|
Post by scottyg on Nov 12, 2015 22:22:01 GMT -6
Gary confirmed for me what David and Michael are saying, the % in lair and treasure type info is for random wilderness adventuring and not the dungeon environment. Personally, I rarely roll anything, I pick monsters and treasure, but I often look at the treasure type info for inspiration.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 12, 2015 22:42:37 GMT -6
Maybe someone could explain to me why it's necessary to make this distinction.
Why does it not seem rational for a monster to have a lair in a dungeon, ruin, tomb, cavern, or anywhere else that a GM might think up?
Why would/did Arneson and Gygax use different methods for treasure generation in the wilderness versus in the dungeon?
I really don't understand the contention on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 13, 2015 5:52:37 GMT -6
I've often lamented that it takes so long to roll up a treasure "properly" using the Treasure Types table. Perhaps this could be a practical reason it wasn't used for random, on-the-spot encounters rolled up during dungeon play? Meanwhile, I've just noticed that Greyhawk gives Liches as being 100% in Lair, having Treasure Type A, and occurring on the Monster Level 6 table (GH p65). So... yeah. 1-4 Liches, anyone? The Gelatinous Cube entry is interesting too; it doesn't have a lair or proper treasure type, but it's clearly a dungeon-type monster where the treasure type stat is used. Fun stuff
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Nov 13, 2015 5:55:38 GMT -6
It's a very different kind of play. U & W provides rules for determining number of monsters and treasure found in a dungeon. The assumption in OD&D was that wilderness exploration was going to be done by name level characters and their entourages. There's a line that states something like 'For parties of 100 or more...'. These are the conditions where it would be expected that you would use the no. appearing and % in lair stats.
|
|
mindcontrolsquid
Level 4 Theurgist
"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man..."
Posts: 118
|
Post by mindcontrolsquid on Nov 13, 2015 6:21:13 GMT -6
It's a very different kind of play. U & W provides rules for determining number of monsters and treasure found in a dungeon. The assumption in OD&D was that wilderness exploration was going to be done by name level characters and their entourages. There's a line that states something like 'For parties of 100 or more...'. These are the conditions where it would be expected that you would use the no. appearing and % in lair stats. I realize that this is not strictly in the rules, but would it be reasonable to use the no. appearing from M&T as a creative basis for determining monster habitation of dungeons? For example, if I'm making a dungeon with a level controlled by hobgoblins, could I use the number appearing (ie 20-200) as a rough estimate of how many hobgoblins reside on that level? Or is there some better method of which I am not aware? Or would I simply come up with a number on my own and then populate them throughout the dungeon level as appropriate?
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Nov 13, 2015 7:32:23 GMT -6
I do that all the time. But I don't roll. I just decide. If I want a small tribe of Goblins control a section of the dungeon, I pick a total number for the tribe, add leaders etc, break them up into the individual encounters I want, and place treasure using a combination of the Treasure Type and the dungeon placement method.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 13, 2015 9:13:54 GMT -6
Why would/did Arneson and Gygax use different methods for treasure generation in the wilderness versus in the dungeon? Arneson didn't. From the pre D&D stuff in the FFC thru to AiF, he never made any such distinction. However, for Gygax, to my mind, the question is why did he change the rather elaborate Treasure Types he worked out, from universal application to being relegated a fairly small part of the game (random wilderness lairs)? One might wonder if the fact that Treasure Types don't change by level, the way the simpler and more generic "level beneath the surface" treasure table in U&WA does, might be a reason. The problem with this explanation is that since the treasure types give more treasure to tougher creatures, they do basically vary by level anyway. So I don't know, but there is an observation regarding Gygax view of treasure that might explain it. The economics of OD&D is drawn almost straight out of the Blackmoor campaign, and that includes treasure values. The treasure types themselves are an expansion of the treasures in dragon hoards by dragon type and the lettered magic sword "prizes" in Blackmoor. Arneson's treasures were relatively lavish. Just