Great topic and some great posts
It's been a while since my last missive, so...
For my part, I don't see scaling-for-number-of-players as a dynamic, during play thing. The number of
players in a gaming session is generally fixed; if a player's
character dies, that player usually picks up another character as soon as is practical so the party size isn't impacted overly for any length of time anyway.
I see scaling-for-number-of-players more as a practicality that enables dungeon designers to share their keys with other groups that comprise an unknown numbers of players.
The utility of this might (wild speculation here) even have occurred to those present at EGG's first game where Arneson ran his usually larger Blackmoor game for a smaller group of Lake Genevians. Whether or not this was the case, EGG was evidently aware of the potential to share dungeon keys; he wrote the following advice in SR #1.1 ("Spring" 1975):
Granted this advice was for solo dungeoneering, but--with a player-scaling mechanic already in place--it would be simple to use these dungeons for group play too. Assuming exchange of these envelopes actually took place, the dungeon designer would have no idea how many players might venture into his dungeon area.
Moving right along: I agree with
aldarron's posts above.
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)
Yes indeed; I agree.
I will (of course I will !) beg to quibble over the minute technicalities of this:
So a party of 6 encountering a 5HD monster on level 7 of the dungeon would calculate numbers as (7-5)*(6/3) = 4 monsters.
So we're saying here that:
N = base_number * (dungeon_level -
monster_hd) * group_size.
This function says we should expect 1-6 orcs on dungeon level 1
and also on dungeon level 2. That's perfectly good if we want to play precisely by the text of the 73 draft, but I reckon there's every chance this is simply an oversight. I believe it's more intuitive that we should expect to see 1-6 orcs on DL1, then
2-12 orcs on DL2, then 3-18 orcs on DL3, etc. In fact, I believe this is precisely what EGG later edited into Holmes' manuscript.
More importantly (and more contentiously, I'm sure!):
Notice that in our formula we've switched
monster_hd in for
monster_level whereas the 73 draft says explicitly: "
use Table 11 to determine the level of monster encountered" and in both the 73 draft and U&WA there are a series of Monster Level Tables, detailing the monster levels from 1 thru 6. So it would seem to me more correct to retain "monster level" as a number between 1 and 6, rather than number of HD.
The expression would then be:
N = base_number * (dungeon_level -
monster_level) * group_size.
This reading will bring a few more of some fantastic monsters (those where monster level < monster HD) into play. I believe this would actually help bring those fantastic-type encounters more into line with the scale of the normal-type encounters on the equivalent dungeon level. I.e., while the
monster_hd method has a single 6+3 (virtually 7) HD Troll appearing on the 7th and 8th dungeon levels, the
monster_level method has two level 5 Trolls appearing on the 7th dungeon level, and three appearing on the 8th.
So if "Monster_Level" matters, then we'd better take a look at...
The Monster Level TablesI suspect most of us gloss over, or have only limited confidence in, the "Monster Level Tables" appearing in U&WA p10-11. At first glance they can appear somewhat loose.
Let's have a closer look. We can easily list out each monster by monster level, and then sum its HD plus 1 for each significant advantage, and minus 1 for each significant disadvantage. This gives us a "Sum of Hit Dice and Special Abilities" (HD+SA) rating not unlike the method suggested by Greyhawk p12-13.
I've listed them out below with
HD+SA shown in red:
Level 1<1+0=<1 Insect/Small Animal (giant rats, centipedes, spiders) up to 1 HD.
<1+0=<1 Kobold 1/2 HD. Penalty in sunlight?
<1+0=<1 Goblin 1-1 HD. Penalty in sunlight.
<1+1=<2 Skeleton 1/2 HD. Unintelligent. fearless morale. Invulnerable to normal missiles. subject to turning.
1+0=1 Orc 1 HD.
1+0=1 Bandit 1 HD.
So here we have a bunch of the (individually) least significant types with up to 1 HD. Skeletons are the stand out with some neat special features, but even these are unintelligent and brittle.
Total HD+SA range is <2.
Level 2?+?=? Large Insect/Animal (giant lizard) 2-20HD.
1+1=2 Hobgoblin 1+1 HD. +1 morale.
1+1=2 Zombie 1HD. Unintelligent/Fearless morale. Invulnerable to normal missiles. subject to turning.
2+1=3 Gnoll 2HD. +2 morale.
?+2=? Thoul ?HD paralysis. regeneration.
