Exploratory Journies in the Wilderness

[derv]

Recent discussion about using M&T's number appearing and treasure types has me taking a closer look at the methods of play used in the Wilderness as presented in the 3LBB's. I was curious if I was missing something in how I run my wilderness adventures.

In reading the section found in U&WA, it starts off by telling us what the Wilderness is.

"The so-called Wilderness really consists of unexplored land, cities and castles, not to mention the area immediately surrounding the castle (ruined or otherwise) which housed the dungeons."

It goes onto say,

"The terrain beyond the immediate surroundings of the dungeon area should be unkown to all but the referee."

It's clear enough that the wilderness is any land that is unknown and unexplored by the players. It's what is beyond the town and dungeon the player's first started with. The paragraph then proceeds to tell us how to conduct a game in the wilderness using the Outdoor Survival playing board. It calls this "off-hand adventures" or "general adventures".

"Off-hand adventures in the wilderness are made on the Outdoor Survival playing board (explained below)."

As it says, there are several pages that follow detailing how to run what most have come to call a hexcrawl.

But, the immediately following sentence is what's curious. It says,

"Exploratory journies, such as expeditions to find land suitable for a castle or in search of some legendary treasure are handled in an entirely different manner."


I personally do not distinguish exploratory journeys from off-hand adventures in how I run them.

And, as far as I can tell, it is never explained what this "entirely different manner" is.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

[mindcontrolsquid]

I may be completely wrong, but I was operating under the impression that such journeys are "exploratory" only in the sense that they involve re-treading hexes that the players have already discovered and mapped in an effort to find something specific, such as the aforementioned tasks of finding suitable land for a stronghold or determining the precise location of a dungeon entrance. The key term is that the wilderness is totally unknown when first encountered, but once it has been charted then it can be put to a specific purpose. Of course, this is not to say that the wilderness cannot change in the time between its initial discovery and subsequent encounter, but I think the book assumes that wilderness adventures are determined based on the exploration rules as defined in U&WA, and that other purposes are run in a different manner, such as the rules for clearing out a hex of monsters, assuming the use of an army to do so and having its own particular rules.

[derv]

Hmm, reading through the chapter again, I think the real intent is that the Outdoor Survival board was meant more for a quick game- an adventure. Possibly, as a fill in game with little prep and not intended for the long term play of a campaign. That's the reason Gary uses the term "Off-hand" and "general" adventure. This is why random tables are included for castle inhabitants, along with random and automatic reactions to the party occur when they approach within a certain distance.

The "handled in an entirely different manner" may be overstated. The only difference seems to be that the players have no idea of the geography before hand when doing exploration, unlike the Outdoor Survival board. The intended duration of the game may also be part of the difference. An adventure is said to be a day, where as an expedition lasts many days (weeks) and requires rest. A few of the general rules are still adopted from OS in both cases. Both seem to imply the use of large parties (armies) too.

[Stormcrow]

Offhand adventures are randomized romps around the Outdoor Survival board. Exploratory adventures are the normal ones where the referee draws up the terrain and populates it with monsters and treasure.

[mindcontrolsquid]

Nov 17, 2015 23:50:49 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Offhand adventures are randomized romps around the Outdoor Survival board. Exploratory adventures are the normal ones where the referee draws up the terrain and populates it with monsters and treasure.

Huh. I concede that this explanation is much simpler and easier to implement than mine.

[derv]

Well, it does say that the ref should know the terrain of the surrounding area. He would have to prepare that. The one thing I have not read is that the intent for exploration is that the ref should stock/populate the wilderness. Though, it may be taken for granted that a ref will be developing a few key locations on the map. Otherwise, it seems it should be completely randomized as well.

[Stormcrow]

Most straight-up monster encounters will be with wandering monsters. But the object of exploratory adventures is either to find a location for a stronghold or to find the location of a quest, and these require various castles, towers, and non-human locations be placed on the map as well, hence "stocking."

