|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 16, 2015 8:33:17 GMT -6
I think the key to understanding number appearing in randomly stocked rooms is the difference between different kinds of random procedures. There are two: preparing adventures using random determination and playing off-the-cuff using random determination. Stocking dungeons is an example of the former; wandering monsters are an example of the latter.
When using random determination to stock dungeons, it's only important to get you far enough along the process to finish it yourself. It's meant to be a convenience, not an algorithm. "The determination of just where monsters should be placed, and whether or not they will be guarding treasure, and how much of the latter if they are guarding something, can become burdensome when faced with several levels to do at one time."
So when the rules tell us how to place monsters when stocking a dungeon, it doesn't give us hard and fast numbers; it just says "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." In other words, the book will deliver you a monster type very roughly appropriate for the dungeon level, but you have to tailor it to be appropriate to its exact situation, which you can do because you're not in the heat of the game.
So how do we really determine numbers during dungeon-stocking? I think the reference to the Monster Table means simply this: look at the Number Appearing for the monster and choose a number in that range that makes the most sense. The lower the dungeon, the closer to the upper end of the range you should select.
Here's an example. Ogres are a 4th level monster. 3–18 of them can appear. They can appear on dungeon levels 1–7. On the 1st level, only 3 or 4 ogres will appear. On the 7th level, 17 or 18 ogres will appear. On the levels in between, an increasing number appear between these two extremes.
You don't roll for this. You don't multiply anything. You simply select the best number, based on the dungeon and monster levels and the monster's Number Appearing.
This differs markedly from the number that appear as wandering monsters. If we encounter ogres on levels 1–4, we encounter only one. On the 5th level we encounter two, on the 6th we encounter three, and on the 7th we encounter four, and that's the maximum we encounter as wandering monsters.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 16, 2015 16:04:42 GMT -6
(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 ) I agree WotE, it's my opinion that the base number, by itself, assumes that- Party level < or = Dungeon level Party size < or = 3 Dungeon level < or = Monster level If all these criteria are met, no other mods are necessary. Therefore the formula for modifying the base number might be better expressed as- N= base number * ( D + P ) * party/3 D= (Dungeon Level + 1) - Monster Level P= (Party Level +1) - Monster Level This means, if one would want to, they could take an existing module designed for certain level parties of a suggested party size and modify it for larger or smaller sized parties of higher or lower levels, using the formula. edit: even though the idea is supported in Holmes, I'd like to withdrawal my addition of modifiying for party level. I experimented with it in various possible combinations and it has potential of producing some consistently "unbalanced" situations for higher level characters.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 16, 2015 16:26:20 GMT -6
Here's an example. Ogres are a 4th level monster. 3–18 of them can appear. They can appear on dungeon levels 1–7. On the 1st level, only 3 or 4 ogres will appear. On the 7th level, 17 or 18 ogres will appear. On the levels in between, an increasing number appear between these two extremes. You don't roll for this. You don't multiply anything. You simply select the best number, based on the dungeon and monster levels and the monster's Number Appearing. This differs markedly from the number that appear as wandering monsters. If we encounter ogres on levels 1–4, we encounter only one. On the 5th level we encounter two, on the 6th we encounter three, and on the 7th we encounter four, and that's the maximum we encounter as wandering monsters. I think this subject of how M&T's numbers should be used and referenced needs to be looked at closer. As of now, I personally would only use the number appearing as a limit. In other words, if the formula produced outcomes greater then the high limit, I would likely modify it. I also think these numbers are directly related to the idea of a lair. So, the question then becomes, how many monsters can we expect to find in the lair at one time and how many could we expect to encounter outside of a lair? aldarron has touched on this.