for example, looking quickly at one pre D&D level in Blackmoor dungeon (7th) in 13 keyed rooms there is a total of 31,000 GP. BTB OD&D treasures are likewise quite generous in wealth, and we do get a sense from Gygax in a number of places that he came to feel the treasures were too big and needed to be toned down. Zenopus, for example has shown how Gary (presumably), gimped the treasure in the Holmes sample dungeon from what Dr. Holmes had written. Why Gary felt that way is another mystery, I suppose. Maybe it had something to do with XP and GP. In the Dalluhn draft, you only get 1/10 xp for gold. So for 100 GP you get 10 XP whereas for a monster you get 100 xp per level - a situation that is entirely reversed in Greyhawk, where you would get 100 xp for the gold and only 10 for the monster. <shrug>
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 13, 2015 9:31:24 GMT -6
It's a very different kind of play. U & W provides rules for determining number of monsters and treasure found in a dungeon. The assumption in OD&D was that wilderness exploration was going to be done by name level characters and their entourages. There's a line that states something like 'For parties of 100 or more...'. These are the conditions where it would be expected that you would use the no. appearing and % in lair stats. I realize that this is not strictly in the rules, but would it be reasonable to use the no. appearing from M&T as a creative basis for determining monster habitation of dungeons? For example, if I'm making a dungeon with a level controlled by hobgoblins, could I use the number appearing (ie 20-200) as a rough estimate of how many hobgoblins reside on that level? Or is there some better method of which I am not aware? Or would I simply come up with a number on my own and then populate them throughout the dungeon level as appropriate? It is not strictly not in the rules either. Have a close look at my post on the bottom of page 2. Absolutely you can and should use the # appearing and Treasure Types in dungeons. Requoting Holmes here " ... many monsters carry treasure or secrete it in their "lair," cave, or dungeon room. The treasure types ... listed in the table below and descriptions and additional tables ... are designed to maintain some sort of balance between the value of the dungeon's treasures and the risks involved in obtaining it. It is highly recommended, for this reason, that neophyte Dungeon Masters use the tables." (1977:34) Zen's discussion is hereand also illustrates more of what I was talking about above regarding Gygax's changing attitude toward treasure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2015 12:14:28 GMT -6
Why does it not seem rational for a monster to have a lair in a dungeon, ruin, tomb, cavern, or anywhere else that a GM might think up? Why would/did Arneson and Gygax use different methods for treasure generation in the wilderness versus in the dungeon? From my understanding, when randomly populating a dungeon, Gary did so on a room-by-room basis. Rolling for the contents of each room individually using the procedures similar to AD&D's random dungeon tables. When doing it this way, generating a monster lair becomes a problem. If the tables say that there are 150 hobgoblins, there might not be enough room on the map for that many creatures or the rooms may be organized in a way making such a lair unworkable. So, when creating a monster lair in a dungeon, it becomes advantageous to design the entire lair as a single entity, where the map and the monsters work together. Exactly as was famously done in B2 Keep on the Borderlands. In the wilderness, you don't have the same issues; 10 orcs is a camp, 100 is a village, and 300 is a town. Since your pulling the encounter out of your ass anyway, it makes no difference. Therefore, when you hear at Gary didn't use the random treasure tables for in-dungeon monster lairs, it isn't because monsters didn't lair in dungeons. It is just that such lairs were not generated randomly.
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Nov 13, 2015 13:08:43 GMT -6
I'm still a little confused about why this is a debate. Is there some reason why the rules provided to determine number appearing and treasure found in a dungeon shouldn't be used to determine the number appearing and treasure found in a dungeon?
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 13, 2015 13:33:09 GMT -6
The rules for stocking dungeons are different than the rules for wandering monsters in dungeons.
We've pretty much figured out the wandering monster rules: fantastic types have a base 1, man-types have a base 1d6; multiply by difference between dungeon level and monster level if dungeon level is higher; multiply by the number of groups of three or less in the party.