[Deleted]

Nov 17, 2015 23:50:49 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Offhand adventures are randomized romps around the Outdoor Survival board. Exploratory adventures are the normal ones where the referee draws up the terrain and populates it with monsters and treasure.

This.

Occam's razor, people. Occam's razor.

[aldarron]

Nov 18, 2015 6:25:14 GMT -6 derv said:

Well, it does say that the ref should know the terrain of the surrounding area. He would have to prepare that. The one thing I have not read is that the intent for exploration is that the ref should stock/populate the wilderness. Though, it may be taken for granted that a ref will be developing a few key locations on the map. Otherwise, it seems it should be completely randomized as well.

Derv, In the FFC (pp 23 - 27 1980 reprint or pp 34-41 1977 print) you will find Wilderness exploration & map creation rules covering all of that.

[derv]

Nov 18, 2015 9:30:48 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Occam's razor, people. Occam's razor.

Occam's razor tells me that Gary is significantly overstating that these two things are "handled in entirely different manners".

[Stormcrow]

Offhand adventures:

Get out Outdoor Survival board.
Wander around board.
Encounter castles, towns, etc. as positioned on board.
Encounter rulers of castles.
Encounter wandering monsters.

Exploratory adventures:

DM maps terrain around dungeon.
Party decides on a mission (find territory, go on a quest, etc.).
Party moves and maps terrain.
Encounter placed monsters.
Encounter wandering monsters.
Build strongholds.
Arrive at quest site.

They seem pretty different to me. Aside from the same procedure for wandering monsters, very little is the same.

[derv]

You see, to me the only real difference, as you have presented, is the Outdoor Survival board. The board cannot be hidden, so the players do not need to map. It also means that people without OS are SOL if they want to play Offhand adventures, as far as you're concerned.

Gary's statement is, Exploratory journies...are handled in an entirely different manner. This implies the methods are not the same at all.

You are stating objectives with methods, as if they are methods.

The methods for both are the same.

For instance, "Monsters" is a generic term in D&D used for any encounter, whether a castle resident, a wandering warlock, or a preplanned goblin lair. A pond representing a castle on the OS board is the same thing as a castle you placed on some hex paper. They are treated the same.

[Stormcrow]

In offhand adventures, castle inhabitants are determined randomly. In exploratory adventures, the referee decides beforehand who lives in the castle. In offhand adventures the referee doesn't place special treasures to find; in exploratory adventures he does. In offhand adventures, players don't build castles; in exploratory adventures they do. In offhand adventures, players know what is where; in exploratory adventures they have to find out what terrain is around them.

[derv]

I find your selective reading of the rules for the Wilderness intriguing Stormcrow. I'm curious where you think the rules for offhand adventures start and where they end? Are you sure there are wandering monsters in offhand adventures?

It may surprise you that many people actually choose to randomize their wilderness exploration games. I'm certain there are people who use the random castle stocking tables in their wilderness exploration games too. Why wouldn't they?

Also, please stop referencing building strongholds, as if it's a regular part of exploratory adventures. It's an extremely rare occurrance in most people's games and I would argue castle building is not part of exploratory adventures. It's the other way around- exploratory adventures are part of building a stronghold.

There are three sections to the OS board. A GM might choose to only expose one at a time. Essientially, the rest of the board is unknown. On each of these sections there are a set number of catch basins (7, 5, and 13) for a total of 25 castles. Would it not be an offhand adventure if a GM predetermined some, most, all of the castle residents? And what do we do with these towns? There's 9 of those and there doesn't appear to be any random tables for that.

Also of interest, talk of "Geas" for treasure and "Quests" for magic items occurs right below the castle stocking table. Sorry, games over. The Cleric sent you on a quest and those are for the exploratory adventure game.

Tell me more about these obvious differences.

[Stormcrow]

There's no need to get snippy.

Nov 18, 2015 22:30:32 GMT -6 derv said:

I'm curious where you think the rules for offhand adventures start and where they end?

