|
Post by delta on Jul 20, 2020 22:51:06 GMT -6
The Vol-2 monster reference table has its "% In Lair" column, but there's effectively no text describing exactly how that's meant to be used whatsoever. We know from p. 23 that treasure is only found in cases where the monster is in-Lair. The overall monster reference table seems designed just for outdoor encounters (footnote p. 4). The same points about wilderness emphasis and treasure only in-lair are reiterated in AD&D MM p. 5.
Frankly, I've been wrestling with how to use the "% In Lair" for years, and whatever I come up with always has spiraling logistical problems. So I'm wondering how most other people use it, and what the best practices are. For example, restricting to the wilderness adventure mode:
(1) If the monster is found "in lair", do you actually spawn a dungeon-type complex on the fly? Or is it kept more abstract?
(2) Do players have the choice of entering or avoiding said lair? Or are they automatically thrown into the encounter using normal rules?
(3) Once found, do you permanently log the location of the lair in your campaign notes? Can players return to it at a later date?
(4) If logged in the campaign notes, does the lair then change the distribution of wandering monsters in the neighboring region? (Perhaps similar to the castle rule 0-2 hex distance effect, in Vol-3, p. 15?) How so? Does the % In Lair modify this nearby wandering chance? (E.g., Nixies never found wandering because of 100% in-lair chance; while Griffons almost always outside with 10% in-lair chance.)
(5) If logged, and a different party travels through the hex, do they automatically spot the same lair? Sometimes? Never?
(6) If logged, is there any limit on number of lairs in a particular zone/hex? Or can they multiply without any bound?
It may be worth noting that Arneson in the First Fantasy Campaign suggested a modification in which (briefly) every single hex on the campaign map is pre-populated with 1-4 lairs, wandering monsters are only generated by the nearby lairs (with number appearing as a percentage of the lair), and annually the DM is supposed to run fights between all the neighboring lairs, modifying monster numbers and possibly migrating them around if lairs are emptied out. But that seems (a) wildly impractical, and (b) overlooks that many monsters in the roster have "Nil" in-lair chances (meaning that they'd never show up ever with this method).
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 20, 2020 23:52:25 GMT -6
The way I use it is: if PCs find a lair, the chance listed is the chance the monster is home at the time. An alternative: it's the percentage of occupants in the lair, versus patrols that are out and may return at any moment. Those listed as Nil don't have a lair or are found in the lairs of other creatures.
I think in some cases the % In Lair stat was set assuming the first idea, while in other cases the second idea was assumed, which would explain why the stat is kind of hard to figure out.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 21, 2020 2:34:58 GMT -6
The way I use it is: if PCs find a lair, the chance listed is the chance the monster is home at the time. An alternative: it's the percentage of occupants in the lair, versus patrols that are out and may return at any moment. Those listed as Nil don't have a lair or are found in the lairs of other creatures. I think in some cases the % In Lair stat was set assuming the first idea, while in other cases the second idea was assumed, which would explain why the stat is kind of hard to figure out. That makes sense, when you put it that way. But how would they find a lair? That's the bit I don't understand. I always assumed it worked like this: You roll an encounter and determine which monster. Then you roll % in Lair to see if the encounter takes place in (near) its lair, or if it is just out wandering.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Jul 21, 2020 2:35:00 GMT -6
That's how I use it: if a die roll indicates a Wandering Monster encounter, % in lair means that the encounter takes place near the monster's lair. So PC have 30% for stumbling upon a cave inhabited by 3-18 Ogres. I don't divide them into groups, patrols etc. and I keep the lair abstract (some ruined building, a cave etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jul 21, 2020 3:15:55 GMT -6
It's the chance of wandering monsters lying to the PCs.
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 21, 2020 5:51:20 GMT -6
Here’s how I do it. I want to create a lair for 100 orcs. 50 (50%) of them are in the lair at any given time. The others are out causing trouble. Party enters lair and kills 10 orcs. The party withdraws. The party returns and now there are 45 orcs (50%) in the lair at any given time. I could also rule that the orcs temporarily strengthen their defenses after the party intrusion and increase the % in lair to 80% for a dice determined length of time. Depends on how weak the orc leadership is. That can also be resolved by the dice. Of course these decisions are not mandatory. A ref can be as simple or as complex as he or she wants to be when stocking the lair. Time and patience are important factors for this.