All we have for random dungeon stocking is "The number of monsters is best determined by the level being considered and the kind of monster inhabiting the room or space. The Monster Table from Volume II can be most helpful here." Does this mean you roll the No. Appearing, despite the warning that it's "used primarily only for out-door encounters"? Do you multiply dungeon and level difference here as well?
We have no guidance at all regarding monsters placed intentionally by the referee to guard special treasures.
So let's suppose we're on the 10th level of a dungeon. The wandering monster check tells the referee there's a monster. He rolls on the Monster Determination and Level of Monster Matrix and finds we're dealing with a 6th level monster. He rolls up dragons. As a fantastic type, the base number appearing is 1, and we're 4 levels away from level 6, so there are 4 dragons for every 3 party members.
Now let's suppose we're the referee, stocking the 10th level randomly. We get a monster for a room. We use the Monster Determination and Level of Monster Matrix and find we're dealing with a 6th level monster. We roll up dragons. How many dragons are there? The section of Underworld & Wilderness Adventures tells us "The number of monsters is best determined by the level being considered and the kind of monster inhabiting the room or space. The Monster Table from Volume II can be most helpful here." Does that mean there are 1d4 dragons? We're supposed to consider the level of the dungeon; is 1–4 the base range, and we multiply by the level difference, like with wandering monsters, leading to 1d4×4 dragons? Or 4d4? Are we just supposed to pull a number out of our butts, based on what experience with dungeon levels and monster types tells us is good here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2015 16:10:05 GMT -6
I'm still a little confused about why this is a debate. Is there some reason why the rules provided to determine number appearing and treasure found in a dungeon shouldn't be used to determine the number appearing and treasure found in a dungeon? The rules in AD&D are very clear that the # Appearing and Treasure Types are not to be used to stock dungeons. The rules in the DMG give us a different method of generating dungeon encounters that use a different number appearing that is adjusted by dungeon level but not by party level or party size. So, the debate focuses on whether or not the AD&D rules are a better reflection of what Gary was doing all along or, if not, when did his mind change and why. For example, was the idea from Dalluhm that you subtract monster level from party level how it's actually supposed to work or was that just an idea that got rejected during play testing? Obviously, I vastly prefer the AD&D method.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 13, 2015 16:49:18 GMT -6
It's a very different kind of play. U & W provides rules for determining number of monsters and treasure found in a dungeon. The assumption in OD&D was that wilderness exploration was going to be done by name level characters and their entourages. There's a line that states something like 'For parties of 100 or more...'. These are the conditions where it would be expected that you would use the no. appearing and % in lair stats. scottyg, How people perceive and use treasure distribution has a direct impact on the rate of advancement of PC's in the game. So, I'm going to take your and Michael's statements at face value and tell you what it means to me in the context of this discussion. What it means to me is that M&T's number appearing, treasure types, and % in lair are really based on the parties size (just like the dungeon), but at a greater scale (you mentioned 100). Originally, it was only intended for the domain game, where name level character's are leading armies and clearing land in order to build a stronghold. So, it wouldn't even really be intended for small party hex crawls. This would mean that the average party of 1-9 characters should have near 0% chance of encountering any monsters in their lair. The rationale would be that the party is too small to stumble upon a monsters secret lair. If it was quantified, a party of 1-9 would only have something like a .5% chance of finding orcs in their lair and .1% of finding lycanthropes, or something like that. Regardless, it takes armies of hundreds of men to roust out monsters from their lairs. If this is true, half the table in M&T has no application to a majority of the games being played
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 13, 2015 17:12:06 GMT -6
