|
Post by countingwizard on Sept 9, 2019 10:19:49 GMT -6
I'll have to take a look at the file to grok what you're saying here, but I think you mean that you're assigning baseline difficulty on the baseline monster vs. monster + leader types or monster + helping creatures/allies, etc., right? Using filters that should be pretty easy to fix, I think? Definitely curious to see your groups, as well!---I tend to think of the clean-up crew as a dungeon-level-independent group of monsters, for example, along with vermin: to my mind, both should largely appear throughout a mega-dungeon, regardless of the monster's level/HD vs. the dungeon's level. Are you taking into account rival NPC parties, as well? They're mostly level-independent too, now that I think about it (after the first few levels, per the DMG). I like your "working from the bottom up" approach---may have to give that some more thought for my Castle Greyhawk! Allan. I took the level designated by either the manual the monster came from (MM2, Fiend Folio), or based on the calculated XP that the DMG uses to designate the level of a monster. I'm using this level as a loose measure of difficulty to introduce monsters around that dungeon level, and to adjust the number of monsters appearing. In the monster manuals, sometimes the number appearing is for a lair, other times it is for wandering. I will probably look first to see if there is a number appearing listed on an existing wandering monster table and adjust from there based on actual level of the monster; or if the monster is not on a table, look up and decide if it is a lair. If it is a number relating to a lair I'll make up a judgementally arbitrary amount; I have the feel for which monsters appear alone or in small groups, and which ones appear in large numbers and grow exponentially the deeper they are encountered. A few of my level assignments were to a group (like giant bees or aspis), and may have been more judgmental instead of by a set rule. For bees, if worker bees are present I pretty much know that some soldier bees are going to be interspersed (but at fewer numbers than found deeper). For aspis the opposite is true since the lower level larva and (females?) are specifically noted as rare, so I assigned them the level of the common appearing aspis type. As far as filtering to correct entries, several "group" specific entities like bandit leader types F-M/CLR/M-U, Aspis types, Dragon HD sizes are all missing and would need to be added. My thought was to save myself some time, and if I added a monster of that type I would reference what HD size or type is appropriate for that level in the monster manual entry. My monster category groupings reflect the info I need to build and stock my dungeon (greek & weird fiction). I actually have a separate list of unique monster names that don't appear in the known monster lists, but I wanted to limit their use in the campaign. Stuff like Medusa's two sister-types, each possessing different sets of powers that aren't petrification; and the truly gargantuan weird eldritch horrors that can be found deeper within the dungeon; levitating monsters the size of whales floating through dark caverns, jelly fish types, and keening horrors. Rival NPC parties will be part of the Unique encounter subtable for each level. I haven't landed on a methodology for generation yet. This is going to be a convention campaign dungeon I will run 3 or 4 times a convention, so I'm thinking about recording the different parties that embark into the dungeon and recording the individual characters in each party; and just building an encounter list using just those and dead characters. I also want to include some of non-adventurer parties such as the clerics, f-m, and m-u groups that can be found in the LBBs and Monster & Treasure Assortments. My feeling is that those are usually groups of same-class characters supported by henchmen or hirelings/mercenaries. Jimm Johnson suggested I build this dungeon from the bottom up and I finally arrived at the conclusion that he is right. I want players to find more novelty and things of interest the deeper they go, and I have found that with other mega-dungeons the top down approach runs out of steam after the first two or three levels of creativity. In addition it makes it possible to build clues, artwork, references, etc. if I have already placed the object/creature in the dungeon. There will be a handful of artifact level items to be found throughout the dungeon; and the core conceit of adventuring into the dungeon will be to recover "The Palantir of Ouranos" (i.e. the Amulet of Yendor) that was cast into the depths of the abyss. As far as building my encounter tables, I have to rely more on Holmes than AD&D for probabilities and structure. The way that the encounter probability chart is built assumes that monsters from a dungeon level are found across the entire dungeon level (even if they are side areas or alternate areas). With Holmes I'm able to be a bit more flexible and build out a set of monsters for each area, and then include a chance of monsters from connecting areas appearing in the current area. My structure is currently: 1. Random roll for encountering monster from different connecting areas (d12). Options are: same level, 1 area away, or 2 areas away. If it is an area away, I assign the possibilities a number and roll randomly to determine. Same if it is two areas away, but requiring two rolls. 2. I want my encounter tables to have at least 12 slots. 1 result is reserved for the Cleanup Crew subtable, and 1 result is for a unique encounters subtable. Some areas are not suitable for cleanup crew or unique encounters, so I will replace them with specific monsters. My cleanup crew table is the same set of monsters no matter what level they appear on, but my unique encounters subtable is specific to the area.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Sept 9, 2019 7:26:11 GMT -6
Using my new monster list I was able finish mapping out the vertical side-view of my dungeon and the connections between them. 14 layers (or levels if you prefer), 29 levels (or areas if you prefer).