The Wilderness
...Outdoor Survival
......Castles
......Fighting Men
......Magic-Users
......Clerics
......Guards
...Referee's Map
...Movement
......Large Party Movement
......Terrain Penalties
......Rest
......Scale
......Turn
...Wilderness Monsters
......Sighting Monsters
......Surprise
......Lost Parties
......Wandering Monsters
...Wilderness Wandering Monsters
...Evading in the Wilderness
......Evading
......Pursuit
...Construction of Castles and Strongholds
...Specialists
......[etc]
...Men-At-Arms
...Obtaining Specialists & Men-At-Arms
...Rumors, Information, and Legends
...Player/Character Support and Upkeep
...Baronies
...Angry Villager Rule
...Other Worlds
...Land Combat
...Aerial Combat
......[etc]
...Naval Combat
......[etc]

The above shows the topic structure of the wilderness section. The rules for the two modes of wilderness adventure are mixed, but starting with Construction of Castles and Strongholds and going through Other Worlds, the rules are purely for exploratory adventures. You don't do those things in offhand adventures.

The stuff under Outdoor Survival is purely for offhand adventures. The small section Referee's Map is only for exploratory adventures. Movement, Wilderness Monsters, Wilderness Wandering Monsters, and Evading in the Wilderness are for both kinds.

As a demonstration that they apply to both, see Lost Parties, where it says, "When exploring the referee should indicate which direction the party is lost in." That is, you don't need to do this in Outdoor Survival, because getting lost in offhand adventures simply moves you in a random direction that you can see on the board, but getting lost in exploratory adventures means the referee has to tell you which direction you moved so you can map it.

Are you sure there are wandering monsters in offhand adventures?

Yes.

It may surprise you that many people actually choose to randomize their wilderness exploration games.

Not really.

I'm certain there are people who use the random castle stocking tables in their wilderness exploration games too. Why wouldn't they?

If that's what floats your boat, feel free. I'm not saying what you should or shouldn't do; I'm just saying what the author intended.

Also, please stop referencing building strongholds, as if it's a regular part of exploratory adventures.

No.

"Exploratory journies [sic], such as expeditions to find land suitable for a castle..."

"This form of exploring will eventually enable players to know the lay of the land in their immediate area and thus be able to select a site upon which to build their castles."

Castle-building is named as a prominent reason for exploratory adventures.

It's an extremely rare occurrance in most people's games and I would argue castle building is not part of exploratory adventures.

Whether that happens commonly nowadays or not is irrelevant to understanding the text. Building a stronghold and holding large-scale battles defending territory is clearly a big part of the rules. Most people tend to forget just how big the sections on aerial and naval combat are.

It's the other way around- exploratory adventures are part of building a stronghold.

Semantics.

There are three sections to the OS board. A GM might choose to only expose one at a time. Essientially, the rest of the board is unknown. On each of these sections there are a set number of catch basins (7, 5, and 13) for a total of 25 castles. Would it not be an offhand adventure if a GM predetermined some, most, all of the castle residents? And what do we do with these towns? There's 9 of those and there doesn't appear to be any random tables for that.

Shrug. You're making up a new game not discussed in the rules.

Also of interest, talk of "Geas" for treasure and "Quests" for magic items occurs right below the castle stocking table. Sorry, games over. The Cleric sent you on a quest and those are for the exploratory adventure game.

"Go to the castle in the southwest corner and retrieve the Holy Grail from its occupants." That's part of offhand adventuring.

[Porphyre]

Nov 19, 2015 7:51:53 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

"Go to the castle in the southwest corner and retrieve the Holy Grail from its occupants." That's part of offhand adventuring.

"Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he will be very keen. Uh, he's already got one, you see."

[derv]

I'm sure glad you're here to straighten out my misguided ways, Stormcrow.

You see, I'm not terribly interested in trying to define what an offhand adventure is. I'm more interested in discerning what some of the conceptual differences that occur in the text are because there are in reality two authors- not just Gygax.

You are taking the point of view that this is all Gary's material and his words. But, it becomes clear, to anyone interested, that the bulk of the material on wilderness exploration comes directly from Arneson's Blackmoor campaign.

