Wandering monster tables

[harlandski]

Is it just me, or are the OD&D wandering monster tables incredibly deadly on the first dungeon level? I mean there is only a 2 in 6 chance of encountering creatures from the first dungeon level, which is the same as from the second, and monsters from the third and fourth are also possible. Coupled with the fact that wandering monster checks happen every turn, with a 1 in 6 likelihood of occurring, this has meant my (often depleted and replenished) party of beginning adventurers spent most of the time running away, and has just been finally wiped out as cornered by four ghouls. (Incidentally I was using the number appearing from Holmes as a standardized form of the Monsters & Treasure suggestion to modify according to party strength.) So far in my solo dungeon adventures I have lost all but one of my characters as Mediums, Novices and Veterans, with only one cleric reaching Adept before death.

Do people who play really use these rules as printed with new characters, or do people soften them as per later editions? (With Holmes I believe it's 9 in 12 chance of first dungeon level monsters on the first dungeon level). What happened in the early days?

[aldarron]

Not just you. Yes, they are deadly. Check out Delta's post Here

[Deleted]

Yes, they are deadly.

That's the point.

STOP DITHERING.

It's amazing how many people never f***ing figure that out. Pull your thumbs out of your bums and get a move on!

[Starbeard]

Good topic. My suspicion has always been that these tables were never used as strict canon law. You can always ignore the column die roll, or change the numbers appearing and their hit point values, and in any case there's always the option of writing your own encounter table for specific levels or sections of a dungeon. You can choose to arrange the encounter so that the monster has minimal tactical advantage. There are always options, and I have no doubt that Gary and most everyone else used them.

But yeah, they're ludicrously deadly, any way you spin it. As Gronan says, the point of the random encounter table is to stress that time in the dungeon is precious, and wasting it will invariably lead to death. It also stresses that going in unprepared and without support (i.e., lots of guys to fight alongside you) is suicide.

(Minor ranting derail here): Just like Magic the Gathering, or Warcraft, or baseball, or chess, the real game of D&D isn't the individual session, the real game is the metagame. The point isn't to survive a dungeon, it's to improve your play from session to session: learning how to go in prepared, how to recognize risks, how to maximize your chances of running away safely, how to minimize the number of encounter rolls. Plenty of people complain about gamers who metagame, but an RPG at its core is a metagame. (Okay, rant over)

I've played a few solo campaigns of OD&D, B/X, and AD&D by the book, and in all cases the characters who survived were the ones who would gladly waste 10-20 expeditions without getting any kills or treasure. The volatile nature of the monster and treasure tables reinforce Napoleon's rule of the 3:1 advantage: it's all a game of scout-and-run, and it's folly to commit yourself until you know you have a guaranteed, decisive advantage (and a guaranteed reward at the end—no point in pitching battle if you know there's no reward).

[Zenopus]

The tables need to be viewed in context of the information that comes after including Number Appearing, Avoiding Monsters and Random Actions.

The Number Appearing section says that the basic number is a single creature if on the level corresponding to the dungeon level, so on the first level this is a single monster, except for certain types that travel in groups (Orcs, etc). So if you do get "Ghouls" on the first level, the basic number should be one, modified by party number, with a party of 4-6 doubling the basic number, so two. The M&TA assortments were done after Greyhawk, so the numbers included there should be viewed in context of the changes from that supplement.

Per Avoiding Monsters, unintelligent monsters will automatically close to attack but can be deterred with food or burning oil.

Intelligent monsters will respond according to the Random Actions table. This gives a positive reaction about 28% of the time (9-12 on 2d6) and uncertain about 45% of the time (6-8). An uncertain monster will probably not attack unless attacked first. And most of the classed types can be neutral or lawful; that's at least 3/10 of the 2nd level, 4/10 on the 3rd level table and 2/10 of the 4th level table.

[scottyg]

One of the constants in early play session stories is lots of running away. It was an expected part of play. Wandering monster encounters were often deadly and had little payoff.

