Post by oakesspalding on Aug 14, 2013 18:43:45 GMT -6
I'm creating a set of Wilderness Wandering Monster tables for Seven Voyages of Xylarthen and was struck by the ubiquity of Lycanthropes in the Little Brown Book tables. There is a 1 in 8 chance of meeting them in most terrain types-generally equal to the chances of meeting all other non-human humanoids combined-rising to 2 in 8 in Woods. Though, oddly, there is NO chance of meeting them in City. The expanded tables in Eldritch Wizardry reduce the chances to 1 in 12 (by virtue of having 12 rows instead of 8 for each table), but preserve the 25% for Woods (and they add them to City).
The only commentary that I've been able to find on this is Wayne Rossi's favorable remarks in his excellent series on the OD&D Setting.
Was this intentional? Were Lycanthropes this common in, say, Arneson's Blackmoor or Gygax's Greyhawk? Or was it simply an unintended result of quickly putting the tables together for print without thinking through the consequences of giving Lycanthropes their own category on a par with, say, Men or Giants (humanoids)?
Another consideration, of course, is that there weren't THAT many monsters in the Little Brown Books. There are only 57 distinct rows of monsters in the initial tables of Monsters & Treasure. (Though that presentation itself is a bit wonky-Goblins/Kobolds only get one line versus five lines for horses. Lycanthropes only get one line.) So, perhaps in context, 1 in 8 isn't THAT extreme. But still...
More to the point, is it a good thing? The intention of my treatment is to capture the spirit of OD&D, including reconstructing or reemphasizing a number of perhaps initially odd or wonky things that got lost or overwhelmed in AD&D. Or at least that's the intention subject to the proviso that nothing is so silly that it's obviously and overwhelmingly a net negative.
I did notice that the authors of Delving Deeper (which is in some ways a bit closer of an actual clone to what I want to do) seem to have made the decision to scrap the Lycanthrope thing, though they do preserve a number of other Little Brown Book oddities.
What do people think?
The only commentary that I've been able to find on this is Wayne Rossi's favorable remarks in his excellent series on the OD&D Setting.
Was this intentional? Were Lycanthropes this common in, say, Arneson's Blackmoor or Gygax's Greyhawk? Or was it simply an unintended result of quickly putting the tables together for print without thinking through the consequences of giving Lycanthropes their own category on a par with, say, Men or Giants (humanoids)?
Another consideration, of course, is that there weren't THAT many monsters in the Little Brown Books. There are only 57 distinct rows of monsters in the initial tables of Monsters & Treasure. (Though that presentation itself is a bit wonky-Goblins/Kobolds only get one line versus five lines for horses. Lycanthropes only get one line.) So, perhaps in context, 1 in 8 isn't THAT extreme. But still...
More to the point, is it a good thing? The intention of my treatment is to capture the spirit of OD&D, including reconstructing or reemphasizing a number of perhaps initially odd or wonky things that got lost or overwhelmed in AD&D. Or at least that's the intention subject to the proviso that nothing is so silly that it's obviously and overwhelmingly a net negative.
I did notice that the authors of Delving Deeper (which is in some ways a bit closer of an actual clone to what I want to do) seem to have made the decision to scrap the Lycanthrope thing, though they do preserve a number of other Little Brown Book oddities.
What do people think?