2+0=2 Ghoul 2HD. paralysis. subject to turning.
1+1=2 Berserker 1+1 HD. +2 to attack man-types.
2+0=2 Warrior (2nd level) 2 HD.
2+1=3 Theurgist (4th level) 2+1 HD. Magic.
2+1=3 Conjurer (3rd level) 2 HD. Magic.
Level 2 monsters range generally from 1+1 HD normals to 2 HD types, including some with special abilities.
Giant Lizards don't get stats, but would presumably need to have 2-3 HD to be included in this category.
Thouls are not officially detailed in OD&D, but their inclusion here coupled with their rumoured paralysis and regeneration abilities implies they might logically need to have close to 1 HD (in order that 1+2=3). Or else, if they were to have 2+ HD, they might need to be promoted to a higher monster level.
Total HD+SA range is 2-3.
Level 33+1=4 Wight 3HD. Level drain + create Wight. Invulnerable to normal missiles. Subject to turning and magic arrows.
5+0=5 Ochre Jelly 5 HD. Unintelligent, slow, invulnerable to weapons/lightning.
?+?=? Large Insect/Animal (hog, ant, snake, weasle) 2-20HD.
4+0=4 Hero (4th level) 4 HD.
5+0=5 Swashbuckler (5th level) 5 HD.
3+2=5 Thaumatauge (5th level) 3 HD. Magic.
3+2=5 Magician (6th level) 3+1 HD. Magic.
Level 3 Monsters appear to have 4-5 HD, or 3 HD + special ability. Note that there are very few 3 HD monsters in M&T (wights, grey ooze, and player types).
Inclusion of giant hogs, ants, snakes, and weasels possibly suggests these types may have been envisaged to have 4-5 HD.
Total HD+SA range is 4-5.
Level 4?+?=? Large Insect/Animal (giant beetle, giant scorpion) 2-20HD.
?+?=? White Ape No offical OD&D stats, possibly another large animal?
4+2=6 Wraith 4 HD. Level drain + create wraith. Fly. Partial missile resistance. Vulnerable to turning.
4+1=5 Ogre 4+1 HD. +2 damage.
4+1=5+ Lycanthrope 4-6 HD. Invulnerable to non-silver/magical attacks. Cause lycanthropy. Family combat bonus.
4+1=5 Gargoyle 4 HD. Invulnerable to non-magical attacks.
6+0=6 Myrmidon (6th level) 6 HD.
4+1=5 Evil Priest (4th level) 4 HD. Anti-clerical magic.
4+2=6 Enchanter (7th level) 4 HD. Magic.
Here we see a few 6 HD types mixed among a majority of 4 HD types with special abilities. We might therefore suppose the large insects/animal entries (beetles, scorpions, white apes?) should have 6 HD, or 5 HD+poison.
Overall, we see a
HD+SA range of 5-6.
Level 57+1=8 Troll 6+3 HD. Regeneration.
5+2=7 Cockatrice 5 HD. unintelligent/fearless. fly, stone.
6+1=7 Minotaur 6 HD. Fearless morale, always pursue.
6+2=8 Manticore 6+1 HD. Missile volley. fly.
7+2=9 Wyvern 7 DH. fly. poison.
6+3=9 Spectre 6 HD. Incorporeal, fly, drain 2 levels, impervious to non-magic weapons. Subject to turning.
5+2=7 Mummy 5+1 HD. takes 1/2 damage, rot, impervious to non-magic weapons. Vulnerable to fire, turning.
6+2=8 Sorcerer 6+1 HD. Magic.
8+0=8 Superhero 8+2 HD.
6+1=7 Hydra (6 heads) 6HD. 6 attacks in fantastic combat.
7+1=8 Hydra (7 heads) 7HD. 7 attacks in fantastic combat.
8+1=9 Hydra (8 heads) 8HD. 8 attacks in fantastic combat.
4+2=6 Medusa 4 HD. poison. stone.
What have we here? Generally 5-8 HD critters with special abilities bringing their
HD+SA rank into the 7-9 range.
The Medusa is possibly outclassed in this company, having HD+SA of 6, might be better suited to level 3.
Level 68+2=10+ Giant 8-12+2 HD. High damage. missiles. cold/fire/smell.
9+1=10+ Hydra (9 heads) 9 HD. 9 attacks in fantastic combat.
