Evasion & Pursuit: Do I have it right?

[graelth]

So I am grafting the evasion and pursuit rules onto dungeon exploration. Before I do that, though, I want to make sure I understand the wilderness evasion & pursuit rules correctly. Here are the quotes I have found (all pages are U&WA):

The bottom of page 19 says:

EVADING IN THE WILDERNESS:
Castle Inhabitants will pursue on a roll of a 1–3 if they are hostile to the party, and only on a 1 if they are basically neutral. Evasion is the same as described below for monsters.

Ok, if you encounter a castle in the wilderness and the occupants venture out (percent chance for that explained on page 15), then the party can choose to flee. Note, most encounters with castle inhabitants don't result in combat, but presumably the party might flee to avoid tithes or taxes. One of the immediate possible reactions at that point will be pursuit (otherwise, the castle occupants simply decline to pursue and return to their castle). Page 15 makes it clear that "basically neutral" is not a reference to alignment, but simply a diplomatic posture.

Ok, that's pretty clear. It could possibly be used to determine the chance of monsters sallying forth from a lair in the dungeon. On page 20, we have...

Evading: This action is a function of the size of the party of adventurers and the number of monsters, modified by surprise, terrain and comparative speed. Use the following table as a guideline.

Here is that table.

Party Size (Mounted or on Foot)	Number of Monsters Encountered by Party	Chance of Evading
1–3	25% or less of possible #	50%
1–3	26%-60%	70%
1-3	Over 60%	90%
4-9	25% or less of possible #	30%
4-9	26%-60%	50%
4-9	Over 60%	70%
10-24	25% or less of possible #	15%
10-24	26%-60%	30%
10-24	Over 60%	50%
25+	25% or less of possible #	05%
25+	26%-60%	20%
25+	Over 60%	35%

Ok, this is where the first real questions comes up. At a glance, the table seems quite logical... you have better chances of evading if your party is small (less to hide, less trail left behind for pursuers to track), but why would a larger enemy make evasion easier? More difficult to coordinate the pursuit, perhaps? Or maybe this factor just indicates who discovers whom first, with large parties of monsters making enough noise that the party has a better chance to detect them first and slip quietly away? But then why would monsters with lower "number appearing" ranges be punished? Dryads and Unicorns, for example, seem as easy to detect in the 3 to 4 range as a hundred orcs or more, which stretched credibility. Moreover, what does "25% or less of possible #" mean?

My first guess is that this indicates the number of monsters appearing. So let's say you generate a random wilderness encounter with Orcs (a mere 1% chance on the wilderness wandering monster tables! You are conversely 12 times more likely to encounter a lycanthrope, such is the plague of lycanthropy that has beset the land!). Monsters & Treasure says that fully 50% of all orcs will be encountered in their lair... the referee hasn't decided ahead of time, so he dices for it and discovers that this is a party of orcs that is away from the lair. He rolls dice to determine the size of the tribe (between 30 and 300), and gets 160... right in the middle of average. Since half of the tribe is back in the lair, this cuts the band down to 80 orcs. He dices for wagons and discovers they are not accompanying any at the moment. Leader types are only in the lair, so no more determinations need be made... we have 80 orcs to deal with.

The adventurers' party is 15 total (3 player-characters, 11 monstrous followers and a single low-level hireling, a stable boy for the party's fighting-man). The party was not surprised, so evasion is possible. The orcs' "number appearing" roll was 53⅓% of the maximum possible number of orcs encountered. Cross-referencing the table, that gives a 30% chance of evading (modified perhaps up to a 55% because of the nearby forests). The Orcs are slower (9”) than the party (12”), but not enough to gain a further bonus.

If the evasion is successful, the party can hide out in the forest. If evasion fails, a pursuit roll will need to be made and the party flees one hex in a random direction. If the pursuer is faster, then they have a 50% of catching the party. If the stable boy is lame (perhaps 6” movement), then maybe he will have to be "heroically" left behind to his fate! If the party is not caught, "a die is rolled" (page 20) to determine if pursuit continue. This could be another evasion roll, particularly if the referee rules that the players have found a convenient spot to hide out (remember when the Hobbits hid in a hollow from the Ringwraith?). It seems more likely, knowing Gygaxian game design, that this is merely a die roll to determine if the pursuing monsters are really all that interested in bothering with further pursuit (it would match other rules where you dice to see a monster's reaction). In any case, if pursuit continues (either because the second evasion attempt was failed or the monster is still interested in pursuit), there is another 50% chance to be caught followed by another random move and more dice rolls.

Does that all sound correct?

[graelth]

Ok, and now a separate post to discuss the applicability of these rules to dungeon evasion and pursuit.

Pursuit in the Dungeon
Firstly, there are a few things to consider about dungeons (once again, all page numbers are U&WA). Page 9 says...

Generally, doors will not open by turning the handle or by a push. Doors must be forced open by strength, a roll of a 1 or 2 indicating the door opens, although smaller and lighter characters may be required to roll a 1 to open doors. There can be up to three characters attempting to force open a door, but this will disallow them rapid reaction to anything awaiting them on the other side. Most doors will automatically close, despite the difficulty in opening them. Doors will automatically open for monsters, unless they are held shut against them by characters. Doors can be wedged open by means of spikes, but there is a one-third chance (die 5–6) that the spike will slip and the door will shut.