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2018 0:23:08 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Good topic. My suspicion has always been that these tables were never used as strict canon law. You can always ignore the column die roll, or change the numbers appearing and their hit point values, and in any case there's always the option of writing your own encounter table for specific levels or sections of a dungeon. You can choose to arrange the encounter so that the monster has minimal tactical advantage. There are always options, and I have no doubt that Gary and most everyone else used them.

But yeah, they're ludicrously deadly, any way you spin it. As Gronan says, the point of the random encounter table is to stress that time in the dungeon is precious, and wasting it will invariably lead to death. It also stresses that going in unprepared and without support (i.e., lots of guys to fight alongside you) is suicide.

(Minor ranting derail here): Just like Magic the Gathering, or Warcraft, or baseball, or chess, the real game of D&D isn't the individual session, the real game is the metagame. The point isn't to survive a dungeon, it's to improve your play from session to session: learning how to go in prepared, how to recognize risks, how to maximize your chances of running away safely, how to minimize the number of encounter rolls. Plenty of people complain about gamers who metagame, but an RPG at its core is a metagame. (Okay, rant over)

I've played a few solo campaigns of OD&D, B/X, and AD&D by the book, and in all cases the characters who survived were the ones who would gladly waste 10-20 expeditions without getting any kills or treasure. The volatile nature of the monster and treasure tables reinforce Napoleon's rule of the 3:1 advantage: it's all a game of scout-and-run, and it's folly to commit yourself until you know you have a guaranteed, decisive advantage (and a guaranteed reward at the end—no point in pitching battle if you know there's no reward).

Your final paragraph should be tattooed inside the eyelids of every D&D player.

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2018 17:24:44 GMT -6 scottyg said:

One of the constants in early play session stories is lots of running away. It was an expected part of play. Wandering monster encounters were often deadly and had little payoff.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

[howandwhy99]

Wizards need to choose their spells for the day. That's at least a day's worth of planning.

Not a bad idea to avoid random, HP heavy, treasure absent, mindless, hungry, giant insects. But if that's what floats your boat...

[delta]

Thanks to aldarron's shout-out above. Yes, they are ludicrously deadly. Even Gygax himself radically softened them in AD&D -- arguably too much so.

You might be interested in checking out a 6-part series on my blog from earlier this year: Underworld Overhaul. It culminates in Part 6 with a recommended revised set of tables (which I've been using successfully for my campaign this year). The other parts walk through the analysis and testing of the revised tables. Even with this modification, you can still run a million fighters through the dungeon randomly and not have any of them reach name level. There's software on GitHub if you know Java and want to do your own testing.

[harlandski]

Dec 30, 2018 1:37:25 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

The tables need to be viewed in context of the information that comes after including Number Appearing, Avoiding Monsters and Random Actions.

The Number Appearing section says that the basic number is a single creature if on the level corresponding to the dungeon level, so on the first level this is a single monster, except for certain types that travel in groups (Orcs, etc). So if you do get "Ghouls" on the first level, the basic number should be one, modified by party number, with a party of 4-6 doubling the basic number, so two. The M&TA assortments were done after Greyhawk, so the numbers included there should be viewed in context of the changes from that supplement.

Per Avoiding Monsters, unintelligent monsters will automatically close to attack but can be deterred with food or burning oil.

Intelligent monsters will respond according to the Random Actions table. This gives a positive reaction about 28% of the time (9-12 on 2d6) and uncertain about 45% of the time (6-8). An uncertain monster will probably not attack unless attacked first. And most of the classed types can be neutral or lawful; that's at least 3/10 of the 2nd level, 4/10 on the 3rd level table and 2/10 of the 4th level table.

This is all useful information, thank you. I have read that paragraph about "Number of Wandering Monsters Appearing" 100 times before, but never understood it to mean one monster on the first dungeon level, two on the second - I thought it was talking about the Number Appearing numbers in vol. 2, which seem more appropriate for mass battles. If I had followed your reading, then my party would have survived, though with some paralyzed members, as we did defeat two ghouls.

