional d6 to the roll.

If the party is of a greater level then the dungeon level, I either multiply the results by their level or I add a d6 per level difference (a 6th level party on the 1st level of a dungeon would encounter 12d6 1HD monsters). If the party is of mixed levels, I take the average rounded up.

My basic rules for random determination for a party of 1-4 are:

Any creature 1HD or more above the dungeon level, only one will appear. No modifiers. The exception is on the 1st and 2nd levels of the dungeon.

For the 1st and 2nd levels, any creature 2HD or more above the dungeon level, only one will appear. No modifiers.

The rest follows as:
1st level
1HD< 2d6
1+HD 1d6
2&3HD 1d3

3rd level
1+HD 2d6
2HD 1d6
3HD 1d3

4th-5th level
2-3HD 2d6
4-5HD 1d6

And so on.

[mindcontrolsquid]

A while ago I did some poking around on blogs on this subject myself; I found a pretty good analysis on it here.

I devised my own method of determining wandering monsters appearing, although I later recognized that it was imperfect and largely abandoned it for the more free-form approach of rolling a d6 for monsters of an appropriate dungeon level, and increasing or decreasing the number when compared to the number of party members and whether the monster(s) was appearing on an appropriate dungeon level (e.g. generating a dungeon level 2 monster on the first level of the dungeon).

For the curious, my own method of determining numbers was based on the following formula:

Number of Monsters Appearing in Dungeon Encounters = Number of monsters appearing as per M&T / (Dungeon Level of Monster / Current Dungeon Level)

For example: if a party of four adventurers were on the first level of a dungeon and encountered ogre(s) as a wandering monster (by getting unlucky and rolling the highest possible result, monsters of dungeon level 4, on the wandering monster table), one would first roll to determine number appearing as per M&T. In this case, the number of ogres appearing is listed as 3-18, and so 3d6 would be rolled, with a result of 11. The party is currently on dungeon level 1 and is encountering a monster of dungeon level 4, thus the number of monsters generated would be divided by 4/1, or 4. Thus, we get 11/(4/1) or 11/4, which results in 2.75, which rounds up to 3 (it is left as the referee's prerogative whether to round up or down). This calculation presents an encounter with 3 ogres.

As I said before, however, I feel this formula is imprecise and requires too much deliberation. A less systematic and more intuitive distribution of monster numbers is probably more conducive to productive play.

[Deleted]

I decide in advance what's in a room and THEN recruit players. If this room has 14 Orcs and a Gnoll leader, and two first level PCs burst in, well, too bad for the PCS.

I would never, ever, EVER alter numbers based on party size. That is, in point of fact, the only way the referee can cheat in OD&D. And it IS cheating, whether in favor of the party or against it.

Play the ball where it lies.

[derv]

That's an interesting opinion Michael. My casualties tend to be what I would consider fairly high- probably 50-60% of starting characters, if I had to guess. What is a standard party size and how many typically survive your games?

What do you base your "number appearing" on that helps you decide what would be normal? In my opinion, the table in U&WA is completely capable of creating situations that are very challenging or easily defeated by parties at any level.

More important, what exactly would be the reason it seems to be explicit in the rules that the base number is represented for a party of 1-3 and that the number should be doubled for a party of 4-6? Is there another way of reading this? Or is Gary suggesting GM's should cheat?

Besides that, I am making the assumption here that you already have a regular group, that recruiting is not required. So, GM's should of course decide what is contaned in most rooms of a dungeon before hand. But, there are times when characters take that unprepared route to rooms you have not stocked. The rules also give a fairly good guide to what should be normal expectation at different levels. We are also looking at this as it applies to wandering monsters, which are usually rolled up on the spot. There are also those GM's that enjoy the random nature of rolling up encounters on the spot.

To me, the most important thing is that a GM is consistent with his methods- whatever they might be.