Therefore, when you hear that Gary didn't use the random treasure tables for in-dungeon monster lairs, it isn't because monsters didn't lair in dungeons. It is just that such lairs were not generated randomly. I'm starting to think there's a little more to it then that. Somewhere along the line there is a disconnect between how wilderness exploration was being played that utilized this idea of lairs and how we have now come to understand wilderness exploration, yet still utilize this idea of lairs. Otherwise, it really shouldn't matter whether a party is indoors or outdoors.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 13, 2015 17:58:25 GMT -6
It's a very different kind of play. U & W provides rules for determining number of monsters and treasure found in a dungeon. The assumption in OD&D was that wilderness exploration was going to be done by name level characters and their entourages. There's a line that states something like 'For parties of 100 or more...'. These are the conditions where it would be expected that you would use the no. appearing and % in lair stats. I realize that this is not strictly in the rules, but would it be reasonable to use the no. appearing from M&T as a creative basis for determining monster habitation of dungeons? For example, if I'm making a dungeon with a level controlled by hobgoblins, could I use the number appearing (ie 20-200) as a rough estimate of how many hobgoblins reside on that level? Or is there some better method of which I am not aware? Or would I simply come up with a number on my own and then populate them throughout the dungeon level as appropriate? Sure, why not? I think there's a problem caused by the word "lair". A lair is where a monster lives. A monster in a room in a dungeon is using that room as a lair. However, the "lair" in the expression "% in lair" is, basically, telling you the chance that you've found a dungeon, series of caves, or other habitation in the wilderness. It's not referring to just one room. Consequently, the treasure types from that table are not the amount of treasure you'd find in a single room, but in an entire dungeon, or at least 1-3 levels of a dungeon. So, you could use the M&T table to decide what's going to be available in an entire dungeon, or at least the main treasure, and then split it up among several rooms, basically your "specials" that you place first manually before you do your random stocking. In some other thread a while back, I suggested a method like that. I'm still a little confused about why this is a debate. Is there some reason why the rules provided to determine number appearing and treasure found in a dungeon shouldn't be used to determine the number appearing and treasure found in a dungeon? Again, because the treasure types and number appearing in the M&T tables are for a large area, not a single room. If you use the table for a single room, you get too much treasure and in some cases too many monsters. If you split the monsters and treasure among several rooms in a level or cluster of levels, it's not too bad, although you'll be a little skimpy on treasure. You need to pad out some rooms using the random stocking method, including the random treasure table from U&WA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2015 19:36:38 GMT -6
Maybe someone could explain to me why it's necessary to make this distinction. Why does it not seem rational for a monster to have a lair in a dungeon, ruin, tomb, cavern, or anywhere else that a GM might think up? Why would/did Arneson and Gygax use different methods for treasure generation in the wilderness versus in the dungeon? I really don't understand the contention on this issue. Treasure and monsters are much more concentrated in the dungeon than in the wilderness. Do the arithmetic. If you populate a dungeon with wilderness type treasures, "Monty Haul" does not even BEGIN to describe the effect. It can take an entire night of wilderness travel to get one worthwhile treasure. You can cover a huge amount of dungeon in the same time.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 13, 2015 21:38:20 GMT -6
Treasure and monsters are much more concentrated in the dungeon than in the wilderness. Do the arithmetic. If you populate a dungeon with wilderness type treasures, "Monty Haul" does not even BEGIN to describe the effect. It can take an entire night of wilderness travel to get one worthwhile treasure. You can cover a huge amount of dungeon in the same time. I understand your point, but I'm not suggesting that a person should populate an entire dungeon using the treasure types. What's being suggested is if a person is randomly stocking a dungeon and a monster is determined to be present, a roll could be made to see if it is a lair. If it is, then the number appearing and the treasure type from M&T could be used. This is not really much different then how a hexcrawl would be played. It's also not intended to override a GM's judgement. How a GM decides to distribute the treasure, whether amongst numerous hidden places or all out in the open, is entirely up to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2015 7:48:27 GMT -6