We did use a lot of food running away from insects. I hadn't thought about oil.

I had been using the Random Actions by Monsters table for e.g. brigands, but otherwise was assuming "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." I see that use of the reaction table you mention would give some more chance of survival.

[harlandski]

Dec 29, 2018 21:45:06 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Yes, they are deadly.

That's the point.

STOP DITHERING.

It's amazing how many people never f***ing figure that out. Pull your thumbs out of your bums and get a move on!

Yeah, I definitely feel this pressure. For example it's a big decision to search a 10' area of wall for a secret door, as that takes a turn, and that means another wandering monster roll.

[harlandski]

Dec 30, 2018 17:24:44 GMT -6 scottyg said:

One of the constants in early play session stories is lots of running away. It was an expected part of play. Wandering monster encounters were often deadly and had little payoff.

Ok then I'm doing something right, as until we were cornered by the ghouls, we spent most of our time running away!

[harlandski]

Dec 30, 2018 0:23:08 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

I've played a few solo campaigns of OD&D, B/X, and AD&D by the book, and in all cases the characters who survived were the ones who would gladly waste 10-20 expeditions without getting any kills or treasure. The volatile nature of the monster and treasure tables reinforce Napoleon's rule of the 3:1 advantage: it's all a game of scout-and-run, and it's folly to commit yourself until you know you have a guaranteed, decisive advantage (and a guaranteed reward at the end—no point in pitching battle if you know there's no reward).

This is helpful. Several of my descents to the dungeon were purely reconnaissance, and it's good to hear some support for this.

In terms of solo play I'm interested to hear how you did this - does B/X also have random dungeon generation? I know the AD&D DMG does.

[Starbeard]

I don't think I'm aware of any dungeon generation tables that were published in the B/X, BECMI or RC lines. For the B/X campaign I began with the Mentzer sample dungeon, which has keyed encounters for the first level simply a map for the second level, with stairs to 'whatever you want to place below'. I figured the layout of the first two levels were common knowledge, and simply made a point of exploring the rooms to discover their contents. Wilderness adventures were conducted on the 'Sample Setting & Environs' of Karameikos map, and any previously unmapped dungeons used the AD&D tables, but with B/X stocking rules.

The OD&D dungeons were somewhat more oddball, with a mishmash of maps pulled from the internet or published modules, AD&D random dungeons, and random dungeons whose tables I made up as went along.

I know I must have had either made up or borrowed a table or two from other places that I can't remember, particularly on devising different types of dungeon genres. I know in my B/X game at one point I encountered an abandoned floating castle in the clouds, managing to climb a tree to anchor it with a grappling hook. That took up quite a few exciting sessions. The entrance was guarded by gargoyles who actually would've slaughtered the party, except during our scouting out the situation a hydra random encounter wandered onto the scene, and we remained unspotted. We sat back and watched the two monster groups duke it out, then waltzed into the castle after the gargoyles were killed.

[asaki]

What really bothers me about those tables is that they contain monsters that aren't detailed in any books.

[Fearghus]

Dec 30, 2018 0:23:08 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

I've played a few solo campaigns of OD&D, B/X, and AD&D by the book, and in all cases the characters who survived were the ones who would gladly waste 10-20 expeditions without getting any kills or treasure. The volatile nature of the monster and treasure tables reinforce Napoleon's rule of the 3:1 advantage: it's all a game of scout-and-run, and it's folly to commit yourself until you know you have a guaranteed, decisive advantage (and a guaranteed reward at the end—no point in pitching battle if you know there's no reward).

I can use tips on the above. How do you keep 10-20 expeditions funded during solo play (3d6 starting gold)?

On the topic of 3:1, I wholly agree.

[harlandski]

Jan 7, 2019 16:40:14 GMT -6 asaki said:

What really bothers me about those tables is that they contain monsters that aren't detailed in any books.

Apart from Thouls (which spawned many theories and in the end a monster), which ones bother you by their absence?