Alright, so the party cannot simply retreat through any door, even ones they had previously opened! Doors shut automatically (I would rule that they slam shut the moment the party has turned the corner and the door is no longer in line of sight... makes it more mysterious and spooky!) and moreover require a solid kick to open again. While this probably takes very little time, how might it affect the chance to be caught? What about multiple failed attempts? Might it allow even slower monsters a 50% to catch up? Perhaps a good distraction like burning oil, food or treasure (see page 12 for those rules) would buy more time for forcing doors.

Spiking the door of a potential escape route is always a good idea, but not foolproof (since the dungeon spits out door spikes like it spits out punk adventurers!). Additionally, the dungeon doors automatically open for monsters (meaning they don't even need to pull the handle), so the stuck doors problem is not a problem for pursuing monsters (or monsters who flee and are pursued by the players, for that matter). The reverse case must be true for monsters fleeing... if the players pursue and do not get a door unstuck on the first go, perhaps it would reduce their chance to catch the enemy or even make pursuit impossible.

A much more simple approach than this, of course, would be to assume the pursuit odds of 50% are just an abstraction to represent the complex assortment of terrain and obstacles within a 5 mile wilderness hex. If you take this approach, then you could simply say that the dungeon map clearly articulates all of the routes and obstacles in the way of a pursuit, and simply rule that flight and pursuit is an extension of combat. Thus, if you retreat from a melee, the opponent might simply follow you and, if they can catch up to you on the map, they can continue making attacks against you as you flee (or try to knock you over or corner you). With this method, it is quite easy to say that a failed attempt to force a stuck door simply results in no further movement for that combat round.

Evasion in the Dungeon
But all of the foregoing discussion is really about fleeing from combat. Before it becomes necessary to flee from a monster, you should have a chance to evade undetected. Firstly, we must keep in mind that surprised parties are never allowed to evade in the first place, for on page 20 it says...

Surprise by monsters negates all chance of evasion unless party is able to use some form of magic, or terrain is woods.

Compare that to page 12, where the underworld surprise rules state that...

There is no chance for avoiding if the monster has surprised the adventurers and is within 20 feet, unless the monster itself has been surprised.

So there is no evading undetected for surprised parties, and no retreat at all for parties surprised within 20 feet in the dungeon. This is probably the dungeon equivalent of page 17 in the wilderness surprise rules, where it states...

Surprise: This is the same as in the underworld, except that the distance is from 10– 30 yards, and if there are three or more monsters involved they will have moved into a circle around the adventurers.

So in the wilderness, monsters block off escape if they can encircle the party. In the dungeon, you only need to block off chokepoints like doorways, but they must be within 20 feet at the time of surprise to successfully interpose themselves between the players and their route of escape. It is also important to note that monsters themselves never seem to evade players, whether in the wilderness or the dungeon. In the wilderness evasion rules, the implicit assumption of the text is always that the players are the ones doing the evasion. However, that does not mean intelligent monsters will not avoid the players. Page 12 says...

Monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any characters they "see," with the exception of those monsters which are intelligent enough to avoid an obviously superior force.

This sounds a lot like the rules for castle occupants refusing to sally forth if the players are roaming about with large armies (as it states on page 15). Intelligent monsters, whether in the wilderness or in the dungeon, may not evade powerful players (indeed, there is no table for this), but they may avoid them (which could happen in the first round of a combat, after or during a parlay, or at any other time). The difference being that if a monster evades a player, the player will never know about it because the monster would go undetected, whereas an avoiding monster would be detected and would then withdraw from the players.

Below that line on page 12, it gives a quick table for random actions by monsters:

Random Actions by Monsters: Other than in pursuit situations, the more intelligent monsters will act randomly according to the results of the score rolled on two (six-sided) dice:

2-5	negative reaction
6-8	uncertain reaction
9-12	positive reaction

The dice score is to be modified by additions and subtractions for such things as bribes offered, fear, alignment of the parties concerned, etc.

The nature of a "negative" or "positive" or "uncertain" reaction is not explained, but presumably it depends on the context. In general, I would rule that a negative reaction results in either a desperate attack (if the intelligent monster encounters the more powerful party in its home) or an evasion (if the intelligent monster encounters the more powerful party outside of its home). An uncertain reaction would probably have the monster waiting to see what the party does and a positive reaction would be an attempt to parlay (although not necessarily a friendly, arms-open embrace of the party... rather, more of an act of cautious and pragmatic diplomacy in most cases). However, if the players offered a bribe, the positive reaction could indicate that the monster does what the players request (probably something along the lines of "let us pass unharmed"). Again, the situation will completely determine what these terms mean, but the takeaway is that there is a (relatively small) chance that the monster will be the one evading an encounter.

If dungeon evasion attempts will be by the players, how might this work? You could simply use the evasion table from the wilderness evasion rules to determine the odds of backing away "undetected" from a monster encounter. I assume this would take the form of ducking back behind the corner, whispering sharply to your companions that something is lurking in the next room, or perhaps the players just stopping dead in their tracks and back away slowly. Instead of the monsters automatically "seeing" the party (when they are not themselves surprised, that is), the evasion roll would determine if the players were seen. It would look something like this:

The dungeon master knows there are monsters in the next room. If there is a door, the players can listen at it and if they hear the monsters inside, they can evade automatically by simply backing away from the door and heading in another direction. If they blunder into the room, detection would seemingly be automatic with no opportunity to evade. If monsters were at the end of a long corridor or large chamber, then the referee would first need to establish surprise and, as long as the players were not surprised, then evasion could be attempted at the encounter distance rolled (if the monsters were surprised, the players' chance to evade would be doubled, as it says on page 20). If evasion failed, combat would begin, with the option to flee as normal (which would initiate pursuit).