I think there's a problem caused by the word "lair". A lair is where a monster lives. A monster in a room in a dungeon is using that room as a lair. However, the "lair" in the expression "% in lair" is, basically, telling you the chance that you've found a dungeon, series of caves, or other habitation in the wilderness. The FFC gives an alternate use for this term and it appears to be the original intention. "% in lair" is not the percentage chance that you've found a lair, but rather the percentage of the monsters rolled that are currently in the lair. The rest being divided into groups and used as wandering monsters. So, if you've rolled 200 orcs, of which 50% are "in lair", then you'll have a lair with 100 orcs and 100 orcs that are out wandering the hex (in one or multiple groups). Using "% in lair" as a percentage chance that the encounter is with the lair doesn't really work since it distorts the number of monsters per treasure. Nixies are 100% "in lair" so that means every encounter with nixies will result in treasure. Centaurs, OTOH, only have a 5% chance of being a lair so you are, in effect, multiplying the number of centaurs by 20, as it will take an average 20 centaur encounters before finding the treasure holding lair. You could, but why would you want to when there's a perfectly good method of dungeon stocking that doesn't require you to do all the extra work.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 14, 2015 8:18:07 GMT -6
Again, because the treasure types and number appearing in the M&T tables are for a large area, not a single room. If you use the table for a single room, you get too much treasure and in some cases too many monsters. If you split the monsters and treasure among several rooms in a level or cluster of levels, it's not too bad, although you'll be a little skimpy on treasure. You need to pad out some rooms using the random stocking method, including the random treasure table from U&WA. It should be pointed out that wandering monsters in the wilderness are divided by type. Interestingly, M&T's list is also seemingly divided by type. What this means for the average party of 3-6 is that they could encounter a wide spectrum of monsters at any time. There is no monster level or dungeon level considered. The rules do not even suggest considering party size. The numbers appearing could fall outside the spectrum of what would be considered normal for a dungeon encounter with the party at hand. Which leads to the question, are these things all being taken for granted in the text to involve very large parties lead by very high level PC's? If it is taking these things for granted, the tables could be scaled back accordingly. One would need to know the actual assumptions the tables are based on, though. It also suggests that the tables are not even really suited for small party, low-mid level wilderness exploration.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 14, 2015 8:23:16 GMT -6
The FFC gives an alternate use for this term and it appears to be the original intention. "% in lair" is not the percentage chance that you've found a lair, but rather the percentage of the monsters rolled that are currently in the lair. The rest being divided into groups and used as wandering monsters. So, if you've rolled 200 orcs, of which 50% are "in lair", then you'll have a lair with 100 orcs and 100 orcs that are out wandering the hex (in one or multiple groups). I have considered this view and it is a possibility, but I think it needs a closer look. It would seem to break down when dealing with fantastic types. Now, if the % in lair is based on the max no appearing (i.e. 300 orcs), this means the most that are encountered in lair is 150 (3d10 x 10) /2. It also means the % in lair can therefore be used to establish % chance you have stumbled on a lair (i.e. 50% for orcs). Once a lair is discovered in a hex, all other encounters of this type will be wandering monsters. For fantastic types like dragons 1 in 4 will be in lair, so there's a 25% chance that you have encountered a single dragon in it's lair. This probability would need to go up if you roll fewer then 4 dragons and you are using it in proportion to a hex.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 14, 2015 11:30:49 GMT -6