[Starbeard]

Jan 7, 2019 18:52:20 GMT -6 Fearghus said:

Dec 30, 2018 0:23:08 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

I've played a few solo campaigns of OD&D, B/X, and AD&D by the book, and in all cases the characters who survived were the ones who would gladly waste 10-20 expeditions without getting any kills or treasure. The volatile nature of the monster and treasure tables reinforce Napoleon's rule of the 3:1 advantage: it's all a game of scout-and-run, and it's folly to commit yourself until you know you have a guaranteed, decisive advantage (and a guaranteed reward at the end—no point in pitching battle if you know there's no reward).

I can use tips on the above. How do you keep 10-20 expeditions funded during solo play (3d6 starting gold)?

On the topic of 3:1, I wholly agree.

By being stingy, mostly.

With 3d6x10 starting gold, I try to have enough left over for at least 3 weeks at the inn at 1gp/night, preferably more. That's if you handle staying at the inn that way. There's a good argument for ignoring the costs of staying in town, subsuming that as part of the monthly upkeep cost of the character. Even then, there will eventually be a time where you have to start getting more aggressive with your expeditions because you're running out of money.

In the cases where I've had a PC run out of money, I've handled it a few different ways. One is to have them arrange a loan from another, more successful PCs (reaction roll & arranged method of paying back, for example: "at least 50% of all gains until it's paid off, plus 20% interest"). Another is to make them homeless (urban encounter check each day, which coincidentally might provide the opportunity for begging, a "pick pockets" check as though you were a thief to scrounge for food, and making up any rulings on exposure to weather as that occurs).

I've also tried a few "find a job" systems, pulled from Warhammer FRP, Heroes of the Dark Age, GURPS, etc, but I haven't yet found or devised my own go-to system for that.

Edit: I also tend to begin my solo campaigns with a nearby 'starter' dungeon, able to be explored as a day trip as long as you don't spend more than 4 hours or so in the dungeon. That can really help cut down on ration expenditures. I also have anywhere from 6-20 PCs rolled up in town at a time, so there are usually PCs around to substitute in case one I'm focusing on is laid up recovering for several days. That helps keeps the expeditions going more frequently. I typically don't do the thing where a single expedition always takes up at least a week of game time.

[asaki]

Jan 7, 2019 19:17:11 GMT -6 harlandski said:

Apart from Thouls (which spawned many theories and in the end a monster), which ones bother you by their absence?

I know a lot of these would later show up in M&T Assortment, but here's a list from U&WA:
Giant Rats, Centipedes, Spiders, Lizards, Thouls, Giant Hogs, Giant Ants, Giant Snakes, Giant Weasels, Giant Beetles, Giant Scorpions, White Apes...

Giant Toads, Giant Spiders, and Carnivorous Apes were added to Greyhawk's list.

[harlandski]

Jan 8, 2019 5:05:59 GMT -6 asaki said:

Jan 7, 2019 19:17:11 GMT -6 harlandski said:

Apart from Thouls (which spawned many theories and in the end a monster), which ones bother you by their absence?

I know a lot of these would later show up in M&T Assortment, but here's a list from U&WA:
Giant Rats, Centipedes, Spiders, Lizards, Thouls, Giant Hogs, Giant Ants, Giant Snakes, Giant Weasels, Giant Beetles, Giant Scorpions, White Apes...

Giant Toads, Giant Spiders, and Carnivorous Apes were added to Greyhawk's list.

I also came across these when playing, but I supposed that apart from Thouls (and possibly White Apes), they just come under Small Insects or Animals (Centipedes, Spiders, Lizards) or Large Insects or Animals (all the Giant ones, and maybe White Apes). Of course you have to then decide yourself exactly what stats to give them, but for me that's part of the fun. Generally it's hard (impossible?) to play OD&D without being willing to fill in the gaps in places.

For my own part I was briefly confused by conjurers etc. before I realised that they were just the level names from Men & Magic. The good thing about them is that they might be lawful, so not necessarily an immediate threat!