So, if others want to agree with your opinions, that's fine. As for me, I'm content in saying, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Your ideas about what defines an Offhand adventure from an exploratory adventures just isn't washing for me. They certainly do not appear to be "handled in an entirely different manner".

Here's a couple of quotes from the FFC to think about.

“In starting my campaign, I reserved a small area out of the center of the Great Kingdom map of the IFW’s Castle & Crusade Society. The basic campaign area reproduced on a large map sheet outside this book, was originally drawn from some old Dutch maps. Much of the rationale and scale was based on data found with the Dutch maps. Later, the game moved south and we then used the Outdoor Survival map for this phase of the campaign when the exiles from Blackmoor set up shop after the bad scene at Lake Gloomy.”

“On the Outdoor Survival board, borders appeared half way between the various players’ Castles, and roads were built also. …” (p.11 FFC)

“After the first year, the guys traveled around more and we began to use the Outdoor Survival Board. For that, we needed an Encounter Matrix and breakdown and description of the critters encountered. Also the price list had an addition and some changes made. There was also the first Evasion Table and a Strategic Movement Chart added.” (p.23 FFC)

[Stormcrow]

Nov 19, 2015 16:59:03 GMT -6 derv said:

I'm sure glad you're here to straighten out my misguided ways, Stormcrow.

Whatever.

[derv]

Maybe I’m coming across as too argumentative. I guess what I’m really reacting to is what I perceive is a hint of bias, reflected in your choice of words, that has carried over from the dungeon stocking thread. I could be wrong, but you seem to be banging on the drum that purposeful selection is preferential and superior to methods using randomization. This is reflected in the way you describe offhand adventures in comparison to exploratory journeys. I find this attitude particularly irritating in a hobby built around the use of randomization and I don’t consider either method as a true defining characteristic.

So, let me start where we are both in agreement. Offhand adventures are impromptu.

What I see in the text is a presentation of a sequence of activities that the author expects to be a natural progression of the game.

It starts with the dungeon. Prepare at least three levels at a time for the players to explore and build off of that. Next, set up a village, town, or city for the players to call their home base. Then layout the ground level map of the dungeon, the castle or ruins above, and the village or town, in relation to each other.

At some point, the players will want to go beyond all of this. When that happens, you can use the OS board or draw up your own map of unique terrain for the surrounding area.

So, imagine-

GM- Okay guys, you’re at Gromfus tavern all rested up from your last foray down in the dungeon of Deathstar Castle. Are you ready to see what else awaits you down in the pits? There’s a squirrelly looking Dwarf with a battleaxe at the corner table who looks like he might be open for hire.

Players- You know, we decided we would rather take a jaunt about the countryside to see what else is to be discovered.

GM- What do you mean? Come on guys, I’ve already prepared nine levels of the dungeon and you haven’t even explored beyond level four. Maybe you would rather explore the bazaar or the thieves quarters. Doesn’t that sound like adventure?

Players- Uh…yeah…nah, not really. We want to go explore the surrounding region.

GM- Gee wiz, hmmm. You guys have really put me on the spot. Okay, let me go get the OS board and we’ll use that for the time being. We can build our campaign off of that until I have time to map out more of the region.

Procedurally, the GM is going to run the game much the same way. The rules apply for both offhand adventures and exploratory journeys.

[derv]

Okay, moving on. It seems to me that some of the confusion that is created when discussing laying out a setting, whether a dungeon or a wilderness, has to do with praxis. Basically, how a person uses the rules as they understand them to apply.

Much of this revolves around stocking methods. Currently, my focus is on how people practice Wilderness Exploration, but this same general pattern can be observed and applied to the dungeon.

There are three primary methods where a person can start from.

1. Thoughtfully and deliberately pick and place all terrain, towns, castles, roads, rivers, dungeons, caves, etc., onto a sheet of hex paper. The GM would create a key for all locations on the map. Gygaxian?