Still to-do before NTRPG Con 2020: 1. Fill out wandering encounter tables for each level. 2. Fill out unique encounter tables for each level. 3. Describe the unique features, general features, lairs, and any unique tricks or traps to be found in each level; working from bottom to top. (Most of this is in my head, scribbled in my journal, or scattered in electronic notes on googledrive.) 4. Map each level working from bottom to top. 5. Draw/commission the map of the city of Partholon that lays atop the megadungeon. 6. Write up sets of rumors to be unlocked and disbursed the deeper adventuring parties go. 7. Create a new Planet Eris DM Screen.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Sept 9, 2019 7:16:52 GMT -6
Alright. So I finished my list. I made it by level and category (personal). I also included detail. drive.google.com/open?id=1jTMiJXr9mD8ut13OULb2VzNDSfM0nKNiOeIujy6cpTQMy methodology was to assign a specific level to each monster to base monsters off of for difficulty/number appearing modifications, but for structured groups with many different creature types/components such as bandits, formians, and giant termites I did not specify the individual types and only indicated the level at which they appear as a group. If I had to do it all over again, I would go through each of the monster manuals alphabetically and spell out the name of each monster exactly how it appears, and then add in the monsters unique to the encounter tables (such as Cleric Vampire and M-U Vampire). Because I started using the AD&D encounter tables, and then the MMII custom encounter tables, the way I spelled out monster names is inconsistent with the books in many cases. I would also list the level of each individual monster for those "structured groups" I mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Sept 5, 2019 9:11:09 GMT -6
Believe it or not I started with that MM2 section, but it leaves out a lot of monsters from the wilderness and changes some of the levels. Ended up going through each book and monster listing individually. I'll post it when I finish up.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Sept 4, 2019 11:18:36 GMT -6
I think the pack portion has too much rigid structure to it (especially the top part), and the way it bulges out makes it look like a carry-on.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Sept 4, 2019 10:18:41 GMT -6
I kind of want to gauge what peoples thoughts are on the use of these creatures in D&D, both as a referee using them and as a player encountering them.
For me, the use of these moral incarnations are kind of hokey. I avoid using them in my games because I don't really care about setting up a story of good vs evil and I don't want players to walk away from a game feeling like they just had to sit through a common trope. I'd rather my players face off against the weird. But a few evil incarnations are super weird. Lovecraftian weird. So I always keep a list of these in my back pocket to pull out anytime I want to challenge the players with something powerful, alien, and unknowable.
As a player, I really hate encountering demons. The bubble of darkness they emit is very dry and orderly if implemented by the exact rules. That ability feels very bland and predictable, and is just more annoying than it is scary or challenging. The demon's ability to gate in others (and stronger) of its kind is also annoying and seems unreasonable due to how frequently it can do this and the probability that gated in demons will gate in more demons, and so on in a daisy chain effect. Usually when I encounter a demon in a game, I'm thinking of ways to avoid it so that I don't have to sit through an hour or more of the bullnuts it is going to take to resolve the gating and the missing of attacks due to magical darkness.
I'm thinking about integrating demons a bit more into my next dungeon, intermixing them alongside undead and giving them more of a greek "daemon" flavor. I'm considering ditching the bubble of darkness effect and replacing it with an farther reaching effect that extinguishes torches and "light" spells within a certain range, while dimming and reducing the range of light from lanterns and "continuous light". I'm also considering changing the physical forms and descriptions of some of the demon types, making them more ethereal/smokey and amorphous but still effected by the same weapon types.
As for the gating issue, I think AustinJimm's Planet Eris setting solves it for me. Any time there is a chaos incursion the Gods of Law can intervene. I would interpret gating as a chaos incursion since those demons weren't invited into the world by mortals. Then as a referee, all I have to do is make a judgment about whether the demons are going to stick to the Chaos/Law neutrality pact or whether I'm going to blow up the battle and start summoning in heavy weights and gods to fight alongside the players.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Sept 3, 2019 10:25:44 GMT -6
Interesting note: I spotted the hexagonal corridor shape in Beastmaster as well. It's used in the Temple/Ziggurat of Ar. youtu.be/iWvBtiuhi50?t=129
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Sept 3, 2019 10:12:23 GMT -6
Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of AD&D monsters from MM1, FF, and MM2 that also lists the level of the monster? Unfortunately, not me. I have a spreadsheet of all the AD&D monsters and even made columns for XP/level, but never filled them in! Yeah. Google turned up Echohawk's spreadsheet, but that doesn't have xp or level for the AD&D stuff.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Sept 3, 2019 8:01:32 GMT -6
So I've read through all the monster guidance you guys have given me and it has been a very spiritual journey. Last week I decided to base my dungeon monster lists off of AD&D. From what I can tell the benefits are: - AD&D has a more comprehensive monster list than any other OSR source except maybe BECMI.
- AD&D has a very structured approach to assigning monsters to a specific level based upon experience rewarded for defeating that monster.
- AD&D has stronger guidance on the number of monsters appearing at each level vs. the level of monster.
- The AD&D difficulty is still just as arbitrary regarding difficulty due to the ambiguous nature of special abilities. Difficulty is uneven (which is to be valued since it challenges expectations).
- Monsters are spread across a wider spectrum of levels; a benefit to me since my megadungeon will be more than 10 levels.
- I can still use OD&D stats, which create more uneven difficulties, but aren't drastically different.
My goal is to build a dungeon design tool resource where I can group monsters by personal categories, level, and source. At a glance, I want to be able to look at the level 1 roster for the Monster Manual and see a list of all the monsters partitioned by category; or filter out to show the lists within 2 or 3 levels of the level I'm working on. My rule of thumb is probably going to be something like: a monster listed for a level 1 or 2 deeper can build a lair or have a unique room appearance in the shallower level, but they will not appear on the wandering list except at the level they are listed, or in very small numbers one level higher.
Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of AD&D monsters from MM1, FF, and MM2 that also lists the level of the monster? I haven't been able to find one looking through Dragonsfoot and K&K Alehouse on my own. As a result, I spent this past weekend building a big spreadsheet trying to figure out the levels, until I realized they are listed for each monster in FF and MM2, but not included in MM1. Thankfully Delta pointed out I can still figure out their level by using their calculated XP and referring to the big monster list with stats at the back of the DMG; but a few monsters from the MM1 are still missing and I've had to manually calculate their minimum values.
If I'm the trailblazer, I guess it's important to show how I came up with the numbers rather than just putting down what I feel is correct; so I can share it with the community.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Aug 28, 2019 14:01:37 GMT -6
I've been making my way through the AD&D DMG Monster Level Tables and the earlier M&TA listings/summaries, and I have to say that Gary had absolutely no rule of thumb when it comes to "monster level". It has been incredibly difficult to tease out the two things I want for building encounter tables: 1. At what dungeon levels is it appropriate to introduce each monster. 2. What is an appropriate amount of monsters appearing for each dungeon level. My tendency is to to give conservative numbers since this is an exploration game, and there are static encounters built in already. At the moment I'm trying to build my encounter tables as a list of d8, d10, d12, or d20 results that are specific for that dungeon level/area; with a rare occurrence indicating the use of a side-dungeon table or tables from the level above or below. Does anyone have any advice or insight about monster level or appropriateness of number appearing? I'm not sure if your question if after looking at the text/table on the bottom of DMG p 174 and very top of p 175? I.e., you've read that and are looking for more/different info? Yeah, the info about how to adjust and stuff is clear there for AD&D, but it is vaguer the more you move towards U&WA. I'm chasing after an answer that exists somewhere between the LBBs and codified AD&D; that leans more towards OD&D. I'm starting to think I'm stuck in the weeds and need some perspective again. My perception was that AD&D uses tougher monsters with more HD, reduces the number appearing, and has a slightly different set of monsters (ex: snakes, spiders, apes, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Aug 28, 2019 8:55:37 GMT -6
I've been making my way through the AD&D DMG Monster Level Tables and the earlier M&TA listings/summaries, and I have to say that Gary had absolutely no rule of thumb when it comes to "monster level". It has been incredibly difficult to tease out the two things I want for building encounter tables:
1. At what dungeon levels is it appropriate to introduce each monster. 2. What is an appropriate amount of monsters appearing for each dungeon level. My tendency is to to give conservative numbers since this is an exploration game, and there are static encounters built in already.
At the moment I'm trying to build my encounter tables as a list of d8, d10, d12, or d20 results that are specific for that dungeon level/area; with a rare occurrence indicating the use of a side-dungeon table or tables from the level above or below.
Does anyone have any advice or insight about monster level or appropriateness of number appearing?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Aug 25, 2019 10:20:24 GMT -6
Daggerfall Unity is the original Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall game (open-source now) rebuilt in the modern Unity engine. Their Unity port is open source, but I don't think Daggerfall is; I think they're just reverse-engineering everything. A pretty impressive feat. There was another project called XLEngine (which also appears to be open source now), but I don't think they've updated in a while. You're right. Daggerfall is free. Daggerfall Unity is free and open source.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Aug 23, 2019 16:31:02 GMT -6
Hmm, a thought I have on paper thin walls (my preferred style): Actually walls are 2' thick, assume any edge with a line on it protrudes 1' on either side of the graph paper line. Thus a 10' corrridor is actually 8' wide and a 5' corridor is actually only 3' wide (which is still quite reasonable)... Continue to describe things in 5' and 10' increments, just take into account actual dimensions when relevant. Or if you really want to keep 10'ish and 5'ish wide passages, make the squares 2 yards instead of 5 feet or 4 yards instead of 10 feet (and using meters instead of yards works too). Of course I would then change everything like ranges, movement rates, and area of effects from 1" is 10' to 1" is 2 yards (or 2 meters). Now your passages are still as wide as you expect, and the game works as expected. The great thing about D&D is that the 8' wide corridors can still be 10' wide because it's about ease of use and abstractions rather than exactitude, and contradictions don't matter in the tesseract of our imagination.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Aug 22, 2019 8:38:54 GMT -6
Recently Daggerfall Unity has entered the alpha phase and is feature complete and fully functional. Daggerfall Unity is the original Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall game (open-source now) rebuilt in the modern Unity engine. There are still some minor bugs to be patched and tweaks to be implemented before it enters beta, but I have spent a significant time with it lately and found it to be crash-free and near-perfect except for some of the mundane parts of the questing system. Link: www.dfworkshop.netI bring this topic up because I have found the dungeon crawling experience of the game to be surprisingly close to OD&D. Daggerfall features a mix of procedurally-generated dungeons and hand-crafted dungeons filled with what can sometimes feel like a random assortment of monsters. Crypts and such will contain various types of undead to be sure but bears, giants, centaurs, etc. are also intermixed at random within these dungeons. You may even run into the occasional Daedroth, which can easily be mistaken for an Orc or Lizardman, but which are only vulnerable to mithril weapons (+3 or stronger) and spells. The new Unity version is exceptionally moddable, and I expect it will have a flourishing modding community within no time. I wanted to share with you some of the excellent dungeon design novelties I've experienced with the game. To be sure, this game also does have it's detriments such as overly complex verticalities which make it impossible to map, too many empty rooms where treasure and monsters would normally be expected, and a relatively small list of monsters that make an appearance. Also, for whatever reason, Zombies are far more dangerous than the other undead, and are even perhaps slightly more powerful than Vampires. 