[coffee]

I don't have any particular response to the original post or the responses, but I would like to say to Harlandski that I'm enjoying these questions you ask! These show actual play of the game and the sort of questions new DMs often have.

Have you considered collating them into a New DMs Advice sort of document? I think there would be a use for that in the world.

[harlandski]

Jan 8, 2019 8:11:18 GMT -6 coffee said:

I don't have any particular response to the original post or the responses, but I would like to say to Harlandski that I'm enjoying these questions you ask! These show actual play of the game and the sort of questions new DMs often have.

Have you considered collating them into a New DMs Advice sort of document? I think there would be a use for that in the world.

Good to hear, thank you for your encouragement! I'm running my understanding of OD&D at a convention this weekend, so my thoughts are all taken up with that, but it's a good idea to prepare a document like you suggest, and I'll see what I can do after the con.

[asaki]

Jan 8, 2019 5:49:13 GMT -6 harlandski said:

Of course you have to then decide yourself exactly what stats to give them, but for me that's part of the fun.

I suppose, but judging from M&T Assortment (or even the Monster Manual), Gary had some very definitive stats and special abilities in mind for a lot of those monsters. I think most of them end up being a lot more dangerous than they would be just basing them on the "large/small insects" paragraphs. Obviously, he either neglected to stat them out in OD&D, or they just had to trim that kind of fluff to keep the page count down.

[Zenopus]

Since the M&TA assortments were not put together until 1976-77 (all were published 1977 or later), after several supplements were published and possibly after work on the Monster Manual had already started, it's just as likely that the specific details for the various "Animal" monsters in the tables were created later, as needed.

The general pattern of Gary's work on D&D is to mention something briefly and then expand on it in detail in a later supplement or edition. Cf. the treatment of gnomes; both as monsters (brief in OD&D, greatly expanded in MM) and as PCs (briefly mentioned in Greyhawk, expanded in PHB), and the treatment of their magic-use (rumored in MM, detailed in PHB).

[asaki]

Right. I was planning on comparing M&TA, to see how many stats change between OD&D, M&TA, and MM, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

I've been through a bit of the two different editions of M&TA, so I know a LOT of those stats changed (and a LOT of typos were corrected), but once I got to dungeon level 4, I realized that those two PDFs I had are just scans of the 1980 compilation, doctored to look like it's on green/blue paper.

[rsdean]

Jan 7, 2019 19:17:11 GMT -6 harlandski said:

Apart from Thouls (which spawned many theories and in the end a monster), which ones bother you by their absence?

You know, as an aside, I was in this for decades before I ever heard about this thoul thing; in my 4th printing UWA, it’s a “toad”...

[Starbeard]

As an aside to an aside, it can be fun creating new and unexpected descriptions for table entries that aren't detailed in M&T. Perhaps 'Thouls' are 'Souls with a lithp'?

[geoffrey]

Jan 9, 2019 5:23:34 GMT -6 rsdean said:

Jan 7, 2019 19:17:11 GMT -6 harlandski said:

Apart from Thouls (which spawned many theories and in the end a monster), which ones bother you by their absence?

You know, as an aside, I was in this for decades before I ever heard about this thoul thing; in my 4th printing UWA, it’s a “toad”...

In the 1st printing of D&D, the eighth result on the monster 2nd level table is "Toads". You will notice that the entry right above it is "Ghouls". In a later printing (don't know which one first had the "Thouls" typo) "Thouls" replaced "Toads" in a weird amalgam of two blunders. The person retyping it correctly started with a "T" and then his eyes wandered and he finished with "houls", thinking that he was supposed to be typing "Ghouls" (it being on his mind since he had just typed it), and thinking that he did. (The "T" and the "G" are right next to each other on the typewriter, and both are typed with one's left index finger.) What caused this momentary lapse? The sudden bark of a dog? The shattering of glass? An inconvenient fly? A nasty spider? Etc.

Later, the proofreader glided over "Thouls", noticing only the "T" that matched the "T" of "Toads".

Perhaps the most fertile typo in D&D history.