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 18, 2015 6:21:00 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. I also think these numbers are directly related to the idea of a lair. So, the question then becomes, how many monsters can we expect to find in the lair at one time and how many could we expect to encounter outside of a lair? aldarron has touched on this. I'm not certain that "wandering monster numbers are supposed to be lower than stocked room numbers". Do we have a rules reference for it? It seems reasonable to me that wandering-monsters would be encountered in rooms just as frequently as in other spaces, so the practical difference between a room stocked with a wandering-monster at design-time and a wandering-monster encounter occurring in a room during play is, as Stormcrow notes, that a dungeon-designer may not know how many players will visit his pre-stocked room. Possible work-arounds for this might include: * If the designer plans to run the room for his own group, he will likely know how many players to expect. * Note different numbers for 4-6, 7-9, etc., players. * Alternatively, note only the monster type in a pre-stocked room, leaving determination of numbers to the individual ref running the game. In any case, here is an alternative suggestion to consider... My working assumptions here are that: Whether in the dungeon, the wilderness, or anywhere else, monsters are encountered either: in the lair, or, not in the lair. Logically, there is no other possibility. "Wandering" encounters are therefore those that are "not in the lair". (Note that Arneson specified that 10-60% of a lair population should be wandering about at any given time, and therefore that 40-90% of a lair population should be in the lair itself at any given time). And, orthogonal to this, that: Encounters are either: selected by judgement, or else, selected by random determination. From this we can derive a 2x2 matrix of four possible encounter types:
| In the Lair | Outside the Lair | Selected by Judgement | A | B | Selected Randomly | C | D |
It seems to me that all four options, A-D, are at the referee's disposal when stocking a dungeon room. The room could be stocked by referee judgement, and be either a lair, or just a room where wandering (out of lair) monsters are encountered. The room could also be stocked randomly, with the dice selecting the type of monster (via the monster level tables) and, thereafter, deciding whether the selected monster is in its lair, or wandering outside of its lair. Note there are monster types that are 0% or 100% in lair and these would, naturally, preclude the illegal option. E.g., Suppose we want to stock a monster room/chamber on dungeon level 2. Option A: The referee judges the room/chamber to be a Medusa lair. M&T says Number Appearing = 1-4. The ref elects 2. Done. (The ref might note that there could be up to 2 more Medusae wandering about, somewhere outside the lair). Option B: The referee judges the Medusae have wandered from their lair to this place. U&WA says only one wandering level 5 monster on dungeon level 2, so it's 1 medusa (for up to 3 players). Done. (The ref might note that, if there is a Medusae lair noted in the vicinity, at least one of them is wandering about). Options C+D: The referee lets the dice decide, employing U&WA p10-11's method to determine the type of monster. Let's suppose he dices Gnolls. M&T says % in Lair = 30%, so there's a 30% possibility that the Gnolls encountered here are in their lair (goto Option C), and a 70% chance that these Gnolls are wandering about outside their lair (goto Option D). Option C: The ref dices 14%, so the Gnolls are in their lair. M&T says Number Appearing = 20-200 for Gnolls. The ref knows "there can be places where 300 hobgoblins dwell..." but in this case dices 150 Gnolls. (The ref might assimilate nearby rooms, knock out walls between rooms, or drop in a stair or secret door to a lower level/sub-level to accommodate the numbers. The ref might also employ Arneson's approach and determine 10-60% of these Gnolls are wandering about somewhere outside the lair). Done. Option D: The ref dices 61%, so the Gnolls are not in their lair; they are wandering outside their lair. M&T says Number Appearing = 20-200, so Gnolls are a "group type" monster and the basic number of wandering monsters encountered will be 1-6. Gnolls are monster level 2 encountered on dungeon level 2, so we get 1-6 of them per 3 players. Let's assume the ref is expecting 5 players tonight, so he dices for 2-12 Gnolls and gets 8. Done. In practice I use a mixture of the above: For set-piece wandering monsters I usually choose the type, and might choose or dice for numbers. For randomly-occurring wandering monsters I usually dice for monster type and numbers. In either case, if they are of a type that has a lair nearby, I assume they have wandered here from that lair. If they are an odd-ball type in the area, I assume they have wandered here from farther away, from an untracked lair. (Knowing where a monster has come from can be really handy when the players decide to talk, or interrogate, or track them back to their origin). For dungeon rooms I generally know what type of monster I want to use, and whether I want that room to be in lair or not. From there, I usually dice for their numbers accordingly (M&T if it's a lair, or "wandering" numbers if it's not). I mostly place lairs manually. For normal types lairs virtually always occupy a series of chambers and would be the "focus" or "purpose" of a dungeon level or region. Lairs of fantastic types can occupy fewer rooms (even just one room) but will sometimes require a larger space (something suitably dramatic for the monster type!). If I have a totally empty level to fill out and no preconcieved notion of what might "be there", then I might dice until I get a first lair, but often it's just quicker to dice on the monster table for a monster-type with the absoluate intention of placing a lair for whatever comes up (re-rolling if I get a non-lair type). So--for me--the notion of a lair (or lairs) on a dungeon level (whether placed thoughtfully or randomly) forms the central inspiration or "theme" for that level. Enjoy