[scottyg]

I've been scans of EGG's maps and notes, and got some info out of him as well. He used a combination of pre-determined, and semi-random encounters. And he did "cheat" a bit, but never to save players from the bad decisions they made. Some rooms detailed specific monster/treasure/trick/trap contents. Others just had a monster type and variable range listed, e.g. Room 1. Orcs 7-12. Often he wouldn't roll the amount, he would just pick what seemed appropriate at the time. And sometimes it was just random.
Of course Gary was DMing many players very often, so upkeep requirements were very different than most of ours would be.
My personal method is the same as Gronan's. I pick in advance, and that's that. There is no party in mind on an individual encounter basis. Overall a level would be designed around a party of about 6 PCs, but many of the encounters are designed to test players' decision making skills, and not for combat, at least not right away. There are some encounters that will obviously kill even very large parties of the default level PCs. So you run away and come back later, or you hit and run and whittle them down, but if you think the DM wouldn't put something in there you couldn't beat, then you'll be rolling up new characters. But there are also encounters that would be pushovers on a x number of monsters vs. x number of characters, but rushing in and attacking, or dithering could cost the party.

[talysman]

I pick in advance when stocking rooms. For random encounters, I adjust numbers up or down based on monster level compared to dungeon level:

- Base number is 1d6.
- Monsters that are usually solitary are half that.
- Monsters that are more social (orcs, goblins, etc.) are 2d6.
- Small monsters that usually swarm (rats) are 3d6.

Monsters that are usually found one level deeper halve these numbers, and those found two levels deeper halve the numbers again. Those found one level closer to the surface double their numbers, and those from two levels closer to the surface triple their numbers.

I do not decrease monster numbers for smaller adventuring parties. I do increase numbers for larger parties, on the theory that more noise = larger patrols sent to investigate. This means that things like elven boots or a Silence spell would negate that boost: if the party isn't making much noise, the monsters don't feel as threatened, so only a few will go investigate.

[tetramorph]

I like approaching it in a way where the dungeon is a mythic underworld.

Perhaps it "generates" monsters based upon how many adventurers it feels the need to expel?

I see not dishonsesty or cheating in adjusting numbers as per the rules. Especially for random encounters, or, as per talysman's point, above, about increasing numbers for higher level parties.

derv, I will try to study your OP closely and reply better in future.

mindcontrolsquid, thanks for the link. Will follow and study.

[derv]

I hope that it's clear that this thread is not about whether anyone is "doing it right". Though I would like to know how others are reading what's presented in U&WA.

I'm really asking the question because I'm curious if there is any common ground in the way people stock their dungeons and/or determine random wandering monster encounters.

Even people that purposefully place every encounter have a method for what's typical. Whether they realize they're doing it or not may be another question. But, I assume they have some sort of rule tumbling around in their noggin

.

[derv]

Nov 4, 2015 16:13:50 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

I like approaching it in a way where the dungeon is a mythic underworld.

I was wondering if anyone might suggest some sort of dungeon ecology.

In such a world, the dungeon would have populations of monsters at each level co-existing. Humanoid numbers might even come close to the actual recommendations in M&T and wandering monsters are just smaller groups of these larger groups of residents.

[howandwhy99]

Number appearing has nothing to do with the players. It has to do with how monsters live together. Humans are the default and they live in communities of thorps to cities. They also group themselves in many other ways, which are all variations on the number appearing statistic. Other Monsters in the Monster Manual, like most humanoids, also detail subgroups which are usually on patrol or some other task. These are the ones added to the Wandering Monster tables for an area. Wandering Monster losses affect the overall number of monsters in each particular No. App. group. But then they can reproduce too.

Dungeon level is a rating, a measure of all the difficulties in an area (monsters, traps, terrain, weather, all of it). So 1 Monster of 1HD per Encounter in a Level 1 dungeon rating is a rating conversion, not an improvised challenge scale in the moment. @gronanofsimmerya has the right of it.

If you are routinely having player parties smaller than the average balanced D&D party (eight, I believe), then you may consider rewriting and rebalancing the game modules to your average. Or tell the players they should have them bring aid along most places, like hirelings.
EDIT: I think OD&D is better here by generating dungeons to the original group number, with increased group size allowing more difficult dungeon level play than the average PC level party would normally be capable of.

I think the basic thing to remember is all stuff, monsters included, come from somewhere in the game world. Nothing is conjured except magical conjuration, which requires a cost anyways.

[derv]

Maybe a hypothetical will help.