1. Water as an Obstacle/Barrier/Gateway: It took me awhile before I encountered a dungeon that utilized water, but my first encounter with it was a passage that was partially flooded and had to be waded through. In OD&D, shallow water is incredibly dangerous because it can conceal pits that can drown you, and hide all kinds of slimes and other creatures that possess the ability to quickly dispatch a character regardless of their level. In this game, it was more environmental dressing...until a branch in the corridor descended beneath the waterline. An entire section of the dungeon was set beneath the water, with various halls and compartments fully submerged, and a few sections rising back above the waterline. An entire section of the dungeon was locked away behind this water barrier, with no guarantee that there would be enough air to make it to through these areas. In addition, slaughterfish were a constant danger (being the only underwater threat in daggerfall). 2. Multiple Complex Branching Paths: This is a far cry from the modern iterations of The Elder Scrolls games, like Skyrim, which frequently only have one path and maybe one or two short branches that dead end and an exit point or secret shortcut back to the entrance. Daggerfall dungeons are wildly complex mazes of rooms and corridors that integrate short loop-backs and multiple major sections. You can get lost, some large dungeons can feel impossible to explore in entirety, and all paths eventually dead end. My only regret is that there weren't entrances into deeper levels at the end of some of these branches, and that the reward upon reaching the end of some of these branches was not commensurate with the effort. I did come across one remarkable dungeon layout I would like to share with you. When you enter this Crypt, the first room you encounter is a large square normal looking room with several Stone Sarcophagi. All of their lids can be opened, and two of them contain pits that drop into a different room. One of the rooms is a short dead end with valuable treasure and a complex trap where opening the one door exit causes the empty throne in that room to slide across the floor and knock you through the door and into a pit-shaft beyond (to your death). That branch is a literal dead end, which you cannot climb out of or escape from without the aid of magic. The other sarcophagus pit drops you down into a stairwell that leads to a room with many (~8) doors and some very deadly zombies. Most of those doors lead to short branching pathways, usually two or three corridors that dead-end with a room or two at the end, and one which loops back around to one of the doors in the many-doored room. One of the doors leads deeper into the dungeon, eventually coming to a surprisingly organic looking set of small caves. It is easy to overlook one of the cave branches, and find yourself coming to one of the two other short branching paths that return to normal stonework dungeon and a few series of rooms. However, if you take that third cave branch, you will eventually find yourself in a large open square stonework room with a low ceiling, that is bisected by a deep crevasse cave. If you are able to cross the room, you can enter a door that leads to a series of 2 more rooms. If you descend into the crevasse, you will discover the biggest feature of this dungeon. The crevasse is a large cave tunnel that bisects an enormous length of the dungeon. At least ~5 separate large square stonework rooms sit on top of the crevasse as it winds its way through the dungeon. Climbing or taking a carved path up the sides and exploring these rooms shows most of them to be entirely unconnected to the other sections of the dungeon apart from the crevasse, and the only way to exit the dungeon is to re-enter the crevasse and climb your way back to that first stonework room the crevasse was discovered in. And these are not shallow branching paths. It took me around two hours to fully explore this complex web of branching and interconnecting rooms and passages. There were many major room features along the way as well. A secret necromancer cult temple, several "lodge" looking rooms, torture rooms, a gigantic throne room, etc. 3. Levers, Elevators, and Empty Shafts: Throughout many of these dungeons there are elevators that can be operated by a nearby lever. I got used to using these so frequently, that when I came upon an empty shaft, I was looking for the elevator lever to bring the platform up/down where none existed. I almost missed the fact that I was expected to climb up some of these empty shafts into the complex of tunnels and room beyond. These levers also sometimes control portcullis that block a passage, or shifting walls that move to reveal more dungeon to explore. Only once did I come upon a door I could not open. It appeared to be interactable, and it said it was locked, but smashing the door was ineffective no matter how long I sat there. That particular door had an oversized door texture, so I believe it may have been bugged. 4. Magical Devices (fixed in place): I have only encountered this once, but clicking on a wall tapestry by accident eventually caused me to cast a spell. I suspect this was some sort of hidden roll based on my spellcasting skill (I was a barbarian), but it caused me to be enchanted by "flight" and allowed me to escape from the sarcophagi pits. I think it is very novel to place magical devices in places that allow access to paths that could be accessed in no other way. I recall Austinjimm doing this in his Vampire Queen dungeon by placing magical runes above a rat-hole in a wall and by reciting what they said you could shrink yourself small enough to explore a large maze of rat tunnels beyond and obtain a sizeable treasure. 5. Secret Doors: This is just something that is at the core of D&D, but there are lots of secret doors in Daggerfall. Sometimes they lead to a new room, sometimes they connect to a different branching corridor, sometimes they are the beginning of a new branch of the dungeon. Daggerfall is hit or miss with secret doors though. Sometimes the textures are perfect and there is no way to detect that a door exists without clicking on the wall randomly. Other times the texture is mismatched and the shape of the door is clear. Secret doors are not always placed where they are expected. Sometimes they are at the end of a dead end hallway, other times they are in a room, and other times they are just along the way. Two things I found interesting: sometimes the secret doors are locked, and sometimes the secret door is integrated into an oddly shaped passage wall. Many of the hallways in daggerfall are of odd shape, hexagonal, with shallow angles, short bottom sides and longer top sides of the hexagon. Secret doors built into these walls integrate the angled shape, appearing where you wouldn't expect them to. As I make my way through the game I hope to uncover even more novelties to share with you guys.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Aug 22, 2019 6:30:17 GMT -6