Remaining Questions
There is one last sticking point that I can see with regards to applying the wilderness evasion rules to dungeon exploration. How do you determine the "number of monsters encountered by party" on the evasion table? It is given as a percentage of "possible #", but should we really substitute a random dice roll for the dungeon monsters with the wilderness "number appearing" roll? Most of the dungeons I run have fixed numbers, such as 10 skeletons, so it is not clear what percentage this would be of the "possible" number of skeletons. Moreover, it seems entirely arbitrary... if a room has 1 to 6 goblins (and rolls a 6) and another room has 2-12 goblins (and also rolls a 6), how would the second room have a better chance of discovering the evading players? They have numerically the same number of goblins for the players to see or hear first, but a lower percentage of the possible number of goblins in that room, and thus better odds. Of course, you could simply standardize it... 1-6 monsters of any type give the lowest chance for evasion, 7-14 monsters give the moderate chance for evasion and 15+ monsters give the best chance for evasion, but then you would have to reduce these numbers for noisy creatures like ogres or a single large creature like a dragon. At the end of the day, I would just make a judgment about how noisy and visible the monster group would be (high, medium or low) and use that row to determine evasion odds. That descriptor would then go into what I tell the players (for example, "up ahead you hear the slow, steady, mighty breathing of a dragon and smell the lingering traces of a sulphurous smoke...").

The last question is "how far" does pursuit take you and "how long" does it take? There are two possible arguments here. In the wilderness, each retreat move is a third of the distance a normal man on foot can travel in a wilderness turn (i.e., a day). A third of a normal man's movement in the dungeon is 8" (since he moves twice in a dungeon exploration turn). This is the upper end of the distance that pursuit requires. The second argument is that wilderness movement over land is less about statistical speed and more a representation of taking numerous breaks, negotiating the winding terrain and obstacles of the wilderness and so on. Indeed, it is interesting to note that several horses (draft and heavy) seem to have identical statistical speed values (12") yet different overworld travel rates (5 and 6 hexes per turn), suggesting that wilderness movement is not based entirely on statistical speed. If we take flying movement, the statistical speed and wilderness travel rates seem to line up (which is useful, since flight ignores terrain and many flying creatures, such as dragons, are described as flying all day without rest). So if the ideal movement rate of a normal man were 12 hexes per day, then a single pursuit would use 1/12th of his movement rate, which would be equivalent to 2" in the dungeon (again, considering double movement). This is the lower end of the distance that pursuit requires. The range is thus somewhere between 2" and 8" for dungeon retreats.

Conclusions
Interestingly, the latter argument paints an entirely different view of the nature of evasion and pursuit, such that as often as every 20 feet a check is happening. It's not really clear if the players could really "evade" if the enemy were so close (unless you have a "Three Stooges"-style chase scene going on). But that doesn't really matter, as the important thing is that this gives us our minimum retreat distance. Thus, between the two values, pursuit requires at least 20 to 80 feet per leg of the pursuit (and check to see if pursuit continues). Conveniently, 20 to 80 feet (or 2-8") matches the normal encounter distance in the dungeon. Now, I am not necessarily suggesting that you roll for this (although you could, I suppose), but rather this gives us a general guideline for about how much a party falls back after each leg of the pursuit. The actual distance probably depends entirely on the dungeon layout. In the wilderness, we just see hexes, without needing to map out every tree and every rock that you could hide behind. In the dungeon, a quick glance at the dungeon map will give a good idea (for both the players and the referee) how much retreat is necessary before the pursuer gives up. And the players will be picking their escape route and the referee will say whether they have found a convenient hiding spot, or whether they need to keep fleeing to outrun the enemy.

As far as travel speed, that seems entirely up to the referee, but I would say it would be at least at combat movement rate. Some referees simply determine combat movement rate to be 1/10th the rate of dungeon exploration (120 feet, for an unburdened human), since there are 10 combat rounds in a turn. This always seemed too slow for me, so I allow players to move their full movement rate every single combat round (thus they move 10 times faster than they do while exploring). Thus, I would treat the speed of flight as a single combat round with their full movement allowance. Again, as long as those stuck doors can be forced open...

[linebeck]

I'm also trying to learn the "by the book" rules for outdoor exploration in ODD using the "OUTDOOR SURVIVAL" map. I see dungeon pursuit and outdoor pursuit as separate sub-games.

The rules state (Vol. III at p. 20.) that "Pursuit will take place whenever it is so indicated with regard to castle inhabitants or when a party is unable to evade monsters." If the monster is faster than the party involved there is a 50% chance it will catch the party.

Assume that the monster doesn't catch the party either because the party is faster or the monster fails its 50% chance roll. The rules then state: "The party now moves another hex in a random direction, and a die is rolled to determine if pursuit will continue."

My question is what die is rolled to determine whether pursuit will continue? I don't believe the rules say.

One thought would be that the determination would be the same as that for whether castle inhabitants will pursue: "Castle Inhabitants will pursue on a roll of a 1-3 if they are hostile to the party, and only on a 1 if they are basically neutral."

However, you could use the rules for pursuit in the dungeon, which encourage tossing treasure and/or edible items behind you as you run to discourage pursuit: "Edible items will have a small likelihood (10%) of distracting intelligent monsters from pursuit. Semi-intelligent monsters will be distracted 50% of the time. Non-intelligent monsters will be distracted 90% of the time by food. Treasure will have the opposite reaction as food, being more likely to stop intelligent monsters."