You have created a dungeon for your new group of players to explore. There's 6 in the party and all are 1st level. So far, all you have completed of the dungeon is levels 1 to 3, but you have drawn the layout for levels 4 to 6. You have deliberately placed and stocked all treasure, traps and monsters for the first three levels with the intention of finishing the other three levels at another time and possibly extending the dungeon down further. For now, these first three levels seem like enough.

During the game, the party makes their way down to a room on the second level where you have placed a teleportation trap. Your original intent was for this to take the party to a random level of the dungeon determined by rolling a d6. Your option is now to limit the results to a d3 roll (pretty lame) or wing it should the die indicate something beyond level three. You decide to do the latter, then proceed to roll a 5. To the 5th level of the dungeon it is. Another die roll indicates they are teleported to a room, instead of a hallway. You finally decide what room it is that they have ended up in (probably another die roll).

We now take a look at U&WA p.6-7 for "Distribution of Monsters and Treasure" and roll a 1- A monster is present. So we turn to p.10 and.....?

[aldarron]

Nov 4, 2015 16:54:18 GMT -6 derv said:

....I was wondering if anyone might suggest some sort of dungeon ecology.

In such a world, the dungeon would have populations of monsters at each level co-existing. Humanoid numbers might even come close to the actual recommendations in M&T and wandering monsters are just smaller groups of these larger groups of residents.

Try having a look at Arneson & Sniders' Adventures in Fantasy - Book of Adventures pages 21 & 22.

[aldarron]

Nov 3, 2015 19:27:22 GMT -6 derv said:

My reading of U&WA is that monsters of the same level (HD) as the dungeon they are encountered on will be a base number of one, modified by the number in the party (with 1-3 being the standard), and modified by the type of monster. If the party is from 4-6, you would multiply the results by two.

Where I read the word “modify”, I’m understanding that there is either a multiplier or a mechanic by which it should be randomly adjusted by. This would necessarily involve a die roll. Specifically a d6.

Where it says “type”, some might understand this as the dichotomy between “normal” and “fantastic”. I tend to instead rely on M&T’s reference table and adjust accordingly as is suggested in the footnote. The table itself has a heading of “monster type” that supports this idea.

Well, yeah, sorta.

Back in the day, I just followed the B/X methods for this sort of thing, but when the opportunity arose I followed the method given for wandering monsters in the 1973 Beyond This Point be Dragons/Dalluhn draft. I know that doesn't help much for using the U&WA procedures, but I think it may help in the interpretation, so I'll quote it here:

"To find the number of monsters appearing, take the highest level to
be found in the group of players concerned and from this subtract
the level of monster encountered. This difference is then multiplied
by the number rolled on a six sided die. An exception to this could
be Level 1 monsters. There should always be more Level 1 monsters
appearing than adventurers in the group, and totals should be modified
to reflect this." Book II:13

So anyway, I think we can infer from this what "base number" in U&WA likely means. In BTPbD, If levels are equal it is 1 monster encountered, otherwise it is several monsters equaling 1d6 * level difference. "base number" in U&WA appears to follow the same logic, except the "level" is that of the dungeon, not the highest party member.

Modified by type clearly means "group" or "tribal" monsters vs. "individualistic" monsters. In practice this is the same thing as "normals" and "fantastics" or as put in Arneson speak: "...creatures encountered in small groups...represent "Hero" type monsters." (FFC 1980:52) (FWW, I've argued elsewhere that the break is roughly that normals have a minimum #Appearing of 25+ in the 3lbb monster table)

So applying the above understanding of base number and type, the U&WA rule is:

Where monster level and group level are the same: 1d6 (group) or 1 (individual) * (party size rounded up to the nearest number divisible by 3, divided by 3).

Where there is discrepancy between dungeon levels the formula should be modified by the difference, either greater or lesser. So a party of 6 encountering an individualistic/fantastic 5HD monster on level 7 of the dungeon would calculate numbers as (7-5)*(6/3) = 4 monsters.

Maybe a bit fiddly, but I think that is what Gygax was getting at.

[derv]

Thanks for your input aldarron.

Are you currently using this method in your games?