The thing about "empty rooms" is: they should not be empty...I'd argue that you should always have something to do, even in those "empty" rooms. Absolutely true. Some rooms should be empty just to keep players honest (while giving them a bit of stress relief to alleviate burnout from constantly being in mortal peril...it really does add up after a few sessions). But most "empty" rooms should have something to do...useful information to be gained from reading inscriptions or viewing murals on the walls, secret doors that provide easier or more direct access to locations, old adventurer camp sites which might contain a very few things they can add to resupply their stock of goods (a pint of lamp oil, a wineskin of rank but potable water, a couple rusty but still usable iron spikes, etc), or even tracks or a trail recently left by a monster lairing nearby. As for "paper thin walls" (as posted by Delta), the mapping program I use (Dungeoncrafter v 1.4.1) is based on 20x20 squares (when blown up to 800% in MS Paint) with a basic grid that is 2 "dots" wide. In a typical 10 ft square map, that means each grid line is 1 ft wide. I add 1 ft on each side to make actual walls more distinct from the grid, which results in 3 ft thick walls spread over 20 ft (meaning the grid line is 1 ft, the 10 ft square on the left contributes 1 ft, and the 10 ft square on the right does the same). I'm sure that, due to material strengths and all that, this would be insufficient for realistic, large underground complexes, but at least for me it adds enough realism while allowing "paper thin walls". But why is it even necessary? I'm not sure why, but for some reason I find that adding a full square (10 ft) between two rooms, or a room and a hall, often is rather aesthetically displeasing as I'm creating the map. I certainly don't want to just fill every square on the map with rooms and halls, but for some reason four interconnected rooms all separated by a full square just looks bad, or maybe amateurish, or maybe lazy...kinda like a picture that has been oversized and pixelated (thus looks like 8-bit rather than 32-bit or better). I think paper-thin walls feel more organic. You can fit much more dungeon onto a sheet of paper; there are no rules or expectations about how the dungeon is going to be laid out; if you can't get to a unexplained gap it may be because it is a secret room or passage, or just solid terrain. Using paper-thin walls you can still keep to reasonable simulated architectural methods: outer walls are thicker, support beams and pillars throughout the interior, etc.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Aug 22, 2019 6:22:09 GMT -6
What would be a great improvement in retro gaming would be some sort of webpage with a list of buttons and sliders to choose game options. Then, press a button and they generate a PDF of the OSR game featuring only the options selected. It's not that hard, technically, but would take a big investment of time to write all the possible sections. This would be amazing. Would take some management to curate and consolidate rules to prevent duplication, and implement dependencies, but I believe this would be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Aug 6, 2019 13:33:02 GMT -6
I've learned quite a lot while putting together a framework for dungeon building using the tools of the period. For example OD&D has lots of guidance on f**king over the mapper and thinks its hilarious to teleport the group without informing the group. The JG modules I've examined in detail f**k over the mapper with room descriptions that are off by 1'. You get rooms like are 39'x30', but the hallways and adjacent rooms are left unmodified so the ref map works but the player map is f**ked. From what I can tell, Gygax loved this sh*t.
Another interesting thing are the Frontier Forts of Kelnore. AD&D 1e DMG has a table full of all kinds of trick and trap ideas including teleports or more complex room sized traps that are good for general dungeon design. The JG products (Tegel Manor specifically) have maps with traps indicated across them, but not the nature of the trap. These maps also have other trap type things indicated in detail, like one way teleporters, one way doors, etc. So what are we supposed to use for general traps? The Frontier Forts of Kelnore introduces a trap table that determines what those general traps are on the map when encountered. Not to mention the Frontier Forts of Kelnore also introduces some light randomized dungeon design elements of its own.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Aug 6, 2019 13:28:15 GMT -6
Yeah. Good job. Work them over with a nice and deadly dungeon.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jul 18, 2019 12:31:14 GMT -6
I'm probably re-treading some material here, but I was thinking out loud about Thieves the other day on /r/osr. Basically some people seemed upset that the introduction of the Thief class somehow takes away capabilities from other players. What occurred to me then, that applies to this conversation, is that with the introduction of the Thief class, the rules for how to adjudicate certain actions were formalized. One important inference is that Thieves get better at Thieving with experience, Normal-types don't. So. A referee then must choose which method to use for the non-Thieves: - Adjudicate use of Thief skills for non-thieves as a level 1 or 0 Thief, with reduced effect (backstab to-hit/damage) or inability to perform (climbing sheer surfaces/hiding during combat).
- OR use the original OD&D way, for non-thieves, of adjudicating an action that hasn't been spelled out in the rules. And remember variety trumps monotony.
For example here are some rules of thumb (for non-thieves) I just made up for illustration:
- Pick Pockets: Player makes a d6 dex check (like a d6 open doors), target makes a standard surprise check (d6).
- Move Silently: Declare you want to move silently. When monster is encountered, grant a surprise check (d6).
- Pick Locks: Player makes a d100 dex check (equal or under to dex).