I like the later because it's more Vancian and less Tolkien.

Or perhaps both rules should be used in tandem?

[captainjapan]

If "a die" is rolled to check the possibility of continued pursuit out-of-doors, then there would be no need to print an evasion table in the rules. I think this is just sloppy wording. I say roll percentile dice and consult the table each turn.

As for throwing loot over your shoulder to stop a monster chasing you, I would be skeptical that would work. You're moving over a football field's distance through the wilderness every turn. A pursuer is going to be following your movement primarily. I think dry rations or a sack of gold will go completely unnoticed.

[graelth]

Oct 16, 2019 12:09:46 GMT -6 captainjapan said:

If "a die" is rolled to check the possibility of continued pursuit out-of-doors, then there would be no need to print an evasion table in the rules. I think this is just sloppy wording. I say roll percentile dice and consult the table each turn.

As for throwing loot over your shoulder to stop a monster chasing you, I would be skeptical that would work. You're moving over a football field's distance through the wilderness every turn. A pursuer is going to be following your movement primarily. I think dry rations or a sack of gold will go completely unnoticed.

It is certainly one possibility to use evasion to determine if pursuit is continued. You could also roll a die to determine if the enemies are really interested in continuing pursuit (percentiles, 2d6 or whatever the DM desires). Thirdly, you could combine these options and roll for evasion, applying a modifier for the enemy's willingness to pursue.

Dropping treasure in a pursuit makes more sense in a dungeon, where you are working with confined quarters. In the wilderness? I think it would depend on the situation... if you were fleeing from bandits and running down a country road, that might make sense. If you were fleeing through thick and wild heath, or a bubbling swamp, the treasure would likely just get lost!

Oct 16, 2019 11:22:27 GMT -6 linebeck said:

One thought would be that the determination would be the same as that for whether castle inhabitants will pursue: "Castle Inhabitants will pursue on a roll of a 1-3 if they are hostile to the party, and only on a 1 if they are basically neutral."

However, you could use the rules for pursuit in the dungeon, which encourage tossing treasure and/or edible items behind you as you run to discourage pursuit: "Edible items will have a small likelihood (10%) of distracting intelligent monsters from pursuit. Semi-intelligent monsters will be distracted 50% of the time. Non-intelligent monsters will be distracted 90% of the time by food. Treasure will have the opposite reaction as food, being more likely to stop intelligent monsters."

I like the later because it's more Vancian and less Tolkien.

Or perhaps both rules should be used in tandem?

I like that solution as well—a simple d6 roll against the pursue chance makes a lot of sense to see if pursuit is continued. If you do want to combine methods, perhaps take captainjapan's advice and just use the evasion roll, modified accordingly for the enemy's willingness to pursue and distractions created by the fleeing players, along with the usual modifiers for party size, speed etc.

[linebeck]

I see what you are saying. I was under the impression that the evasion table would only be checked once at the start of the encounter after you check for surprise (surprise by monsters negates all chances of evasion unless party is in woods).

The rules seem to make a distinction between pursuit and evasion:

"Castle Inhabitants will pursue on a roll of a 1-3 if they are hostile to the party, and only on a 1 if they are basically neutral. Evasion is the same as described below for monsters."

[graelth]

Oct 16, 2019 17:41:11 GMT -6 linebeck said:

I see what you are saying. I was under the impression that the evasion table would only be checked once at the start of the encounter after you check for surprise (surprise by monsters negates all chances of evasion unless party is in woods).

The rules seem to make a distinction between pursuit and evasion:

"Castle Inhabitants will pursue on a roll of a 1-3 if they are hostile to the party, and only on a 1 if they are basically neutral. Evasion is the same as described below for monsters."

Oh no, I agree... evasion and pursuit do seem to be distinct. I think I was just agreeing with captainjapan that you COULD use them together, if you wanted. Book 3, as written, doesn't seem to suggest that you use the evasion mechanic to determine if pursuit continues but rather that you just "roll a die." Using the evasion table instead is a clever idea, though.

[captainjapan]

My understanding of pursuit and evasion was that:

Pursuit is a matter of outrunning your enemies. Evasion is a matter of hiding from them.

It's been a while since I played OD&D, but I do remember liking the idea of dropping loot while running in the dungeon. In Holmes basic, you can evade a monster just by turning a corner or descending a flight of stairs. The monster gives up. Pursuit is broken off. I'd be cool with that sort of thing in a city setting

[linebeck]

Thank you both for your help.
Having considered your responses and mulling it over a little, I think that allowing evasion following initial pursuit makes sense if the party wants to try to evade (as opposed to keep running?), but to also separately check to see if the monsters want to continue pursuit or give up.

Borrowing from the rules for castle inhabitants, I will rule in my games that neutral monsters (like animals) will continue pursuit on a roll of 1 (on a d6). Hostile monsters will continue to pursue on a roll of 1-3 (on a d6). Monsters that do not check morale (skeletons/zombies) will always continue pursuit unless evaded. These creatures are slow too, which means that they will often have no chance of catching the party but keep on coming regardless, which I find thematically appropriate.

I think you are both right that throwing food or treasure behind you as you run doesn’t do much of anything in the outdoors given the distances involved.

[graelth]

Oct 17, 2019 15:38:14 GMT -6 linebeck said:

Thank you both for your help.
Having considered your responses and mulling it over a little, I think that allowing evasion following initial pursuit makes sense if the party wants to try to evade (as opposed to keep running?), but to also separately check to see if the monsters want to continue pursuit or give up.