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 18, 2015 19:11:34 GMT -6
Hey, aldarron, is there anything in the D&D draft that touches on how many monsters should stocked? You've already touched upon wandering monsters...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2015 10:30:06 GMT -6
I don't think I ever, ever used the random dungeon tables for treasure. Simply as a historical note. The reason I mentioned them is that all the OD&D random stocking tables that everyone is talking don't exist in AD&D. They were folded into the random dungeon tables in Appendix A. My contention is that these charts more accurately reflect what Gary actually did as they don't use the Treasure Types and do have a separate # Appearing value listed for each monster. Two things that we know he actually did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2015 11:07:41 GMT -6
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. You and I disagree on what is being discussed. However, from the procedures, you first determine how many lairs are present and then all encounters in that hex will be with creatures lairing within that hex. So there is a one-to-one relationship between the monsters present and treasure. All monsters encountered have a lair and, thus, have treasure. It was up to the party to find it. If you just use the "% in lair" value as the percentage chance that one particular encounter happens to be with the lair, then what you've done is turn the percentage into a "% has treasure" check. IOW there are two possible uses for "% in lair" 1-You find the lair and then roll the percentage to see if the lair is occupied (or, if dealing with large numbers, what percentage of the monsters are home). 2-You find a monster and roll to see if the monster is currently in it's lair. It seems that most people use the second method which distorts the amount of treasure per monster. The reason I believe that the FFC is talking about the first methods is that you only determine the size and location of the wandering (i.e. non lair) groups after you've rolled the encounter and all the locations are specified relative to the "camp". The different methods yield different characteristics for monsters. Using the first method, if you find the lair of some centaurs, you've got a 95% change that the lair, and thus the treasure, is unguarded. Making them a good encounter. Using the second method means that you only have a 5% of encountering their lair, making them a bad encounter.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 20, 2015 11:37:24 GMT -6
Whatever system Dave used, I'm sure Gary wouldn't have included a rule that would let players stumble upon unguarded lairs full of treasure.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 20, 2015 17:36:46 GMT -6
Hey, aldarron, is there anything in the D&D draft that touches on how many monsters should stocked? You've already touched upon wandering monsters... No, nothing beyond what I've posted. There is a fair amount of verbiage about dungeons, but nothing particularly different in substance from what is in the 3lbb's regarding stocking.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 20, 2015 20:44:27 GMT -6
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. You and I disagree on what is being discussed. However, from the procedures, you first determine how many lairs are present and then all encounters in that hex will be with creatures lairing within that hex. So there is a one-to-one relationship between the monsters present and treasure. All monsters encountered have a lair and, thus, have treasure. It was up to the party to find it. If you just use the "% in lair" value as the percentage chance that one particular encounter happens to be with the lair, then what you've done is turn the percentage into a "% has treasure" check. You are forgetting that rolling on the treasure type tables is a gamble. It is not hard to roll up no treasure at all. Thus you get lairs with no treasure. IOW there are two possible uses for "% in lair" 1-You find the lair and then roll the percentage to see if the lair is occupied (or, if dealing with large numbers, what percentage of the monsters are home). 2-You find a monster and roll to see if the monster is currently in it's lair. It seems that most people use the second method which distorts the amount of treasure per monster. The reason I believe that the FFC is talking about the first methods is that you only determine the size and location of the wandering (i.e. non lair) groups after you've rolled the encounter and all the locations are specified relative to the "camp". The different methods yield different characteristics for monsters. Using the first method, if you find the lair of some centaurs, you've got a 95% change that the lair, and thus the treasure, is unguarded. Making them a good encounter. Using the second method means that you only have a 5% of encountering their lair, making them a bad encounter. ?? "For each time that the creatures are found in their lairs, there will be a chance that a portion of them are out in the countryside. To determine this number, assume that 40% of the population is always in the camp and that up to 60% (10 - 6O%) are always outside of the camp." Arneson's rule does not allow for an unguarded wilderness lair. If you have a singular creature - a dragon, let's say - then either you have found it "in lair", or you have found it out of lair. You never find the lair without the dragon.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 21, 2015 6:04:51 GMT -6