Or let’s say that the party encounters wandering orcs from the same lair in the wilderness. I could pick 1-50 orcs. Or I could consult the dice. There are so many methods for using the dice. I Just pick the method that feels right for the moment. Usually it’s a d6. If I roll a 4, Then 40% of 50 is a unit of 20 orcs. I could then roll 3d6+2 to see how many of that 20 orc unit they encounter on the spot. One of the orcs blows a horn if attacked. The other orcs come running to the battle in groups of 2 or 3 per combat round. There are many possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Jul 21, 2020 6:49:32 GMT -6
I always thought it was obvious
You roll Wilderness encounter: Giants Check what % chance it is that you encounter them in their lair, where they will have their 5000 GP + Treasure Type E
Later, Gary made this explicit in his Monster Manual, so not only was it clear to me, we know Gary's intent
"% IN LAIR indicates the chance of encountering the monster in question where it domiciles and stores its treasure (if any). If a monster encountered is not in its lair it will not have any treasure unless it carries “individual” treasure or some form of magic. Whether or not an encounter is occurring in the monster‘s lair might be totally unknown to the person or persons involved until after the outcome of the encounter is resolved."
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 21, 2020 7:00:52 GMT -6
Makofan nailed it. If the monster isn't in its lair, it probably has no treasure. Fun fight, no loot.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Jul 21, 2020 7:09:03 GMT -6
Yep, so Nil = no lair & no treasure at all.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 21, 2020 7:21:44 GMT -6
The explanatory text in MM2 p5 is also worth a read. It's essentially a revision of what appears in MM1 with a bit more detail. The essential details are: NUMBER APPEARING: indicates the average numbers PCs might encounter. Generally, if a creature is encountered in or near its lair, it can be expected to appear in larger numbers, while further away from its lair it will be encountered in smaller numbers. (more...) % IN LAIR: indicates the chance of the monster being encountered where it lives and stores its treasure (if any). (more...) Although this was published around 1983 (I think?) it's pretty much how I play my OD&D. When a completely "ad hoc" wilderness encounter occurs: 1) determine the monster type (UWA p18-19), 2) determine if the encounter is at or near the lair (M&T % in lair), 3) if it's "in lair" then there is a lair/dungeon complex (with treasure) nearby which the players can find and/or avoid, 4) if it's not "in lair" then the encounter is with a "wandering" or expeditionary force whose lair is not nearby. In the case of 4) FFC has 10-60% of the lair population wandering about the countryside at any time, with group size halved repeatedly each time a 6 is rolled (on a d6). Hence, in the case of 3) the population at the lair is 100% less any numbers who are wandering about. Of course, if a ref is using a known map with known lairs, he need not dice for all these details. E.g., if the ref knows there is an Orc lair in the hex the players are passing through, then 1 and 2 might be "Orcs" and "Yes" by fiat instead. To answer delta's questions directly: (1) If the monster is found "in lair", do you actually spawn a dungeon-type complex on the fly? Or is it kept more abstract? (2) Do players have the choice of entering or avoiding said lair? Or are they automatically thrown into the encounter using normal rules? (3) Once found, do you permanently log the location of the lair in your campaign notes? Can players return to it at a later date? (4) If logged in the campaign notes, does the lair then change the distribution of wandering monsters in the neighboring region? (Perhaps similar to the castle rule 0-2 hex distance effect, in Vol-3, p. 15?) How so? Does the % In Lair modify this nearby wandering chance? (E.g., Nixies never found wandering because of 100% in-lair chance; while Griffons almost always outside with 10% in-lair chance.) (5) If logged, and a different party travels through the hex, do they automatically spot the same lair? Sometimes? Never? (6) If logged, is there any limit on number of lairs in a particular zone/hex? Or can they multiply without any bound? 1. If developing an unexplored (or dramatically changed) wilderness area "on the fly", possibly yes. Most often I have a (somewhat) developed wilderness map in advance, and try to work the pre-existing towns/lairs/features I know are there into random encounters, when they occur. Sometimes I have a less developed map, or I just feel like throwing dice for the freshness it can bring. 2. It depends, but the surprise check can be really useful. When surprise occurs the encounter distance is 10-30 yards; otherwise, it is 40-240 yards (UWA p17). Typically, if the players are surprised I have them "dropped right in it", otherwise they have their choice. Note MM2 p5 (NUMBER APPEARING) has: ...encounters near the lair may be with only scouts or perimeter guards. 3. Yes. 4. Yes, sort of. As I mentioned above, I prefer to pick or dice from monsters I know to be in the local region. If new lairs are added, this should influence the frequency of monsters in the region. If I remember them Note that FCC advises: "Whenever there is an encounter in the area, in the future, it will be restricted to one of those already present". 5. If they know where the lair is, then yes. Mostly, I recall players intentionally returning to the same lair until it is cleared. If it was a different group (who didn't know about the first lair) then they'd have to find it for themselves, and could possibly encounter a different lair while searching. 6. I think there's a practical limit. FWIW, FFC (p25) recommends there be 0-5 "adventures" (read "lairs") per 10x10 mile square, or per 100 sq. miles. A 10 mile across wilderness hex has a 6 mile radius, 6 mile edges, and covers an area of 93.5 sq. miles, so is roughly comparable to Arneson's 10x10 wilderness square. Although it was published later, I think it may be that the content of FFC p25 (Outdoors in Blackmoor) came first and UWA came second. Happy to be corrected by someone closer to the source on that one... Either way, Outdoors in Blackmoor has some invaluable hints for this kind of stuff.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 21, 2020 10:20:26 GMT -6