Borrowing from the rules for castle inhabitants, I will rule in my games that neutral monsters (like animals) will continue pursuit on a roll of 1 (on a d6). Hostile monsters will continue to pursue on a roll of 1-3 (on a d6). Monsters that do not check morale (skeletons/zombies) will always continue pursuit unless evaded. These creatures are slow too, which means that they will often have no chance of catching the party but keep on coming regardless, which I find thematically appropriate.

I think you are both right that throwing food or treasure behind you as you run doesn’t do much of anything in the outdoors given the distances involved.

Yeah I like that idea about zombies. You could easily turn an OD&D game into an episode of the Walking Dead with rulings like that and given how often undead types show up on the wilderness encounter tables!

By the bye, this conversation made me rethink something I mentioned in the original post above: namely, why does the percentage of “possible #” matter for chance of evasion? I'll quote the relevant part of the first post where I ask that question...

Jan 24, 2018 8:56:09 GMT -6 graelth said:

Evading: This action is a function of the size of the party of adventurers and the number of monsters, modified by surprise, terrain and comparative speed. Use the following table as a guideline.

Here is that table.

Party Size (Mounted or on Foot)	Number of Monsters Encountered by Party	Chance of Evading
1–3	25% or less of possible #	50%
1–3	26%-60%	70%
1-3	Over 60%	90%
4-9	25% or less of possible #	30%
4-9	26%-60%	50%
4-9	Over 60%	70%
10-24	25% or less of possible #	15%
10-24	26%-60%	30%
10-24	Over 60%	50%
25+	25% or less of possible #	05%
25+	26%-60%	20%
25+	Over 60%	35%

Ok, this is where the first real questions comes up. At a glance, the table seems quite logical... you have better chances of evading if your party is small (less to hide, less trail left behind for pursuers to track), but why would a larger enemy make evasion easier? More difficult to coordinate the pursuit, perhaps? Or maybe this factor just indicates who discovers whom first, with large parties of monsters making enough noise that the party has a better chance to detect them first and slip quietly away? But then why would monsters with lower "number appearing" ranges be punished? Dryads and Unicorns, for example, seem as easy to detect in the 3 to 4 range as a hundred orcs or more, which stretched credibility. Moreover, what does "25% or less of possible #" mean?

Based on our conversations about a monster's willingness to pursue, something similar might be true in the evasion table. Let's say the party of 8 heroes has a random encounter with a bunch of goblins and the DM rolls to see how many there are... 1d10 x 40 (40-400), The roll is really low... let's say a 1 or a 2. Sure, 40-80 goblins is a lot, but the party lucked out that it wasn't a lot more. Why is such a relatively small group of goblins out and about in the wilderness? Could be a hunting or scouting party... thus the party's chance to evade is much less (only 30%). Later on, the party encounters 20 centaurs. It is a much smaller group of monsters, but that is actually the max "# appearing"... that is an unusually large group of centaurs! Why would they be out and about in the wilderness? Well if there are that many, they must be traveling a great distance or on an important mission. They're not going to be that interested in dealing with a party and will likely have baggage and other things with them. Thus the chance to evade is much higher (70%). Thus the number appearing roll can be read as indicated the purpose for the monsters being out and about in the wilderness, which would then indicate how willing they are to stop whatever it is they are doing to deal with the player-characters. It might be assumed that big groups are on an important errand or are traveling long distances with baggage and young in tow, whereas smaller groups could be hunters, scouts, waylayers, patrols or bands of adventuring monsters. Mid-sized groups might be war parties or large gangs, equally disposed to ignore or assault the players.

[delta]

Thanks for bringing this up; the evasion rules do seem under-tested. In particular, the two top things that trouble me on that page are (1) the fact that no chance is given for pursuing monsters of equal or lower speed to catch the party (so: why are we doing this process?), and (2) the not-well-defined call for "a die is rolled to determine if pursuit will continue" (for castle inhabitants, it seems like a callback to the d6 to pursue on the prior page; for other monsters no such analog is given -- the top of the same paragraph says monsters always pursue).

I'll point out that the evasion rules are modified/expanded in AD&D DMG p. 69, but problem (1) still exists in the exact same form. Problem (2) is resolved by saying that an identical evasion check is rolled each hour (with no other type of roll in the mix).

[retrorob]

delta

it may be a matter of poor typesetting and/or it wasn't playtested well enough. I wonder how does it look like in GD&D draft. I would risk a thesis that Evasion and Pursuit were originally two separate mechanics, ie. Evasion was for "monsters", Pursuit for "castle inhabitants" only - just like Beyond This Point Be Dragons has it.

[linebeck]

Oct 17, 2019 21:28:21 GMT -6 delta said:

 (1) the fact that no chance is given for pursuing monsters of equal or lower speed to catch the party (so: why are we doing this process?)

Even if the monsters have no chance of catching you, running from them tires you out and leaves you vulnerable to further encounters (from which you can't run? depends on how you adjudicate what "resting" means and whether it precludes further evasion/running away).  

For each hex moved in pursuit, a party must spend one-half day resting (remember, a day equals one turn).
During a day at rest two dice are thrown for determining if wandering monsters are encountered, rather than but one.

Vol. III, p. 20.

So if you are pursued for three hexes before the monster gives up or you evade, you will need to spend one and one-half days resting in whatever random hex you end up in during which time the ref rolls 3 wandering monster checks.  The question then is, can you evade / run from these encounters?  Or do you have to encounter these monsters and melee because you are "resting."  