..... It seems reasonable to me that wandering-monsters would be encountered in rooms just as frequently as in other spaces, so the practical difference between a room stocked with a wandering-monster at design-time and a wandering-monster encounter occurring in a room during play is, as Stormcrow notes, that a dungeon-designer may not know how many players will visit his pre-stocked room. ...... Whether in the dungeon, the wilderness, or anywhere else, monsters are encountered either: in the lair, or, not in the lair. Logically, there is no other possibility. "Wandering" encounters are therefore those that are "not in the lair". That's a good point that brings up a definitional issue. What is not a wandering monster? As noted above, the rules only seem to cover two choices, creatures in lair and creatures wandering. Take the Moldvay sample dungeon, for example. There is a wererats "lair" somewhere in the place, but there are also several rooms inhabited by goblins who are working for the wererats. Now the goblins aren't in a goblin lair, but they are living in the place. If an OD&D DM were looking to create a similar scenario, the goblins could be considered as "wandering monsters" for purposes of stocking numbers and treasure. The only alternative is to just make up numbers and treasure for these goblin lackeys. Options C+D: The referee lets the dice decide, employing U&WA p10-11's method to determine the type of monster. Let's suppose he dices Gnolls. M&T says % in Lair = 30%, so there's a 30% possibility that the Gnolls encountered here are in their lair (goto Option C), and a 70% chance that these Gnolls are wandering about outside their lair (goto Option D). Option D: The ref dices 61%, so the Gnolls are not in their lair; they are wandering outside their lair. M&T says Number Appearing = 20-200, so Gnolls are a "group type" monster and the basic number of wandering monsters encountered will be 1-6. Gnolls are monster level 2 encountered on dungeon level 2, so we get 1-6 of them per 3 players. Let's assume the ref is expecting 5 players tonight, so he dices for 2-12 Gnolls and gets 8. Done. Using % in Lair this way, is undoubtedly unorthodox - but what a good idea! Determining what is and is not a lair on a level has been an issue for me. The way I've handled it is that if I have a few of the same levels/HD popping up on the Monster Determination Table in adjacent rooms, I usually assume it is a lair and pick an appropriate monster. So I can definitely see using % in Lair judiciously as needed in cases of uncertainty, to let the dice make these decisions. As WotE notes, it's not something that should be used as a proceedural step with every room/monster, because of the potential for some very gonzo results, but I think as an additional stocking tool for use as needed, it's a great idea.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 21, 2015 6:59:26 GMT -6
[What is not a wandering monster? In a dungeon, a wandering monster is a monster not placed by the referee during preparation of the dungeon, which appears when triggered by the periodic check. They occur in small numbers, and never in a lair, because "lair" is a wilderness-only concept. In the wilderness, a wandering monster is a monster encounter that has not been placed by the referee during wilderness preparation, or is not a feature of the Outdoor Survival board. It is triggered by the periodic check according to terrain. Its numbers are determined by the Number Appearing column on the Monster Table, and it may be at a lair if the % In Lair is rolled. Even when it's at a lair it is still considered a wandering monster. If it's at a lair, the lair will also contain treasure rules up according to its Treasure Type. A wandering monster is not any monster stocked by the referee or appearing or triggered by a feature on the Outside Survival table.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 21, 2015 18:52:20 GMT -6
A wandering monster is not any monster stocked by the referee or appearing or triggered by a feature on the Outside Survival table. I don't think this definition is inclusive enough. The Temple of the Frog (possibly the earliest example of a published D&D dungeon) demonstrates that the referee can "stock" (to use Stormcrow's terminology) wandering monsters in a dungeon key. E.g.: " Room 2: ... In the vicinity of the staircase and room lurk four ghouls ... There is always a 25% chance that these ghouls are off wandering and an equal 25% chance that they will return on any given turn." (BM p43). There are other, similar examples in that dungeon key too. So yeah, a lot of these differences of opinion will ultimately boil down to differences over use of game terminology. For me the term "wandering" implies "not in its lair" rather than "not placed at design time".
