|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 26, 2015 11:02:20 GMT -6
Regarding the argument about the meaning of % in Lair, I noticed that the Number Appearing for demons in Eldtritch Wizardry say "if in lair there will be from 1-6 of the same type of demon on a roll of under 16%. from 1-6 mixed demons on a 76%-00% (die 1-6 for type. no succubi. Orcus or Demogorgon): if not in lair then number appearingir 1-3."
That is, the number appearing is not a percentage roll of the number appearing; it's a set range if the % in Lair meets a certain amount.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 26, 2017 14:09:48 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. Hmmm. I think you are working off a preconception not well supported by the text. The FFC tells us exactly what kind of scenarios Arneson was making up for the wilderness prior to D&D publication, in the Loch Gloomin section from 1972. The 12 wilderness areas generated consisted of randomly rolled locations including farms, mansions, caves and castles, divided into rooms and "passages" and populated with monsters and treasures. (I have a post about the method HERE ) These certainly bear no resemblance to CHAINMAIL scenarios. Further the sections of the FFC you are quoting from above are quite certainly written well after D&D was published, and thus were written with D&D in mind and not CM. Indeed, it seems clear that these are instruction written specifically for the publication of the FFC, with phrases like "Within this booklet you will find", and "your campaign". and "your fantasy game" etc. etc. Also, just as a side note, when they were wargaming, the Twin cities group had their own set of rules for ancient and medieval warfare as variations Wesely's Strategos N. Some details in the FFC, such as the Ran of Ah Foo's morale, are referencing those rules. CHAINMAIL's fantasy section served primarily as a resource to their extant gaming practice.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 26, 2017 18:51:25 GMT -6
wow aldarron, you're dredging up a thread that is over a year old. (briefly looking back) I don't believe I made any reference to Chainmail in any part of this thread. So, I'm not sure how to take your comment. Though I will stickwith my original statement that Arneson was setting up scenario's. Specifically, he was doing it from a wargamer's perspective, as a wargamer would understand the term "scenario" and "campaign" to mean. It was his background as a wargamer that informed and motivated his methods. Beyond that, I don't think it matters what system of resolution the Twin Cities used.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 26, 2017 19:29:47 GMT -6
dredging up? We discuss a game that's soon to be a half century old. Thread dormancy and revival is part of the nature of an OSR forum, especially after ruminating for a while. Otherwise we would be constantly repeating ourselves. A year old isn't old at all on this forum. <shrug>
Anyway, Okay, yeah, I agree with what you said - I think I mistook your comment to mean Arneson's wilderness rules were intended for setting up of a bunch of tabletop battles. Apologies.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 26, 2017 19:55:31 GMT -6
I meant "dredging up" as a jest, since I did originally start this thread. No slight intended.
But, more importantly about my comment above is the idea of "number appearing". Populating territories and armies was more of a focus. Mass combat was still evidently on his mind in the writing of the FFC.
|
|