[graelth]

Oct 18, 2019 14:12:58 GMT -6 linebeck said:

Oct 17, 2019 21:28:21 GMT -6 delta said:

 (1) the fact that no chance is given for pursuing monsters of equal or lower speed to catch the party (so: why are we doing this process?)

Even if the monsters have no chance of catching you, running from them tires you out and leaves you vulnerable to further encounters (from which you can't run? depends on how you adjudicate what "resting" means and whether it precludes further evasion/running away).  

For each hex moved in pursuit, a party must spend one-half day resting (remember, a day equals one turn).
During a day at rest two dice are thrown for determining if wandering monsters are encountered, rather than but one.

Vol. III, p. 20.

So if you are pursued for three hexes before the monster gives up or you evade, you will need to spend one and one-half days resting in whatever random hex you end up in during which time the ref rolls 3 wandering monster checks.  The question then is, can you evade / run from these encounters?  Or do you have to encounter these monsters and melee because you are "resting."  

Evasion should be an option, but flight? As a DM, I would probably make an on the spot judgment based on the particular circumstances. Most likely I would say they could flee, but they would automatically be considered "slower" than the monsters (not necessarily because of outright speed, but more-so because of stamina... the monsters are presumably fresh enough to pursue you for hours, but your party is presumably not rested enough to keep moving for that long). Of course, being "slower" means the party has a 50% chance of getting caught!

[delta]

Oct 18, 2019 14:12:58 GMT -6 linebeck said:

Even if the monsters have no chance of catching you, running from them tires you out and leaves you vulnerable to further encounters (from which you can't run? depends on how you adjudicate what "resting" means and whether it precludes further evasion/running away).

I see what you're going for; to me this seems under-whelming that the intention of the impossible wandering pursuit mechanic is to set you up for other wandering pursuit later on.

Now that I think of that, items (1) and (2) exacerbate each other; there's no chance for a slower or equal monster to catch the PCs, and it's also stated that monsters always pursue, so narrowly read, that kind of monster pursuit falls into an infinite regress without end.

[linebeck]

"Of course, being "slower" means the party has a 50% chance of getting caught!"


I like that, you could take it one step further and say, if you have not rested, you are "fatigued" per Page 11 of Chainmail (3 ed.) (attack at next lower value, defend at next lower value, morale drops -1 on values and die rolls for retainers) and then add that a fatigued character is also at half normal movement as if at maximum load.

In that scenario you escape easily from one monster but could encounter another before fully rested and be too slow to get away.  

[linebeck]

Oct 18, 2019 15:05:38 GMT -6 delta said:

Oct 18, 2019 14:12:58 GMT -6 linebeck said:

Even if the monsters have no chance of catching you, running from them tires you out and leaves you vulnerable to further encounters (from which you can't run? depends on how you adjudicate what "resting" means and whether it precludes further evasion/running away).

I see what you're going for; to me this seems under-whelming that the intention of the impossible wandering pursuit mechanic is to set you up for other wandering pursuit later on.

Now that I think of that, items (1) and (2) exacerbate each other; there's no chance for a slower or equal monster to catch the PCs, and it's also stated that monsters always pursue, so narrowly read, that kind of monster pursuit falls into an infinite regress without end.

Yes there is definitely a scenario where the pursuit lasts for multiple turns with no chance of the monster catching the PCs which would be under-whelming.  I'd have to see how it plays out.  On way of fixing it could be assign a chance that a slower monster could nonetheless catch the players (like 1 in 6).  

[tetramorph]

graelth , this is a tough section of the rules.

I have been trying to write up my own condensed version of the rules for my own understanding and better play.

Here is what I got, trying to "clean up" this section:

Evasion

Surprise by monster negates evasion, except in woods: 10%.

Surprise by party doubles chance to evade.

Woods +25%.

If one side twice as fast or more: +/- 25%.



Evasion chances table

Monsters / Party Size / Party Size / Party Size / Party Size

% Encountered per Possible / 1-3 / 4-9 / 10-24 / 25+

25or< / 50% / 30% / 15% / 5%

26-60 / 70% / 50% / 30% / 20%

60+ / 90% / 70% / 50% / 35%



Pursuit

Castle inhabitants pursue: hostile 1:2; neutral 1:6.

Monsters pursue when characters fail to evade.

Determine direction of flight as per “lost.”

If monster faster 50% chance party caught.

If not, party again attempts evasion.

If party fails repeat until party evades or caught.

Woods and swamp halve monster’s chance.

Parties rest 1 day each 2 days of flight.

Hostile means: law against chaotic party, chaos against lawful party.

I also read "neutral" to mean not hostile to characters. But I understand that simply to be the meaning of "neutral." So, for me, there are really only two "alignments" because there are only two side: law/chaos. "Neutral" is "off sides."

I see these as applying only to the wilderness. Evasion in the dungeon is pretty simple, comparatively.

I agree that dropping rations and gold is mainly a dungeon thing. However, I just saw an episode of The Last Kingdom, season 3, episode 1, where they slow down a pursuing party by dropping treasure. It worked! So I think this is possible.

[derv]

Oct 18, 2019 15:05:38 GMT -6 delta said:

Oct 18, 2019 14:12:58 GMT -6 linebeck said:

Even if the monsters have no chance of catching you, running from them tires you out and leaves you vulnerable to further encounters (from which you can't run? depends on how you adjudicate what "resting" means and whether it precludes further evasion/running away).

I see what you're going for; to me this seems under-whelming that the intention of the impossible wandering pursuit mechanic is to set you up for other wandering pursuit later on.