Again, because the treasure types and number appearing in the M&T tables are for a large area, not a single room. If you use the table for a single room, you get too much treasure and in some cases too many monsters. If you split the monsters and treasure among several rooms in a level or cluster of levels, it's not too bad, although you'll be a little skimpy on treasure. You need to pad out some rooms using the random stocking method, including the random treasure table from U&WA. Yeah, - well mostly. In some cases it might be a single room, like a Medusa. I get the sense more generally that folks are assuming or imagining how much is normal for an OD&D treasure, that's perhaps reduced from how the rules have it. Let's consider. Including both above and below ground, in OD&D there are only 3 by the book means to determine treasure: 1) you can choose and place a special treasure. "....thoughtfully place several of the most important treasures, with or without monsterous guardians... Naturally, the more important treasures will consist of various magical items and large amounts of wealth in the form of gems and jewelry." U&WA 6 NOTICE - the intent here is a few high value, "important" treasure. 2) You can use the "level beneath the surface table" on page 7 of U&WA for the "random determination for the balance of the level." U&WA p6 3) You can use the Treasure Type tables of M&T p22&23. Those are our options, So let's give ourselves an easy but fairly typical, middle of the road, example - let's say dungeon level 4 has 30 rooms. By the rules, one third should be occupied. With each occupied room (10 rooms) there's a 50% chance of treasure and a 16.7% chance in unoccupied rooms. So we end up with 5 treasures in occupied rooms and 3 in unoccupied - 8 treasure rooms on the level. Let's say we are not going to use the M&T Treasure Type tables - that leaves us with option 1 or 2. For the sake of argument, let's say we aren't planning to put any special treasure on level 4, therefore, all our treasure will be generated using the U&WA p7 table. There is no other choice, BTB. On average a level 4 treasure will have this (not counting magic items): 3500 SP, 350 GP, 265 GP gems, 2,387 GP jewelry. Total average GP value per treasure = 3,352 gp Total GP value in Level 4: = 26,816 GP Now, let's suppose we had used Treasure Types instead. According to the U&WA Tables, the most common monsters (66%) with Treasure Types on level 4 of the dungeon will be: Wraiths E, Ogres C +1000, Lycans C, Gargoyles C, Trolls D, Wyverns E, Spectres E, Mummies D, Minotaurs, Manticores D, Cockatrices D, Hydra (6-8 Heads) B, Medusae F. That's 1 B average value each 3.926 3 C average value each 2,455 4 D average value each 7,317 3 E average value each 3,407 1 F average value each 13,263 see this post for details regarding the average valuesOkay, clearly the amount of treasure is going to vary depending on the monsters on the level, especially if medusea are present. If we average all those numbers together, we get an average of 5,337 GP per Lair Treasure. If we leave out Medusa, our lair treasures average is 4,516 GP. Already I think we can see that using the Treasure Types is not astronomically greater than using the level below the surface table, and could even be less, if Level 4 were a Lair of Lycanthropes (type C), for example. But that isn't the end to the story, because in most cases, lairs, as Talysman pointed out above, take up several rooms, so a lair treasure will be divided among the treasure positive rooms in the lair, further diluting the total GP of the level. Let's take a possible example. Let's say in our 5 occupied rooms with treasure there is a tribe of trolls inhabiting 4 rooms, and a hydra in the remaining room. Total average treasure in occupied rooms would be: 7317 + 3926 = 11,243GP Treasure for our 3 unoccupied rooms, calculated with the U&WA table would be: 10,056 So our actual total average Treasure for level 4 in this case would be: 21,295 GP. By comparison, our average for level 4 using only the U&WA tables was 26,816. Notice that in this fairly common sort of case, using the Treasure Type table results in an average total of treasure that is nearly 6.000 GP less. Sure, this is only one of many possible examples, but my point here is that, seemingly contrary to the assumptions folks are making, using the M&T Treasure Type tables does not necessarily result in treasures that are some order of magnitude greater than the "standard" method of using the U&WA p7, "Levels Beneath the Surface" table. Indeed the using Treasure Types can actually reduce the overall amount of loot in a dungeon, depending on how you divide up the lairs and treasure rooms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2015 11:46:19 GMT -6