It is close to how I do it, except I do not really make the distinction between "normal/group" and "fantastic". Instead, I base it on what the table from U&WA will bare at each level. So, at dungeon level 7 there is no likelihood that I'm rolling any 1HD monsters. 4HD creatures are the lowest that will come up and I treat them like 1HD monster at the lower levels of the dungeon (i.e. 2d6 appearing). I do reference the list in M&T for this, though. Monsters of equal HD to the level of the dungeon I give a base 1d6. Any monsters of higher HD then the dungeon level, only one will appear.

It seems that I'm bumping my numbers higher then what you understand is being presented. Though, if 1HD monsters were listed on U&WA's table, I would probably be rolling about the same as you presented for group monsters (d6 x dungeon level x (party/3) and possibly modified for the PC parties level. But, it would be closer to d6 + [d6 x dungeon level x (party/4)].

Could you tell me if Dalluhn has a Monster Determination Table and if it is the same or similar to U&WA? That would be informative to me.

[aldarron]

Nov 5, 2015 18:47:11 GMT -6 derv said:

Thanks for your input aldarron.

Are you currently using this method in your games?

I've been using the BTPbD method. Its worked pretty well, but I have to say that nobody is higher than 5th level.

Nov 5, 2015 18:47:11 GMT -6 derv said:

.......Could you tell me if Dalluhn has a Monster Determination Table and if it is the same or similar to U&WA? That would be informative to me.

Yes to both tables. The Determination table has a slightly different level range - 1, 2, 3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-11, 12+

The level tables are d6 based. So first level is only 6 monsters - Goblins, kobolds, Bandits, Orcs, Giant Rat, Centipede.

After that the numbers go from 12 monsters to 18, still using d6. you roll one d6 control die and it tells you which 1-6 column to roll on. There are 6 "levels" total

[derv]

Do the levels for the first table in Dalluhn say "level beneath the surface"

or is it possible it relates to the PC party level?

That would be a significant difference in how the tables are used. If it's based on the parties level, it would be possible to roll lower HD monsters at different levels of the dungeon, but the tables would produce narrower and more threatening results as the PC's go up in level.

[aldarron]

Nov 6, 2015 6:27:47 GMT -6 derv said:

Do the levels for the first table in Dalluhn say "level beneath the surface"

or is it possible it relates to the PC party level?......

It says exactly "level beneath the surface" just as in U&WA

[derv]

There goes that theory

I was just wondering if the table offered any chance of rolling low HD "normals" at deeper levels of the dungeon.

thanks

[Stormcrow]

Now that we have this heretofore unknown bit of text from the D&D text, I'd say aldarron has the correct formula.

[Deleted]

I use the Monster & Treasure Assortment. The encounters are already adjusted for dungeon level and you get a better spread (orcs on the level 4 table forex). Plus all the stats and hit points for the monsters are there already. I would never bother to generate an encounter during play using tables in the core rules. That would just take too much time. I usually don't use the M&TA tables directly, but instead pick 8 or 10 encounters that seem appropriate to the dungeon's theme to make a mini wandering monster table.

I do agree with Gronan. IMO, one of the fundamental and non-negotiable aspects of old-school gaming is the idea that the player can control the difficulty (and rewards) of the game by the choices they make. Do they go deeper to find the awesome treasure hidden waiting down there, or do they stay on the first level and get by with a handful of coins? If you adjust the encounters based on the composition of the party, you're removing the consequences of those choices, making them meaningless. You are cheating the player by robbing them of any sense of accomplishment if they actually achieve their goals.

[talysman]

Nov 7, 2015 7:42:06 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Now that we have this heretofore unknown bit of text from the D&D text, I'd say aldarron has the correct formula.

Not really the correct formula, but one based on what Arneson was doing and perhaps close to what Gygax was doing. When you understand what they did and why, then you can decide how to modify that based on what you are looking for.

Nov 7, 2015 9:37:36 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I use the Monster & Treasure Assortment. The encounters are already adjusted for dungeon level and you get a better spread (orcs on the level 4 table forex). Plus all the stats and hit points for the monsters are there already. I would never bother to generate an encounter during play using tables in the core rules. That would just take too much time.