- Remove Small Trap Devices: Player makes a d100 dex check.
- Hide in Shadows: 0% unless you are considering this as just hiding in place during normal exploration, in which case it doesn't take skill it just happens and there is a d6 surprise check to see if a monster notices you.
- Climb Sheer Surface: Player makes a d100 dex check.
- Hear Noise: Standard d6 listening check for nonhumans (success on a 1).
- Read Languages: Players read whatever languages they already know. Or spend time outside the adventure learning new ones.
- Read Magic: Still limited only to magic-users and clerics.
- Strike Silently from Behind: Only possible if target is surprised when the encounter first occurs, those attacking from behind receive a +4 attack bonus a deal twice as much damage (or don't get a damage bonus).
Using these rules, the chances of success for a level 1 thief vs any unskilled person are:
- Pick Pockets: 20% vs 11%
- Move Silently: 20% vs 33% if non-thief. Ok this one is a bit wonky.
- Pick Locks/Foil Magical Closures: 15% vs 18% at best, but the Thief is able to open magically locked doors as well.
- Remove Small Trap Devices: 10% vs
- Hide in Shadows: This feature may be unique to Thieves, since I interpret it as the ability to hide from view during combat. Basically use anytime the group is noticed by a monster to determine the Thief's separate chance of remaining unnoticed.
- Climb Sheer Surface: 87% vs 18% at best.
- Hear Noise: 33% vs 17%
- Read Languages: This feature is unique to Thieves.
- Read Magic: This feature is unique to Thieves, but similar to M-U and Clerics and of lesser effectiveness.
- Strike Silently from Behind: Thieves able to attack from behind repeatedly during a battle, and their attacks from behind get more effective as they level.
I might add dex bonuses to the rolls if my game doesn't have a Thief class.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jul 17, 2019 11:14:30 GMT -6
I think for me currently there's two things at the forefront of my thing re: design advice in the LBBs. (1) How very quickly the original designers seemed veer off from the advice in Vol-3, i.e., "As a general rule there will be far more uninhabited space on a level than there will be space occupied by monsters". For published modules, maybe S3 resembles that, but nothing else does. The most popular/successful examples, e.g., G1-3, are distinctly the opposite of that. (Nonetheless that advice seemed to be sticky through later rulesets, even though the sample dungeons tend not to resemble it.) (2) How dependent the treasure (and hence PC leveling rate) is on pure DM fiat. There's multiple signals that the lettered Treasure Types should be used only for wilderness, not dungeons. Yet many people used them for dungeons and seemed pretty happy with it, of course. Another random thing is I think I would encourage a person to develop a dungeon architecture style that is sympathetic with the tools they have available. E.g. if you have graph paper and a pencil, maybe "thin wall style" is good. If you have ink & brush, maybe something different. If you have a computer paint program, maybe yet another style suggests itself. I prefer thin walls for pen-and-paper myself, although I do switch to thicker walls if there is an aesthetic purpose for it. I've run into this problem when trying to create digitally explorable versions of D&D maps, like through grid cartographer or minecraft. To me, paper thin walls are actually ~5ft thick and don't take up corridor space. I just chalk up the mapping errors from how this fits or adjusts the dungeon geometry as a "built-in" mapping error and accept the contradictory nature of them. I've actually been designing my dungeons to be easier to describe, show visually, or generally make easier to map. I refuse to use complex geometry anywhere except in caves. I've also tried creating dungeons with as much empty space as vol. 3 guidance tells me to, but it's just plain boring. Empty rooms should be the exception, not the rule. Players should have things to interact and play with, even if no treasure or monsters are involved. That's why I like tricks so much. My school of thought is that dungeon level treasure guidance are for inhabited rooms (and that other empty room but guarded by traps type of rooms), not lairs. If I put a lair in a room/area, you better d**n well expect similar numbers of monsters and treasure rewards. I usually scale down the number of monsters in the lair since the lair is already in a dungeon full of monsters.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jul 17, 2019 10:55:24 GMT -6
I believe you can compromise on many of the mechanics of D&D and still come out with a game that is basically just a preferred or house ruled version. But I believe a compromise on any of the following points disqualifies a game from being D&D: - It must have "dungeons" and "dragons". If you have one without the other, it isn't D&D. The "dungeon" must be any unsafe place, be it an underworld, a building, or an unknown wilderness to be explored. The "dragon" must be any obstacle that needs to be overcome to obtain a reward. Those obstacles can be monsters, dungeon design, wilderness hazards, physical barriers, etc; and the reward can be safety, gold, experience, or some mechanical benefit for the character
- The success of every meaningful action must be randomly determined.
- There must be a form of character progression, where the more time a character has been played, the better they get (in some sort of mechanical way). A level-less and skill-less rulesystem would need to rely on characters getting better items to use as they play.
- At least one person must take on the role of a referee (or DM), and not have a player character in the game they are running.
- The players in the game must have a cooperative goal.
- The ref/dm must determine (or create) the content of the game and make rulings.
- Players must not have any control over the content of game outside of character actions.
You could change a few or several mechanics and it would still basically be the same game. But if you change enough of the rules, it stops being what the player signed up for or expected to play when you said you were going to run a game of D&D.edit: After giving it a bit more thought, if I had to quickly summarize what makes a game D&D; I would have to say this:OBSTACLES, EXPLORATION, & TREASURE TRAPS, TRICKS, MONSTERS, MAP, & TREASURE
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jul 17, 2019 7:27:42 GMT -6
This is going to be a cross-post with the K&K Forum community because I want a variety of opinions.