I don't think I ever, ever used the random dungeon tables for treasure. Simply as a historical note.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 14, 2015 12:04:20 GMT -6
The FFC gives an alternate use for this term and it appears to be the original intention. "% in lair" is not the percentage chance that you've found a lair, but rather the percentage of the monsters rolled that are currently in the lair. The rest being divided into groups and used as wandering monsters. So, if you've rolled 200 orcs, of which 50% are "in lair", then you'll have a lair with 100 orcs and 100 orcs that are out wandering the hex (in one or multiple groups). Hang on Hedge, You are mistaken. The FFC clearly does indicate that % Lair is the chance that you have found a lair. What Arneson tells us is that you roll the % chance to see if the players have found a lair. Then to determine the population of the lair you roll 1d6 *10 = % ofpopulation outside the lair. If the % Lair roll fails, then the encounter is a "wandering" encounter, not a lair one, and it occurs with a portion of the "out of lair" population. Two posts on the topic: % Lairand Wandering Monsters in the Wilderness
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 14, 2015 13:19:05 GMT -6
Sure, this is only one of many possible examples, but my point here is that, seemingly contrary to the assumptions folks are making, using the M&T Treasure Type tables does not necessarily result in treasures that are some order of magnitude greater than the "standard" method of using the U&WA p7, "Levels Beneath the Surface" table. Indeed the using Treasure Types can actually reduce the overall amount of loot in a dungeon, depending on how you divide up the lairs and treasure rooms. This would then remain fairly subjective if it depended on how a person distributed the treasure. I think averages can be helpful, but they can also be misleading. Let's take the Medusae as an example. They are a treasure type F with 1-4 appearing and 75% in lair. On the monster matrix they are a level 5 monster. They can be encountered on any level of the dungeon from 2 on, but become most probable at dungeon level 6-7. So let's assume one appears on level 6 of the dungeon in it's lair., Then let's look at maximum and minimum possible treasure results with both systems. Using U&WA the max treasure would be: 12,000 sp, 6000 gp, 6 gems=6000 gp, 6 jewelry=60,000 gp total= 73,200 gp M&T Treasure type F: 20,000 sp, 12,000 gp, 24 gems, 24 jewelry total= 1.5x sp, 2x gp, 4x gems, 4x jewelry of U&WA Min treasure would be: U&WA 2000 sp, 3000 gp= 3200 gp Type F 2000 sp, 1000 gp= 1200 gp (almost half the value of U&WA) These values could really be as little as 2000 sp U&WA and 0 treasure for type F (gems and jewelry would be the same for both methods so i excluded them). Now, this example could be compounded if we were making the same illustration at only level 4 (or even more so at level 2) of the dungeon. Let's do the same thing for the Ogre who is a treasure type C + 1000 gp monster. Number appearing is 3-18 and they are in lair 30%, so 1/3 of the time. In U&WA they are monster level 4 and occur most frequently at levels 2-4 of the dungeon, so let's use level four (where levels 2-3 would be reduced amounts). Max U&WA 6000 sp, 1200 gp, 6 gems= 6000 gp, 6 jewelry= 60,000 gp total= 84,000 gp Type C 12,000 cp, 4000 sp, (1000 gp), 4 gems= 4000 gp, 4 jewelry= 40,000 gp total= 45,640 gp (almost half of U&WA) Min U&WA 1000 sp, 200 gp total= 300 gp Type C 1000 cp, 1000 sp, (1000 gp) total= 1120 gp (almost 4x U&WA) Again, the real minimum could be considered 100 gp U&WA and 1000 gp for type C ogres (10x U&WA). Without the ogres 1000 gp, Type C real min is 0. That's the thing with the treasure types found in M&T, there is a chance that even if the monster is in it's lair, you may roll no treasure. It can produce some very wide disparities.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 14, 2015 15:56:32 GMT -6
..... That's the thing with the treasure types found in M&T, there is a chance that even if the monster is in it's lair, you may roll no treasure. It can produce some very wide disparities. Absolutely, and to my mind that's a great feature, not a flaw. The players never quite know if it's going to be feast or famine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2015 16:35:24 GMT -6
It's part of what made wilderness exploration fun.
As a GENERAL rule, we did wilderness for serious gold (xp) harvesting, but the dungeon for magic and weirdness.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 14, 2015 17:54:42 GMT -6
Well, I just want to say that I have found this discussion extremely productive and thanks to everyone that has chimed in.