8+2=10+ Dragon 8-12 HD. fly. breath weapon. better hp. caught napping.
6+1=7 Basilisk 6+1 HD. Unintelligent/fearless. stone.
8+1=9 Gorgon 8 HD. breath weapon.
9+2=11 Chimera 9 HD. breath weapon. 3 attacks in fantastic combat.
7+4=11+ Vampire 7-9 HD. drain 2 levels, create vampires, impervious to non-magic weapons, regenerate, minions/magic. Subject to turning.
10+5=15 Balrog 10 HD. magic resistance. fly. 2 attacks in fantastic combat. immolation. fire immunity.
9+1=10 Lord (9th level) 9+3 HD. extra minions.
8+3=11 Wizard (11th level) 8+1 HD. Magic. extra minions.
7+3=10 EHP (8th level) 7 HD. Anti-clerical magic. extra minions.
15+2=17 Purple Worm 15 HD. Poison. Swallow.
The big end of town. Here we see the apex predators of the dungeon environment, all rating
10 and above HD+SA. Minimum 8 HD dragons will fall within this trend.
Basilisks appear outclassed here, and would possibly be better at level 5.
Gorgons are borderline here, also possibly doing better at level 5.
ConclusionOverall, the Monster Level Tables are not as imbalanced as they may, at first glance, appear. The general pattern of HD+SA is:
Monster Level 1: 0 to <2
Monster Level 2: 2 to 3
Monster Level 3: 4 to 5
Monster Level 4: 5 to 6
Monster Level 5: 7 to 9
Monster Level 6: 10+
I'm not suggesting the original designer went to anything like this trouble; I'm sure EGG just "eye-balled it". What the above shows is that EGG had a pretty good intuition about how these various monsters compare, and even if he just eye-balled it, he got it pretty close to spot on.
To be perfectly nit-picky, demoting the Medusa, Basilisk, and Gorgon by one monster level would not hurt. Other than that, if we really desperately needed to "fix it", we could smooth out the overlap between monster levels 3 and 4 like so:
Monster Level 3: 4 to 5
Monster Level 4:
6 to 7Monster Level 5:
8 to 9
So to sum up, I reckon original text talks in terms of monster_level rather than monster_hd, that the monster level tables in U&WA are actually pretty decent, and that the implied numbers of monsters encountered are of these proportions (assuming 3 players):
Some final comments...
Number of Monsters Appearing in M&TAFWIW, I also went thru Monsters & Treasure Assortment (1977) and summarised the numbers occurring for a few of the classic monster types for each dungeon level they occur on.
This is what I found (converted to nearest d6 terms):
Giant Rats (1/2 HD)DL 1: 2d6
DL 2: 3d6+2
DL 3: 5d6
DL 4: 8d6+2
DL 5: 10d6
DL 6: 10d6+2
Kobolds (1/2 HD)DL 1: 2d6
DL 2: 3d6+2
Orcs (1 HD)DL 1: 1d6
DL 2: 2d6
DL 3: 4d6
DL 4: 6d6+2
Hobgoblins (1+1HD)DL 1: --
DL 2: 1d6+2
DL 3: 3d6+2
DL 4: 5d6
DL 5: 7d6
Gnolls (2 HD)DL 1: --
DL 2: 1d6
DL 3: 3d6
DL 4: 3d6+2
DL 5: 6d6
DL 6: 7d6
These numbers appear to be approximately 150% of OD&D's "basic number", so perhaps these would be useful for around 5 players?
The Numbers of Monsters Appearing in Holmes
Holmes includes a Monster Level Distribution Chart
and hardwired numbers appearing on its Monster Level Tables (supposedly added by a subsequent TSR editor).
IMHO the published tables have a number of problems:
1. The numbers appearing do not align with the text,
2. Individual monster types occur in more than one level table which breaks the notion of a monster_level per type, and is redundant with the monster level distribution chart,
3. The fixed number themselves don't work out. E.g., We can roll an encounter on dungeon level
one, roll Table 3, and then roll entry 1 which tells us we encounter 1-6 thingys. Later, we can roll another encounter this time on dungeon level
three, roll table 3 again, roll entry 1 again which then tells us we still get 1-6 thingys.
Including _both_ a monster level distribtuion chart _and_ fixed numbers on the monster level tables appears to be fundamentally at odds with the descriptive text, so probably best to treat these numbers with caution.
Yay! You've reached the end at last