Not really, if you approach it right. The actual monster tables in U&WA are not necessary: they are example wandering monster tables. You are supposed to make your own for each dungeon or area (as you already do.) You can add a HD and AC note after the name of each monster when you prep those tables and just roll hit points in actual play. It's not that difficult, really, especially if you roll hit points for a couple monsters and just leave the dice on the table, removing one or more as the players do damage.

What looks like the hard part is Monster Determination and Level of Monster Matrix. But with a few quirks, it's more or less this table:

d6 ROLL      Monster Level
--------      -------------
   1         One Dungeon Level Closer to Surface
   2         Same As Dungeon Level
 3-4         One Dungeon Level Deeper
   5         Two Dungeon Levels Deeper
   6         Three Dungeon Levels Deeper


For dungeon levels below 4, effective level is half actual level, round down, plus 2. The pattern kind of breaks in places, but ignoring the quirks and just using this table won't screw up your monsters, and gives you the benefit of being able to memorize the table. You never need to refer to the books, just your own prep notes.

[aldarron]

Nov 7, 2015 13:16:34 GMT -6 talysman said:

Nov 7, 2015 7:42:06 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Now that we have this heretofore unknown bit of text from the D&D text, I'd say aldarron has the correct formula.

Not really the correct formula, but one based on what Arneson was doing and perhaps close to what Gygax was doing.

Well, no. The scaling method likely comes from Gygax, not Arneson. The BTPbD/Dalluhn was produced in the fall of '73, as an update of Gygax earlier drafts in accordance with Gygax notes as seen in pages owned by Mike Mornard. The single extant copy may have been owned and possibly assembled by Arneson as his drawings are found throughout, but my earlier theory that it was a major revision produced under Arneson's editorial control turned out not to be correct, if that is what you are referring to.

Arneson's stocking method was entirely different, based on a distribution of protection points, and not originally scaled to party strength at all. (there's a couple posts on my 'blog with details) His wandering monster method was simply to roll for numbers appearing without scaling either.

[aldarron]

Nov 6, 2015 19:47:11 GMT -6 derv said:

There goes that theory

I was just wondering if the table offered any chance of rolling low HD "normals" at deeper levels of the dungeon.

thanks

Sadly no. For example, DL 6-8 has a 1 in six chance of a "level 4" monster as the easiest. The level 4 monster list is Anti-Heros Anti-Swashbucklers, Giant Snakes, Salamanders, Wights, Wraiths, Ogres, Lycanthropes, Gargoyles, Giant Weasels, White Apes, Giant Ferritts, Hagician

It just gets tougher from there.

[cooper]

If you adjust the encounters based on the composition of the party, you're removing the consequences of those choices, making them meaningless. You are cheating the player by robbing them of any sense of accomplishment if they actually achieve their goals.

Monsters and treasure states quite clearly that number of monsters encountered, at least for wandering monsters, should roughly correlate to # of characters, not just the depth of the dungeon. As Derv said above.

[howandwhy99]

I think this is a central difference on how to play the game.
- Do you create the dungeon and monsters and treasure as you go along, difficulty level appropriate to the PCs?
Or
- Do you generate a world prior to play the players can delve into dungeon difficulties within, cross neutral territories of, and restock at different levels of civilization?

I give all my Monsters a lair (all non-nomadic). Based upon their culture they leave their lair for various reasons. All the ways that occurs are added to the Wandering Monster Tables for each appropriate region.

To think in the most simplified terms, it's easiest to understand this as Dungeons, but it's everywhere really.

E.G. Maybe the orcs are on levels 2-4, but force the kobolds to live on level 1? Their command and control structure would likely have a few orcs in the kobold encampment/home. Orc patrols patrol their territory, maybe kobolds send out scavenging parties for food and supplies? The undead aren't allied with anyone, but maybe they are all entombed and walk around - no Wandering Monster entry for them. Challenge-level beasts like dire rats and giant centipedes (not normal rats or beetles) also live in the dungeon. These also scavenge around and have territories, and are on the WM table.

Lots of stuff goes into how these cultures behavior and why. How dense a population can be in one area given the food supplies, water, etc. Whether creatures are nocturnal or diurnal for WM tables. How many are in a warband or patrol? What armor and weapons (i.e. treasure) they carry. What alliances do they have (based on alignment) towards nearby monsters.