I am creating my first really large dungeon (and by large I mean 11+ floors, with a starting footprint of 4 sheets of graph paper, + an extra 2 sheets used to map a cave system). I've made a few tightly focused multi-floor dungeons before, usually sticking to OD&D material and doing my own thing without referencing much except the monster tables and the light guidance provided by the LBBs. But with such a large dungeon, I'm going to need to rely a little more on written sources to get my creativity percolating. I'm not familiar at all with B/X dungeon design, and I've only just began to skim over AD&D dungeon design, so I feel like I'm still very much in the dark as to what the strengths and weaknesses are of each resource. What I want to know is: "What do you like/dislike, or consider strengths/weaknesses, about dungeon designs built using the various original rulesets?" This includes the design guidance suggested in the rules themselves, as well as the published modules for each system.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jun 1, 2018 19:16:53 GMT -6
I'm starting a new campaign on roll20 using the Planet Eris House Rules for original edition D&D (Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures): app.roll20.net/campaigns/details/467137/planet-eris-od-and-d-house-rulesPlanet Eris is a custom campaign setting that involves a human-centric hyborian age world with a splash of John Carter and filled with weird fiction. Follow the link, join the campaign, post in the new campaign thread on the roll20 forum, and vote for a time and frequency. First game is coming up the weekend of June 16th.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 18, 2018 14:15:46 GMT -6
Now I understand what you were trying to tell me a few games ago. I like this more than a simple rest. I still want to implement premature aging though as a permanent side effect. I had some crazy aging rules I wrote up some time ago (useful for ghosts.) I'll see if I can find them. They might be useful for you, if only for comparison. Ah, these aren't the original rules I came up with, but they should do. They come from an old blog post. - No age states, other than informally (less than 18 = young, more than 65 = old.) Eliminates the need for a table like in AD&D.
- No penalties for age, it's just cosmetic until character dies of old age.
- After age 65, roll 1d6 anytime character gets sick. On 5+, character dies. Add +1 to roll for every 15 years.
- Also after age 65, roll 1d6 when recovering from injury. On 5+, the character never fully recovers and is left with a crippled arm or leg or addled brain.
Dwarves and elves have an effective age, comparable to human ages. Divide magical aging by three for dwarves, 10 for elves. If the campaign lasts long enough for natural aging to matter, add 1 year to effective age every 3 years for dwarves, 10 years for elves. Yeah I want to use something similar that ages you by 10 years per level drained, and have characters that can operate within a threshold of ages before they become too infirm or young to adventure. I'm not even sure the level drain needs to be temporary in effect either to use it. I age elves and dwarves the equivalent amount of years so they don't get off easy either though.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 15, 2018 14:39:55 GMT -6
geoffrey, I like the way talysman interprets it. Something like this: Life-energy (not level) drain causes you to function at the lower level, but does not affect XP accrued. Upon gaining any additional, new XP, one level is restored. So, for each level lost (mechanic) as part of life-energy drain (in game world) it takes another new accrual of XP to regain it. Example: Level 4 Hero 8K XP Life-energy drained by a vampire: functions as a level-2 FM. Somehow makes it back alive. Accrues 1K XP from treasure and kills. Now functions as level 3 FM. Heads back to dungeon. Accrues another 1K XP from treasures and kills. Now restored to full function as Hero. If you have accrued enough to level, you still have to make up for the lost levels before you get to enjoy the full benefits your XP gives. Sorry, that was long-winded. It is really simple but hard to explain succinctly (if you are me). Fight on! Now I understand what you were trying to tell me a few games ago. I like this more than a simple rest. I still want to implement premature aging though as a permanent side effect.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 14, 2018 9:26:59 GMT -6
So it seems that when the sword is first picked up, the more complicated influence check is used. Continuing use of the sword can either result in just a basic ego to character level comparison to determine if further checks are necessary. And further checks use the complicated influence check.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 14, 2018 7:50:40 GMT -6
countingwizard , the rules are, as in most cases, crazy to try to follow here. I like your reading of it and it is helping me to see new things, but there are some things I can see what you are seeing: How do you read it as Ego and NOT intelligence. What I see in my copy is Intelligence/Ego. Now that is equally mysterious. Is this a ratio? An either/or? Is it: the ratio of intelligence over ego is 6 or more points above . . . Or is it: either the intelligence or the ego is 6 or more points above . . . And then, above what? You say character level. But that is completely unclear to me. My copy just says "above that of the character who picts it up." What does that mean? Above the level, as you suggest? Above the characters intelligence/ego? Is that a ratio, or either/or? Either way, Ego is not a character statistic. So what is it referring to? How are you getting your reading of this being something to check every time the same person wields it? It makes sense, but it is not clear to me from the text. I see what you mean about a loop between your 3 and 4, but I can't see that actually coming into real play. The main thing that bugs me is how convulted the description is. Even you have to bring forward the "special purpose" information and interjected above where it is actually described in the rules. But that is, of course, in order to avoid the frustration of rolling everything only to turn the page, roll the dice, and find out that it actually has a special purpose after all! ... I see that I have been reading the rules incorrectly assuming that the initial control check was to be judged the same as the later ego influence check. Good call. But it makes sense that many of us would make that mistake. Fight on! I missed that on page 27 somehow. I revise my outline of the process. - Roll for basic sword type on the random magic sword table
- Determine alignment
- Determine if the sword has a special purpose
- If still necessary you determine the sword's intelligence and ego score
- If necessary determine primary powers, extraordinary abilities, and language
- Compare int+ego of sword to str+int of wielder (modify by physical condition?):
- If sword is 6 or more above that of the wielder, the sword controls the person, breaking any control spells, causing him to become aligned as the sword is, and causing immediate action such as a neutral would deliberately lie about its powers, while chaotic would attack. (or at least each alignment to react accordingly to the party)
- If sword is not 6 or more above that of the wielder, it is unclear what occurs. Should the probability chart be used? Should a struggle only occur in the next key situation?