Now that I think of that, items (1) and (2) exacerbate each other; there's no chance for a slower or equal monster to catch the PCs, and it's also stated that monsters always pursue, so narrowly read, that kind of monster pursuit falls into an infinite regress without end.

Some of this may depend on how you view and use wilderness exploration in your game. If your party has a destination or time sensitive objective they are trying to reach, any encounter can have a detrimental effect of 1. detaining 2. detouring 3. deceiving.

There is a greater chance of evading slower monsters (+25%). A party must still flee if they do not evade and want to avoid an encounter. Now, check again for evasion, rinse, repeat. Consequently, you must then spend time resting in a hex that may not be of your choosing, where you may have a greater chance of being lost and wandering further in a random direction. Fight or Flight is the name of the game here if you want to Survive in the Outdoors.

No one has even touched on resource management yet.


IMO, I think this system makes more sense if viewed from Arneson's methods of populating hexes (A similar system for evasion exists in AiF).

[graelth]

Oct 18, 2019 15:05:38 GMT -6 delta said:

I see what you're going for; to me this seems under-whelming that the intention of the impossible wandering pursuit mechanic is to set you up for other wandering pursuit later on.

Now that I think of that, items (1) and (2) exacerbate each other; there's no chance for a slower or equal monster to catch the PCs, and it's also stated that monsters always pursue, so narrowly read, that kind of monster pursuit falls into an infinite regress without end.

That's true, but the party does usually get hopelessly lost with long pursuits, which can be an adventure in itself. It wouldn't be too hard to allow slower monsters to have a chance of catching the party, particularly if the monsters are more familiar with the local terrain. Just because the text is silent about that possibility doesn't mean it precludes it!

Oct 18, 2019 15:11:58 GMT -6 linebeck said:

"Of course, being "slower" means the party has a 50% chance of getting caught!"


I like that, you could take it one step further and say, if you have not rested, you are "fatigued" per Page 11 of Chainmail (3 ed.) (attack at next lower value, defend at next lower value, morale drops -1 on values and die rolls for retainers) and then add that a fatigued character is also at half normal movement as if at maximum load.

In that scenario you escape easily from one monster but could encounter another before fully rested and be too slow to get away.  

Yup, love all of that, good thinking!

[retrorob]

Using Evade & Pursuit rules by the book ends very quickly in a deadly loop because of the need of resting, becoming lost and additional checks for wandering monsters. After a few TPK's my players get tired of it. Been there, got the scars.

Now I use Mutual Sighting table from WARRIORS OF MARS and it works perfectly both for my OD&D and B/X campaign.

[graelth]

Oct 19, 2019 2:19:35 GMT -6 retrorob said:

Using Evade & Pursuit rules by the book ends very quickly in a deadly loop because of the need of resting, becoming lost and additional checks for wandering monsters. After a few TPK's my players get tired of it. Been there, got the scars.

Now I use Mutual Sighting table from WARRIORS OF MARS and it works perfectly both for my OD&D and B/X campaign.

Well it depends how unlucky the party is with evasion rolls and (depending on how you construe "a die is rolled to determine if pursuit will continue") how interested the monsters are in pursuing. The latter is more under the control of the DM, as he can make decisions to reduce the chance to pursue after one hex of movement. In reality, monsters shouldn't have unlimited enthusiasm to pursue... a single hex represents what, 8 miles? They would need a good reason to chase someone for that long!

Also, as delta has pointed out, a literal reading of the text would imply a faster party can never be caught, resulting in pursuit ad nauseam until the party successfully evades. An unrealistic situation to be sure, but if your DM doesn't want the party to get in trouble they can't get out of, it is one option.

But really, we aren't talking about most overland travel here. We are talking about travel through dangerous, "unexplored land" (Book III, pg 14). This is journeying beyond the safe and well-marked laneways of civilization and into the territories of monsters that are dotted with ruins, creature lairs and the outposts of retired hero-types and villains alike. Book III refers to this wilderness travel as "exploratory adventures" aimed at allowing player-characters 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" (Book III, pg 16). Thus it probably is meant mainly for high level characters who are ready to build their castles. Such characters will be more than capable of defending themselves against wandering monsters in the wilderness, or will have magic and flying mounts that will help them avoid monsters. Lower level characters can stick mainly to the roads and venture out only short distances from the nearest settlements.

The OD&D wilderness is a pretty deadly and dangerous place though. I would agree that TPK's are a real possibility if you go too far into the wilderness, particularly at lower levels of experience.

[clownboss]

Yeah I never truly understood how that table works. I wish a tl;dr of the explanation(if there is a consensus) would be given to me. Or just hear what Gronan has to say.

[linebeck]

Oct 19, 2019 2:19:35 GMT -6 retrorob said:

Using Evade & Pursuit rules by the book ends very quickly in a deadly loop because of the need of resting, becoming lost and additional checks for wandering monsters. After a few TPK's my players get tired of it. Been there, got the scars.

Now I use Mutual Sighting table from WARRIORS OF MARS and it works perfectly both for my OD&D and B/X campaign.

That table seems to mirror the rules for surprise under OD&D but collapses it into a single roll.  

For those haven't seen it, it has three categories: (1) "party is unseen"; (2) Mutual sighting; and (3) ambush.  When there is an encounter.  You roll 1d6 and then consult the table based on number of adventures to determine whether the party is seen, there is a mutual sighting, or an ambush.  Smaller parties have a greater chance of being "unseen." 