Basic truth is: A monster zoo without bars doesn't stay peaceful for long. Most dungeons are control or (like lawful cities) support their populations.

IMO Dungeon Levels are a rating of everything in one area of my example after enough is created. Level 1 is just where the PCs start.

[derv]

This has been a really good discussion. I appreciate everyones perspective on the subject.

howandwhy99, you have given two explanations of "why", but I'd still like to hear your "how".

What's at stake with how different people handle monster and treasure generation is ultimately how PC's advance in different people's games. If there is no common method we can agree upon, we are often talking apples and oranges when questions about advancement and/or frequency of [insert subject or item of choice] occur.

In this case we are talking about random generation of monsters. Monsters are one of the means of getting xp in OD&D (whether you feel its primary or secondary is another discussion). If you are still generating 1HD monsters at the 8th level of the dungeon for your party of 7th level PC's, there progression will be significantly slower then those who are only generating 4HD encounters at those same levels. In both these cases 7th level PC's will be receiving fractions of experience BtB from defeating these monsters on the 8th level of the dungeon.

In case I'm giving a false impression, I'd like to mention that I never played anything beyond 1e AD&D back in the day. I had stopped gaming well before 2e even went to print. My only exposure to the idea of "challenge levels" might be a brief stint with C&C when I came back to gaming. So, no 3e or 4e ever. My point being, that I am not coming from a modern gamers perspective on this subject. Possibly that effects my methods and understanding as well.  

[Stormcrow]

Nov 7, 2015 9:37:36 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

If you adjust the encounters based on the composition of the party, you're removing the consequences of those choices, making them meaningless. You are cheating the player by robbing them of any sense of accomplishment if they actually achieve their goals.

The more members of your party, the more noise you make and so the more monsters you attract.

[Deleted]

Nov 8, 2015 8:27:10 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

The more members of your party, the more noise you make and so the more monsters you attract.

That's indeed a good reason if the monsters are there from the start, stocking the dungeon before any character walks into it.
If there are 100 monsters in the dungeon, a big party could attract 30 whilst a small party could attract only 20 (and taking account of any precautions that the characters may take to muffle noises). But a dungeon with 100 monsters won't sprout another 20 just because someone makes noise. 
I think that the dungeon creation has its own internal logic and is independent of who comes into it. The characters take their chance and do their best. Running away from too though encounters or tpk are always a possibility. The gm should be their to adjudicate, not mitigate. 

[tetramorph]

derv, I said I would get back after thinking about it, so here goes:

I think aldarron gives the closest read of what the books imply.

I agree also with talysman.

I have never liked the book examples. I've always made my own list. I've zeroed in on one that fits my campaign setting well and use it almost all the time. But it is only for monster type.

I think one thing that frees me up is that I try to think of it in terms of HD threat more than in terms of number. That allows me to roll up orcs on level 8 but multiply them greatly. For a random encounter, perhaps they have been tracking them for a long time. By the time the PCs know they are there, they are hanging from the ceiling over them and blocking both ways, etc. Number and surprise can challenge even high lvl parties.

So, to answer your query directly: I don't much use what the books says BTB, but I try to go with what it implies: deeper lvls of dungeon mean greater challenges await. I plan lairs per level of ever increasing HD threats. I scale these up if I need to for parties of high number or level. For random encounters I tally both party number, HD and average HD and I use these three numbers according to a magical formula in my brain (liberal arts major hand waiving here) in order to determine relative threat of the given random encounter (slightly lower than party, equal to party, greater, much greater and impossible for the party). Something like talysman's d6 roll as described, above.

Sorry, derv, that is the best I can contribute to this discussion in terms of replying as directly as possible to your OP.

As to the qualitative discussion: I do not like ecology. Too 1e for me. I do not think ecology to be demanded by the rules. It makes more sense to me to think that way in the wilderness.