From that point forward, it appears the ego score (not the int+ego) is compared directly to the level of the character wielding it on a continuing basis. - If one side is 6 or more, they always remain in control regardless of physical condition of the character, unless it is a sword with a purpose in which case going against the purpose requires an influence check [int+ego vs str+int].
- If one side is 2-5, only have an influence check during key situations.
- If one side is 0-1, influence check during each stressful situation.
I'm guessing that unless reacting to a key situation in which it is given away, the sword winning the influence check means that the player changes alignment and acts according to alignment under control of the sword.
The key situations are: - Better weapon present. Check failure: Sword leads wielder to pass it up.
- Great danger present. Check failure: Sword leads wielder into combat despite overwhelming odds.
- Higher level creature/character with a smaller absolute value level difference is present. Check failure: sword leads wielder to surrender the sword to the creature/character. (is this only of matching alignment, or will the sword literally kill everyone it meats with counter-alignment damage?)
- Lower level creature/character is present. Check failure: Sword leads wielder to surrender the sword to the creature/character. (same question as above)
- Treasure is being split amongst party members. Check failure: Sword receives a full share of the treasure as a character would.
Also found another interesting bit I hadn't noticed. So that means the physical state modifies the wielder's strength+intelligence score in the following way Condition | Effect | Hitpoints are greater than 90%, or character is fresh | +1d6 | Hitpoints are between 50-90%, or character is mentally/physically fatigued (excessive travel/movement?) | -1d4 | Hitpoints are less than 50%, or character under severe mental strain from some form of magic | -2d4 |
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 10, 2018 12:09:22 GMT -6
I mean we usually roll up the random treasure assortment when we encounter a treasure pile, and these tend to be towards the end of a session.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 10, 2018 0:40:41 GMT -6
I've got all the physical booklets. I read them over looking for something else a few months ago, but I wasn't paying attention to the magic sword rules at the time. I'll take a look.
For the longest time we've been trying to run it in the order its presented, but since we are rolling these up at the end of a 6-8 hour session, we're usually too brain dead to figure out wtf the book is trying to explain.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 9, 2018 20:02:26 GMT -6
I've read and reread these rules many times, but I'm just constantly confused because of how these rules are laid forth. If I understand it correctly, you: - Roll for basic sword type on the random magic sword table
- Determine alignment
- Determine if the sword has a special purpose
- If still necessary you determine the sword's intelligence and ego score
- If necessary determine primary powers, extraordinary abilities, and languages
From that point forward, it appears the ego score (not the int+ego) is compared directly to the level of the character wielding it, and during nearly every key situation unless the difference is 6 or more. - Sword Ego is 6 or more than character level: The sword communicates its abilities to the wielder, controls the wielder, changes the wielder's alignment to match its own, and acts appropriately for that alignment. When a key situation arises the sword will react as stated without contest.
- Sword Ego is 2-5 more than character level: 75% chance the sword does as above when first picked up, and 75% a sword is successful in key situations.
- Sword Ego and character level difference is only 0-1: 50% chance the sword does as above when first picked up, and each stressful situation triggers a check to see who takes control, with the sword taking control 50% of the time. Also will need to check for key situations at 50% sword success rate (even though this is not mentioned).
- Sword Ego is 2-5 less than character level: 25% chance the sword does as above when first picked up, and 25% sword is successful in key situations.
- Sword Ego is 6 or less than character level, or loses the struggle: Sword communicates its abilities to the wielder, but is under control while in the wielder's possession. The sword is never successful in key situations.
The more complex "influence of egoism" check only occurs with special purpose swords when, "...any attempts by their users to go counter to [the special purpose]..." And it appears the key situations are: - Better weapon present. Check failure: Sword leads wielder to pass it up.
- Great danger present. Check failure: Sword leads wielder into combat despite overwhelming odds.
- Higher level creature/character with a smaller absolute value level difference is present. Check failure: Sword leads wielder to surrender the sword to the creature/character.
- Lower level creature/character is present. Check failure: Sword leads wielder to surrender the sword to the creature/character.
- Treasure is being split amongst party members. Check failure: Sword receives a full share of the treasure as a character would.
Looking at this logic, key situation 3 and 4 appear to be in a cycle loop. For example, if the sword was ego 12 and a level 1 and a level 2 character were in a room together, they would stand there forever handing it back and forth unless one of them was killed by the alignment effects, or declined use of the sword. If they survived, and a level 12 finally entered the room, the sword would be given to them and finally be under control.
You would basically be cursed to haul a strong ego sword around offering it every single person you meet, and if someone excepts it, it becomes their burden unless they are just the right level or higher.
Weird stuff.
|
|