2. Randomize all the above ahead of time, allowing the dice to determine the lay of the land and it's populations. The GM will have a completed map with key points before play begins. This seems to be the approach Arneson used. It's worth noting that he even predetermined wandering monsters in this manner. They were part of the hexes natural population.

3. Randomize all the above as play takes place. In this case, nothing is prepared ahead of time. The GM is allowing the dice to detemine the lay of the land and it's contents as the party explores. Judges Guild material is useful for this approach. This method also has direct application for solo play.

All three of these methods can overlap. For example, a GM might do #1 only for a small section of his map where he thinks there should be a key location (maybe the object of a quest). He might then use #2 for the immediate area surrounding the village that the players are currently using as their home base. Then he could rely on method #3 if the players end up wandering outside of his prepared areas or if he simply was pressed for time while designing his map.

[derv]

I want to touch on method #2 some more and consider the difference from approach #1, because I think this is where we start to see a conceptual shift in how "number appearing" is applied.

In the FFC Arneson was populating hexes. He used 10 mile hexes that he further segmented into roughly 1 mile areas. During stocking, he would roll up a hexes total population by determining the number of lairs to be present (0-5). These lairs would be assigned an area within the hex. Of this population, a percentage could be considered to be "wandering" outside the lair. Also determined by dice rolls. A party had a chance of randomly encountering any one of the hexes population and the encounter might be in or outside the lair.

So, what became the Wilderness Wandering Monster Tables were really Arneson's stocking tables. These stocking tables were based on the OS terrain. They have come to be used in a completely different manner. The process for determining wandering monsters has almost reversed, where there no longer exists a connection to the hexes stocked population. At the end of the day, a die is rolled that determines whether an encounter will occur. Then the tables are consulted and diced on. This is followed with number appearing and % in the lair.

Any thoughts?

[scottyg]

Gaty wrote the D&D books with the assumption that the readers had gaming backgrounds and that they had.common sense enough to know they were going to have to fill in the blanks because it was impossible to cover everything. Living and dying by the rules was never a consideration. All this parcing of the text is implying that is lost on some. There really is no wrong way to do it, but Stormcrow IS explaining what Gary was trying to convey and how he played it.

[derv]

scottyg, I don't think you have heard me once make the assertion that there is a right or wrong way. If you are getting that impression, you are misunderstanding my intent. In the same respect, I am not a guy that buys into people saying, that's the way it was done, without them backing up those statements. There is quite a few commonly held notions about the early days that people like to banter about, that I'm not sure they even have thought through. They're simply mimicking a statement because of who said it or because it sounds believeable. If your concern is revisionism, you're going to have to deal with it. History is full of it. The best way to combat revisionism is to back your case up sufficiently. But, you should know as well as anyone that even the LGoC used the OS board extensively. If not, you should ask Rob K about it, because you have now stepped into the realm of supporting Stormcrow's exaggeration.

Now, I was really attempting to move on from my OP. I half regret bringing the question up. The only reason I did was because I wanted to know if I was missing something, if there was more to the rules that wasn't clear. I've concluded that there wasn't.

[derv]

Nov 24, 2015 4:54:53 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

'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?

This is an interesting question WotE. It's another area that I think is affected by how a player conceptualizes the game and puts it into practice.

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. So, there's a variable chance of an encounter based on terrain (at least 1 in 6). Then there is a variable chance that the monster is in it's lair (i.e. 30% Hobgoblins). Even if the 20-200 Hobgoblins are killed or routed, there is still a variable chance that there is no loot (determined by treasure type). Flipping the table on it's head, treasure type D has a 90% no cp, 85% no sp, 40% no gp, 70% no gems or jewelry, and 80% no magic. Doesn't sound so promising when you put it in that light.

There's a distinction that seems to be made between a lair and a key location on the wilderness map.The first suggests the result of something unplanned and randomly generated. The second is often thought to be planned and thoughtfully prepared and fleshed out ahead of time. This distinction only holds out to be true with appraoch #1 as I presented above. With Arneson's approach of randomly stocking hex populations, lairs are not an item of surprise. They are prepared ahead of time if there is a lair to be found.