I prefer running the dungeon as a mythic underworld; the eruption of perennial and architectonic chthonic forces on the surface of the earth like a metaphysical abscess needing Lawful cleansing. I agree with most everyone who says that planned rooms and encounters should be preplanned. I, too, am old school. But even there the rules state that we should up the ante if the number, and, I would say, by implication, power-lvl of the party is too easy a match for such a pre-planned encounter. Who would object to keeping the dungeon challenging? And where monsters are scaled up, so too should be any pre-planned treasure. A suitable reward for a given challenge. I do not see this as "cheating." This is my job as the ref: to provide an in-game challenge to characters.

For random encounters, I agree with others on the board in other threads who, in accordance with the dungeon as a mythic underworld, see random encounters as perhaps the dungeon itself abiogenerating aberrations to keep adventurers out or dead. I like to roll up a couple of unique monsters using something like the Random Esoteric Creature Generator. Otherwise, as I said above, I factor in party number, party total HD and average HD in order to generate a rough challenging HD range for the creature/s encountered. talysman's table expresses what I roughly do, as well (so I plan to grab it! Thanks, again, Talysman!).

I do not usually deal in factions, etc. I do not like "mega" dungeons. I keep lvls reasonable and rooms per lvl relatively low compared to other old schoolers. I place a lair per level, a wonder per level. The rest is doors, passages, rooms, etc, of various types.. I do not need a reason or an ecosystem for a monster to be where it/they are. They are there because it is the mythic underworld. I find I enjoy this style of more "gonzo," or, at least, archetypal play far more interesting for the dungeon. YMMV!

Thanks for starting the topic.

Quick edit / addition:

Here is how talysman's table might work for me. After rolling the creature type with my own random table, I would do this:

d6	monster HD to party HD
1	- 50%
2	same
3-4	+ 50%
5	X 2
6	X 3

Then I would adjust monster numbers based upon HD needed to approximate the above HD total.

[derv]

Nov 8, 2015 15:27:47 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

So, to answer your query directly: I don't much use what the books says BTB, but I try to go with what it implies: deeper lvls of dungeon mean greater challenges await. I plan lairs per level of ever increasing HD threats. I scale these up if I need to for parties of high number or level. For random encounters I tally both party number, HD and average HD and I use these three numbers according to a magical formula in my brain (liberal arts major hand waiving here) in order to determine relative threat of the given random encounter (slightly lower than party, equal to party, greater, much greater and impossible for the party). Something like talysman's d6 roll as described, above.

Sorry, derv, that is the best I can contribute to this discussion in terms of replying as directly as possible to your OP.

I think your answer is perfectly acceptable tetramorph. I actually think it is an approach many take to a greater or lesser extent.

The only thing I'm not sure about with your table is whether you take the difference in the HD between PC's and monsters, create a ratio, or use the spread. Is it the HD total of all the characters or an average?

It seems that you are saying you roll for a monster. Take that monsters HD and subtract it from the parties total HD. Then you make up the difference in the number appearing. So, if you rolled a 1HD orc and the parties combined HD was equal to 8, you would come up with a total of 7. Then you would roll a d6. On a roll of 1 you would cut the number in half (3.5, round up or down) or on a roll of 5 you would multply it by two (14).

With this, I assume that if the monsters HD are higher then the parties total, only one monster will appear. I understand that there's probably a little bit of a fudge factor too.

Thanks for trying to work it out in a table. There's a method to your madness



I thought I'd take a look at Holmes and see what he had to say. Since he's only dealing with levels 1-3, his tables are different from those in U&WA.

What he suggests for creating encounters is informative, though.

"The number of wandering monsters appearing should be roughly equal to the strength of the party encountering them. First level adventurers encountering monsters typically found on the first level of the dungeon should be faced with roughly equal numbers, i.e. a part of three would encounter 2-6 orcs, 3-12 giant rats, etc. However, if the party were second level, or the first level monsters were encountered on the second level of the dungeon, the number of wandering monsters encountered should be doubled. In like manner, the number of monsters should be tripled for third level adventurers or in the third level of the dungeon if the monsters appearing are first level. If justification is needed, simply consider that a small party is relatively quiet, thus attracting less attention than a large group, and powerful characters will similarly bring more numbers of monsters."

He goes on to say a little more about generating and modifying the number appearing, but it was interesting to read Holmes perspective in relation to some of the conversation in the thread.

Has Zenopus covered this in the Holmes manuscipt? Is there anything to add or take away?