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 21, 2015 19:51:01 GMT -6
I don't think this definition is inclusive enough. I'm only talking about what's in the original boxed set. Once you get to the supplements, things change, especially when someone other than Gary authors them.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 21, 2015 20:32:00 GMT -6
Taking a close look at the OD&D levels of Blackmoor dungeon reveals some interesting things about stocking numbers. I have a blogpost up now here The upshot of it is that Arneson used the U&WA tables to stock the monsters, and then used this system, regardless of level, to determine their numbers: For spell casting monsters/NPC's roll 1d6 For Fighters and fantastic monsters roll 1d20 For Normal tribal type monsters/NPC's roll 2d20
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 22, 2015 6:24:16 GMT -6
This system for determining numbers in the dungeon does not appear to be much different from how he generated numbers in the FFC. The main change seems to be the tribal types who would be determined with 1d20 x 10 in the wilderness (though Arneson was using % dice). Just an observation, 2d20 is going to produce 10-20% of this possible outcome.
edit: I did not express this clearly.
2-40 (2d20) is 20% of 10-200 (1d20 x 10) and 2d20 will produce an average close to 10% of 200 (max outcome of 1d20 x 10).
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 22, 2015 12:42:30 GMT -6
Another blogpost, this time on wandering monsters hereThis one is not as helpful on number determination, except in the sense of the totals. What I did was to consider what Arneson was doing in Temple of the Frog regarding wandering monsters. The summary is that wandering monsters came from rooms that did not have fixed numbers of monsters present, only a range, and some portion of those in the possible range had a chance of being encountered within a territory in the dungeon.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 24, 2015 4:14:12 GMT -6
I'm only talking about what's in the original boxed set. Once you get to the supplements, things change, especially when someone other than Gary authors them. I agree that some things are changed and/or added by the supplements but, other than the revised monster level tables appearing in GH, the Distribution of Monsters and Treasure section does not appear to be one of those things. I don't agree that Dave Arneson's dungeon should be dismissed so lightly. That aside, there is evidence that EGG "stocked" non-random wandering monsters in some of his early dungeons too. E.g.,: " In the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, there are no true random encounters. If the party is near a lettered encounter area and making a great deal of noise, or merely waiting quietly for more than one turn, there is a 1 in 6 chance that the monster nearby will come and investigate - providing the creature could normally leave its lair to move about for some reason." (the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth p13) " GOBLIN LAIR: The natural cave quickly turns into the worked stone tunnels typical of this whole complex. The passageways here are very busy, and for every 10’ distance covered by the party there is a 1 in 6 chance that they will encounter a group of goblins (see below) Check each time the party travels 30’ (a 3 in 6 chance) until wandering goblins are encountered, then check no further. When an encounter occurs, the entire bunch of goblins will attack and cry out an alarm (Bree-Yark!) at the same time. Wandering goblins are in addition to those found in numbered areas. ... If the wandering group of goblins has not been encountered when the adventures enter this area, be certain to have those 6 additional males in this chamber." (KotBL p16-17)
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 24, 2015 4:54:53 GMT -6
Using % in Lair this way, is undoubtedly unorthodox - but what a good idea! In OD&D both Gargoyles and Purple Worms have a non-zero % IN LAIR stat, but neither appear on the wilderness encounter tables and both occur on the dungeon encounter tables. Purple worms are said to occur " nearly everywhere just beneath the surface". In Greyhawk EGG adds the Liche which he rates 100% IN LAIR and also places it on the dungeon encounter tables. SR #1.3 adds the Lurker Above which is 50% IN LAIR and which "typically attaches itself to a ceiling". Question: What are we to make of the disconnect between the assertion that " lair is a wilderness-only concept" and that there appear to exist dungeon-only monsters with a non-zero % IN LAIR stat? 'nother Question: The players are exploring some wilderness. An encounter occurs, and it turns up orcs. The ref checks % in lair, and turns up a lair. Dices and gets a cave complex. The players are not surprised; the orcs are surprised. The players decide they want to sack the orc lair for loot. What happens next?