I'll probably be tweaking my methods for both number appearing and treasure generation as a result.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 16, 2015 5:35:12 GMT -6
The rules for stocking dungeons are different than the rules for wandering monsters in dungeons. ... All we have for random dungeon stocking is "The number of monsters is best determined by the level being considered and the kind of monster inhabiting the room or space. The Monster Table from Volume II can be most helpful here." Does this mean you roll the No. Appearing, despite the warning that it's "used primarily only for out-door encounters"? Do you multiply dungeon and level difference here as well? I think maybe it helps to re-read the full quote: (U&WA p7). So, line-by-line, the blue part reads: 3rd sentence: "The monster(s) can be selected by use of the Monster Determination & Level of Monster Matrix".So this tells us to use the tables in U&WA (p10-11) to determine what monster-type should occur in a randomly stocked room, as per wandering monsters. The critical part, for me, is that we've just set the context for what follows... 4th sentence: "The number of monsters is best determined by the level being considered and the kind of monster inhabiting the room or space." This isn't quite so explicit as the 3rd sentence but, having just referred to reader to Monster Determination & Level of Monster Matrix on p10-11, it seems reasonable to presume that we're continuing in that line of thinking. Particularly since that method considers the dungeon level and the kind of monster, which are both mention here. Besides which, as Stormcrow point out, what other method is there?5th sentence: "The Monster Table from Volume II can be most helpful here." This may seem like a curve-ball, but I take it to imply the table in M&T can be useful for determining whether we are dealing with a normal or heroic/fantastic type of monster. As discussed above, this will determine whether "the basic number" of monsters appearing should be 1 or 1-6. The usefulness of Number Appearing in determining this comes back to Arneson's comment regarding how normal versus heroic/fantastic types are grouped. Others will disagree, I'm sure, but once again: what other method is there??6th sentence: "Note that Ochre Jellies, Black Puddings, Green Slime, etc. are generally distributed randomly, usually in passages, without treasure." This presumably warns us that although Ochre Jelly occurs on the Monster Level Table 3 (and other slimes, oozes, etc. could occur on alternative Monster Level Tables, as the Gelatinous Cube does in GH) these kinds of monsters should generally be found in passages rather than in rooms. Now let's suppose we're the referee, stocking the 10th level randomly. We get a monster for a room. We use the Monster Determination and Level of Monster Matrix and find we're dealing with a 6th level monster. We roll up dragons. How many dragons are there? The section of Underworld & Wilderness Adventures tells us "The number of monsters is best determined by the level being considered and the kind of monster inhabiting the room or space. The Monster Table from Volume II can be most helpful here." Does that mean there are 1d4 dragons? We're supposed to consider the level of the dungeon; is 1–4 the base range, and we multiply by the level difference, like with wandering monsters, leading to 1d4×4 dragons? Or 4d4? Are we just supposed to pull a number out of our butts, based on what experience with dungeon levels and monster types tells us is good here? Mmm. If we believe any of the above, then if we're stocking the 10th dungeon level randomly and we dice ourselves up Dragons, we would--in theory--use The Monster Reference Table in M&T to discern that Dragons are a fantastic type (not a compelling example, sure, but this check would be more relevant if we diced up perhaps Ghouls, or Gnolls, or Bugbears, etc). Having decided that Dragons are a fantastic type, we can set the "base number" occurring at 1. Now the 10th dungeon level minus monster level 6 gives us a difference of 4, so 4 x 1 = 4 dragons. (Personally, I prefer it as Dungeon Level +1 minus Monster Level, because it doesn't yield zero Monster Level 1 monsters on Dungeon Level 1, but that's a minor quibble )
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 16, 2015 6:23:03 GMT -6
I feel fairly certain that wandering monster numbers are supposed to be lower than stocked room numbers; you're not supposed to use base 1 or 1-6 to determine numbers. Consider that when stocking a dungeon you don't know how many players will be encountering the monster.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 16, 2015 6:28:11 GMT -6
You only modify by dungeon level if it is greater than monster level. 1st level wandering monsters on the 1st dungeon level have the basic number.
|
|