The table does not account for the size of the party of monsters and for 5-9 adventures the chance for surprise (party is unseen) is the same as OD&D (1-2 on a d6).  As far as I could tell, there is no discussion of pursuit in Warriors of Mars.  

[aldarron]

I need to get back to this when I have more time and can actually read through all the posts (sorry). But I'll just toss out a couple things here to help you guys mulling it over. The first is that the table likely stems from Arneson's campaign - a fact which may also explain the seeming lack of playtesting - meaning Gygax edited Arneson's material and put it in the mss without much table play if any.

So a couple things might be helpful here. There is also an evasion and pursuit table in Arneson & Snider's Adventures in Fantasy. I'll just quickly throw an image into in my dropbox if you want to see it.

Table

Here is a pic of the AiF rules:

Rules

Also, since GD&D was mentioned, here are the rules in BTPBD which were copied, presumably verbatim, from GD&D:
Note the table in BTPBD is nearly identical to the published version except some percentages vary by 5 or 10%.

"Evading monstersdepends upon the size of the party of adventurers and the size of the party of monsters (Table 20),
with the following modifiers:

*If monsters are encountered roll a die to see if they have surprised the adventurers. Die 1 or 2
equals surprise. If surprised, reduce the chance for evasion by one-half.

*If the adventurers are not surprised, roll a second die to see if the monsters are surprised. If a roll
of l or 2, then the monsters have been surprised, and the chances for evasion are increased 10%.

*If the encounter is with men and the adventurers are surprised, then they are surrounded by them,
and there is no chance for evasion.

*In woods add 10% to evasion chances.

[delta]

Oct 23, 2019 8:03:17 GMT -6 aldarron said:

So a couple things might be helpful here. There is also an evasion and pursuit table in Arneson & Snider's Adventures in Fantasy. I'll just quickly throw an image into in my dropbox if you want to see it...

Thanks for those. It's interesting that the overall theme of that table is fundamentally reversed; increasing searchers increases the chance of being spotted there, as opposed to D&D Vol-3 where increasing pursuers decreases the chance of being caught.

[derv]

Oct 28, 2019 22:22:33 GMT -6 delta said:

Oct 23, 2019 8:03:17 GMT -6 aldarron said:

So a couple things might be helpful here. There is also an evasion and pursuit table in Arneson & Snider's Adventures in Fantasy. I'll just quickly throw an image into in my dropbox if you want to see it...

Thanks for those. It's interesting that the overall theme of that table is fundamentally reversed; increasing searchers increases the chance of being spotted there, as opposed to D&D Vol-3 where increasing pursuers decreases the chance of being caught.

Oct 18, 2019 18:10:36 GMT -6 derv said:

IMO, I think this system makes more sense if viewed from Arneson's methods of populating hexes (A similar system for evasion exists in AiF).

? ? ? <shrug>

[linebeck]

I reworked the table on page 20 for clarity:

Party size      Chance of Evading
                   A        B      C
1-3              50      70    90
4-9              30      50    70
10-24          15      30    50
25+              5       20    35

# Monsters Encountered / # Monsters Possible =
≥ 25 % = A
≥ 60 % = B

[linebeck]

Now convert the percentages from the table above to to a d6 roll (so we have game mechanical continuity with other tasks like searching for secret doors, hear noise, etc.):

Party size Chance of Evading (number or less on d6)
                A      B      C
1-3           3      4      5
4-9           2      3      4
10-24       1      2      3
25+          X      1      2

# Monsters Encountered / # Monsters Possible =
≥ 25 % = A
≥ 60 % = B

X = no chance of evasion unless the monster is surprised.
+1 if party is in the woods; double the number if the monster is surprised.
If the comparative speed is that one party is twice that of another +/- 1 (even if surprised)
A party can always evade on a roll of 1 when in the woods even if surprised.

I like this a lot as it makes everything simpler. Figure the average part is going to be 4-9 in size. They will in most cases be able to evade on a roll of 1 or 2 or fail on a roll of six so that means 50% of the time you can just have them roll d6 without doing any other calculations. Only if they roll a 3, 4, or 5 do you have to do the calculation dividing number of monsters encounter by the number possible. And in many cases you can eyeball that calculation. And it's all by the book (kind of)!

So a wildness encounter goes like this: first, roll for the encounter. Second, roll for surprise. If the party is surprised they cannot evade (unless in the woods or twice as fast as the monster, then they can evade on a roll of 1 (cumulative for both conditions)). If the party is not surprised ask the players if they want to try to evade. If they say yes, simply have them roll a d6 and in most cases a 2 or less will allow them to evade (otherwise adjust for the number and speed of monsters).

If they don't evade, ask if they want to run. If they say yes and the monster is as faster or faster, have them roll another 6 sided die. If the number is 3 or less (50%) they successfully flee. If not they can try to evade again from the new hex.

[delta]

Nov 5, 2019 13:53:44 GMT -6 linebeck said:

I reworked the table on page 20 for clarity:

Party size      Chance of Evading
                   A        B      C
1-3              50      70    90
4-9              30      50    70
10-24          15      30    50
25+              5       20    35

# Monsters Encountered / # Monsters Possible =
≥ 25 % = A
≥ 60 % = B

Funny, I just did this exact same thing a week ago today. Kind of baffling why that chart isn't just 2D like this, the data is obviously susceptible that format with a lot less repetitive text.

Now I'm debating what to do in conjunction with Arneson's rule in FFC that you only ever encounter 10-60% of monster numbers outside the lair. Should I still assess the percentage on the evasion table according to the full lair number, or the reduced wandering number?