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 24, 2015 8:14:54 GMT -6
That aside, there is evidence that EGG "stocked" non-random wandering monsters in some of his early dungeons too. That also wasn't my point. I was talking about how the text tells you to create a dungeon, not how you should create a dungeon. They aren't necessarily the same thing. Ideally, you have infinite time and unlimited creativity to build the ultimate dungeon exactly the way you want it. In reality, time is precious and creativity is limited, so Gary presented some ways to speed up the process and take some of the decision-making burden off of the designer. One of those ways is random stocking. Another is wandering monsters. His presentation was limited by the amount of space available in the book and his non-consideration of how much of it a non-wargamer—or a gamer 40 years later—would be able to follow his prose. He didn't, for instance, go into the idea of stocked monsters leaving their areas when the party makes too much noise. He was just trying to get across the broad concept, figuring creative referees would take it from there.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 24, 2015 11:25:05 GMT -6
That aside, there is evidence that EGG "stocked" non-random wandering monsters in some of his early dungeons too. That also wasn't my point. I was talking about how the text tells you to create a dungeon, not how you should create a dungeon. They aren't necessarily the same thing. Ideally, you have infinite time and unlimited creativity to build the ultimate dungeon exactly the way you want it. In reality, time is precious and creativity is limited, so Gary presented some ways to speed up the process and take some of the decision-making burden off of the designer. One of those ways is random stocking. Another is wandering monsters. His presentation was limited by the amount of space available in the book and his non-consideration of how much of it a non-wargamer—or a gamer 40 years later—would be able to follow his prose. He didn't, for instance, go into the idea of stocked monsters leaving their areas when the party makes too much noise. He was just trying to get across the broad concept, figuring creative referees would take it from there. That's really nonsense. I'm not at all trying to be snippy here. I'm just surprised. Gary reworked and codified material sent from Arneson - much of which is preserved in the FFC. Certainly a lot of time and effort was put in by both Gygax and Arneson creating the tables they worked off of when creating adventures. The FFC is repleat with pre D&D tables for random stocking of both the wilderness and dungeon areas, and even random dungeon generation. Gary created tables for random stocking etc. because that is exactly what Dave did. It was a fundamental part of the game, not some afterthought shortcut for Referees with writers block. Treasure generation in the 3lbbs takes up 10 pages of a 40 page booklet because getting it "right" was an intentional part of the games' design. Likewise with the monster stocking tables. There was direct intention there to achieve an expected outcome in game play, and it is clear Gygax spent a lot of time fiddling with numbers and methods to get to what he thought was right, just as with xp and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 24, 2015 12:04:00 GMT -6
You're both misunderstanding me completely. I'm going to cut my losses at this point and run.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 24, 2015 20:25:18 GMT -6
'nother Question: The players are exploring some wilderness. An encounter occurs, and it turns up orcs. The ref checks % in lair, and turns up a lair. Dices and gets a cave complex. The players are not surprised; the orcs are surprised. The players decide they want to sack the orc lair for loot. What happens next? The abstraction of the wandering monster check suggests that if a monster is found in it's lair and you kill it, you get whatever treasure is there. All I'm interested in, in the context of this topic is how, specifically, we think this plays out. The PCs are looking at a complex of caves that is an orc lair. They want to loot it. What actually happens next at the game table?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 24, 2015 22:20:06 GMT -6
This now has taken on the appearance of a rhetorical question. But, here ya go-
Mechanics wise
1. Roll number appearing as referenced from M&T- 3d10 x 10 (30-300)
2. Determine tribal affiliation and record it. Randomly generated and up to GM as to who and how.
3. % in lair- 50%
4. Type of lair- cave complex (die roll 1-4 on d6). So, it will be guarded by sentries. This would effect a parties ability to surprise.