There is another way of looking at "key locations" though. They are really an area on the map where the mode of play changes. You are no longer doing "wilderness exploration", but switching to another method (whether dungeon exploration, town adventures, mass combat. court intrigue, etc.). They represent a transition point on the campaign map.

[Stormcrow]

In The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, town, court, and mass combat are all part of the "Wilderness" section. The term refers to anything beyond the dungeon.

[derv]

To add to the answer to WotE's question, there is this interesting perception about the tables in M&T. When we look at "% in lair", we are considering this percentage to be representational of whether we have found a monster in their lair.

Yet, when we look at the treasure type tables, we associate these percentile rolls as representing whether a monster has in their possession the treasure listed.

Consider, as it pertains to wilderness exploration, if instead these percentiles actually represent whether a party has successfully found said treasure.

I only make this point because it seems that in Arnesons campaign if there was a lair, there was treasure. The treasure amount was variable, but always present.

What I have not encountered in Arnesons material is any percentile chance for treasure not occurring. To me, it is odd that I have not found a similar treasure type table with percentages in Arnesons writing. Considering his fondness for the use of percentile dice, it seems you would naturally find a comparable system in the FFC that M&T stems from. But, it isn't there.

Where did the M&T treasure table come from?

[derv]

In my curiosity with how treasure was generated in M&T as compared to how it seemed to be generated in the FFC, I finally took a look at Arneson's Adventures in Fantasy. The idea of variable chances of different treasure types occurring, or not occurring, seemed like a leap from Arneson's stocking methods presented in the FFC. I really wanted to know how that trasure table in M&T came about.

In AiF, Arneson gives an actual treasure generation chart that involves 2 rolls of d10 (or d20). The results are cross referenced to find a general treasure result, such as "C x 1, S x 1". This would be copper pieces and silver pieces. There's also gold pieces, gems & jewels, misc. treasure, and magic items. This table alone could be argued represents the variable likelihood of certain treasure types occurring (I havn't spent the time to calculate the odds though). But, my question with M&T's treasure table really springs from this idea of all or nothing possibly occurring.

So, there at the bottom of the table is this equation for calculating the number of money pieces. It's "first dice no. x second dice number x 10". Again, the dice being used are d10 (d20). You are then suppose to multiply it by the number listed after the treasure type you originally rolled on the table. This is anything from x1 to x5.

At the very bottom of the page it says, "NOTE 0 COUNTS AS 0". As we know, zero multiplied always results in zero. So, there it is, a table for treasure generation used by Arneson where there is the possibility of generating zip for treasure.

This same idea is repeated for Gemstones- "0 counts as 0 (Stone Flawed)".

Since AiF wasn't put out until 1978, this isn't solid evidence that Dave was doing things exactly the same prior to 1974. But, there's a good possibility he was and that Gary condensed these ideas into the tables we have in M&T.

[Deleted]

Nov 24, 2015 18:19:15 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

In The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, town, court, and mass combat are all part of the "Wilderness" section. The term refers to anything beyond the dungeon.

The town may have been physically in that section, but Gary used the term "wilderness" to mean just that in his game; that is, once you were beyond civilized environs. You know, as in a castle keeps x hexes around it clear? Beyond that begins "wilderness."

[Deleted]

Nov 19, 2015 11:20:54 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

"Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he will be very keen. Uh, he's already got one, you see."

"Are you sure?"

[Stormcrow]

Dec 27, 2015 18:24:29 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The town may have been physically in that section, but Gary used the term "wilderness" to mean just that in his game; that is, once you were beyond civilized environs. You know, as in a castle keeps x hexes around it clear? Beyond that begins "wilderness."

Sure, and it's a sensible definition. I'm just repeating what's written in U&WA: "The so-called wilderness really consists of unexplored land, cities and castles, not to mention the area immediately surrounding the castle (ruined or otherwise) which housed the dungeons." Kind of the way that anything that is not a member of the party is a "monster."