5. Determine if the lair will have a leader or protector. This is partially determined by the table on p.7 and the number appearing that you rolled. If you rolled fewer than 50 orcs, skip this part unless you just want to throw in a lower level leader (say a 3rd level Swordsman or 4th level Hero).
6. Resolve combat. Since I’m assuming that you’re asking how this would be run on the spot instead of a lair that was generated ahead of time, combat would have to remain abstract. A GM could roll for a random number of rooms as an option, but this is not specified. He could also add lib. *Remember that orcs need not check morale until outnumbered 3-1 while defending their lair.
7. If the orcs are eliminated or routed, roll on the Treasure Table type D. Any treasure generated, if there is any, it's your’s.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 25, 2015 1:15:06 GMT -6
This now has taken on the appearance of a rhetorical question. But, here ya go- The question was not intended to be rhetorical; apologies if I came across that way. I was asking in all seriousness. What I was getting at was really: how are we supposed to actually resolve your point 6? Let's say it's 120 orcs in their cave complex. With their treasure type D squirreled away somewhere in their lair. If the players comprise a half-dozen Heroes and Conjurers plus hangers-on, they presumably are not going to fight a field battle against 120 orcs. If the players comprise a half-dozen Lords and Wizards and a retinue of 200 Men, the orcs are presumably not going to fight a field battle against them. So that's the question: how does play proceed from here?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 25, 2015 6:29:14 GMT -6
If the players comprise a half-dozen Heroes and Conjurers plus hangers-on, they presumably are not going to fight a field battle against 120 orcs. If the players comprise a half-dozen Lords and Wizards and a retinue of 200 Men, the orcs are presumably not going to fight a field battle against them. So that's the question: how does play proceed from here? So, it is a conceptual problem you raise. You have created presumptions in both of these statements. Hence, why I was answering it in the other thread that was dealing with the wilderness. Your presumptions are your answer. Encounter is resolved without combat because one or the other refuses to engage. But, your second qualifying statement is not BtB. Orcs will defend their lair unless outnumbered 3-1.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 25, 2015 8:45:52 GMT -6
The PCs are looking at a complex of caves that is an orc lair. They want to loot it. What actually happens next at the game table? So I'm not entirely sure I understand the direction being taken by both yuins's responses. So I 'spose I'll comment on Derv's comment. Heh 1. Roll number appearing as referenced from M&T- 3d10 x 10 (30-300) 2. Determine tribal affiliation and record it. Randomly generated and up to GM as to who and how. 3. % in lair- 50% 4. Type of lair- cave complex (die roll 1-4 on d6). So, it will be guarded by sentries. This would effect a parties ability to surprise. 5. Determine if the lair will have a leader or protector. This is partially determined by the table on p.7 and the number appearing that you rolled. If you rolled fewer than 50 orcs, skip this part unless you just want to throw in a lower level leader (say a 3rd level Swordsman or 4th level Hero). Okay, I'm with you. 6. Resolve combat. Since I’m assuming that you’re asking how this would be run on the spot instead of a lair that was generated ahead of time, combat would have to remain abstract. A GM could roll for a random number of rooms as an option, but this is not specified. He could also add lib. *Remember that orcs need not check morale until outnumbered 3-1 while defending their lair. Hang on. How did you get to combat? What I mean is, are you assuming wilderness encounters are CHAINMAIL scenarios? That's an interesting thought but not a direction I would have taken. For me, the next steps would be 6. determine surprise, and if the party is not surprised, determine sighting distance (U&WA 17) 7. Ask the party what they want to do. If they are surprised, I'll make a reaction roll and a decision about what the orcs will do. 8. The players might be able to avoid the place or negotiate or become friends, or surrender, anything is possible. But if the players are either taken inside or decide to invade/sack the place, I'll almost certainly use some Cave complex map I have prepared ahead of time or borrowed from a resource. If I have nothing like that ready I'll create a map on the fly, look at my total "at home" population numbers and make some quick decisions about where they are located. 9. Assuming the PC's arent killed right away I'll roll up a treasure at some convenient point.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 25, 2015 15:05:49 GMT -6
The broader question is about whether Monster Treasure Type is/was/should ever be used in a dungeon.
My more specific question is: when we get an encounter during the wilderness game it is said to become "a normal adventure", whatever that is. If we happened to roll a successful % IN LAIR check, then presumably we end up with: a normal adventure in the lair.
So that was my question. How do we handle the occurence of a "normal adventure" that occurs "in the lair?" What is a "normal adventure" "in the lair"? What is it specifically for the case when the lair is an orc cave complex?
It seems to me that this scenario would be handled as per regular dungeon exploration, with the players assaulting/infiltrating the orc caves (just like B2). I was asking how other people here are doing it, and ultimately if this is a case where the orc treasure type would be used in a dungeon.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 25, 2015 17:30:59 GMT -6
Hang on. How did you get to combat? What I mean is, are you assuming wilderness encounters are CHAINMAIL scenarios? That's an interesting thought but not a direction I would have taken. WotE had already stated in the original question that the players intent was to sack the lair. But, sure, sighting distance, declaration of actions, and all that. I also expressed my opinion about the effect of orc sentries in regard to surprise. Beyond that, I'm not implying combat is required to be resolved in any particular fashion. I was assuming WotE was asking about an "on the spot" adjudication, so I envisioned the standard abstract methods of pen and paper. I don't think miniatures are out of the question, though, if a GM was prepared to take that route. The broader question is about whether Monster Treasure Type is/was/should ever be used in a dungeon. My more specific question is: when we get an encounter during the wilderness game it is said to become "a normal adventure", whatever that is. If we happened to roll a successful % IN LAIR check, then presumably we end up with: a normal adventure in the lair. So that was my question. How do we handle the occurence of a "normal adventure" that occurs "in the lair?" What is a "normal adventure" "in the lair"? What is it specifically for the case when the lair is an orc cave complex? This is language that rings of Arneson. "Travel from one perilous adventure to another in a neighboring Castle can result in a great deal of frustration for the players......With a little work , the Outdoor adventures can be enjoyable, and the format of an overall campaign..."
"....the Judge should grid off the map into sectors. Each of these hexes will contain some adventures which may range from a monster holed up in a small cave to an abandoned Castle full of orcs. .....Each square should contain an average, of say, two adventures (assuming 10 miles by 10 miles), determined by rolling a six-sided dice (upon a roll of six would mean that there are no adventures in the square). This will determine how many encounters live in the area."
-FFC p.25 Ultimately, I'm also interested in "is/was/should" M&T's Treasure Types be used in the dungeon.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 26, 2015 7:38:21 GMT -6
are you assuming wilderness encounters are CHAINMAIL scenarios? That's an interesting thought but not a direction I would have taken. I do think Arneson's original intent was to set up scenario's. This is clear in how he describes populating hexes and migration in the FFC. "It is suggested that you begin with one area (hex) and the surrounding six areas. Once the central area has been determined and cleared out, then add adjucent areas as you progress and build up the size of your fantasy game." "If there are other creatures already living there, a battle must be fought to determine which will populate the area." p.25 This second quote is interesting because it has nothing to do with the PC's. It can be assumed that players would take the sides of the conflicting "monsters" to resolve who would populate the area. Anyway, there is this idea that the game was originally created by wargamers for wargamers. What that means to people and when the emphasis shifted away from setting up scenario's for a wargame campaign, I'm not sure I could point out. So, don't misunderstand me to be saying that this is the way Gygax came to use wandering monsters. I think he took some of Arneson's methods and reinterpreted them.
|
|