The way I use it is: if PCs find a lair, the chance listed is the chance the monster is home at the time. An alternative: it's the percentage of occupants in the lair, versus patrols that are out and may return at any moment. Those listed as Nil don't have a lair or are found in the lairs of other creatures. I think in some cases the % In Lair stat was set assuming the first idea, while in other cases the second idea was assumed, which would explain why the stat is kind of hard to figure out. That makes sense, when you put it that way. But how would they find a lair? That's the bit I don't understand. I always assumed it worked like this: You roll an encounter and determine which monster. Then you roll % in Lair to see if the encounter takes place in (near) its lair, or if it is just out wandering. I assumed it worked like this: a wandering monster is always wandering, not in lair. If it has a lair, the PCs can try following the monster with stealth, have a woodsman use tracking, ask locals for clues, check out likely looking spots, or cast a spell. Anything they can think of.
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 21, 2020 11:42:58 GMT -6
Forgive me but I thought this was about volume II of the original box set. As such, I don’t use the Monster Manual to tell me what to do. The question, at least what I thought it was, was how other people do it. Actually it was how most other people do it. And what the “best practices are”. Well. I don’t know how most people do it. And I think the best practices are whatever works in the limited time you have to make a decision. Make the rules your own! That’s the spirit of OD&D. Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 21, 2020 12:36:21 GMT -6
Forgive me but I thought this was about volume II of the original box set. As such, I don’t use the Monster Manual to tell me what to do. The question, at least what I thought it was, was how other people do it. Actually it was how most other people do it. And what the “best practices are”. Well. I don’t know how most people do it. And I think the best practices are whatever works in the limited time you have to make a decision. Make the rules your own! That’s the spirit of OD&D. Fight on! Sure, dicebro. You are technically correct. But D&D is also an interpretive tradition. Some of us like to reason from other TSR and even retro-clone material to make sense of the 3LBBs. I'm a theologian, so I guess I am used to this kind of thinking. I look at, say, Augustine or Aquinas to help me make sense of the scriptures. But they are NOT - in any way - scripture. Love the D&D tradition. Helps me interpret what matters: the 3LBB. That is, I think, the spirit in which other folks are using later material in threads like these. They can correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 21, 2020 12:50:12 GMT -6
delta , I'll give you my answers to your OP: 1. I do not, in the main, do these "on the fly." Most of my wilderness exploration is for characters clearing the land to establish a barony. In this case I prep for the whole clearing campaign in advance (or, mostly in advance). I sit down, I study the hexes, I roll random encounters for each hex I know they have to clear. Then write down each encounter per hex. Then I check % in lair, if I have not already decided that the encounter would make for an awesome lair. Then I look up some Dyson Logos maps, or occasionally, some other set of maps, and I start putting the lair encounter together for when they arrive to clear out that hex. 2. The only other time I make random rolls -- and the only time I roll them on the fly -- is when they are getting from point A to point B. I never interpret these as lair encounters because they are not looking for a lair -- that would take time and effort and is not their main focus. I usually do, however, imagine say, where an army of men or orcs are coming from and going to and why. If I roll an army of men, I might say they are a troop or column of men coming from nearby neutral fighting-man's castle. 3. For those lairs they find while clearing the land, well, I should log it. But usually, after they clear it, I assume their standing army keeps things clear for them, so I kind of forget about it until something comes up and I need to consult my notes. That said, I usually try to have some kind of logic behind the set of lairs present within the bounds of their future barony. I imagine connections, and some ancient history, or something, if that makes sense. That gives flavor to what had previously been hexes that I didn't know anything about before. This kind of general flavor is retained. 4. It will not change the distribution of wandering monsters because, by the time I would log it, they have cleared it -- or died trying. If they fail, yes, I would have to keep track of it because future characters my try to clear that land again. 5. Those future characters would NOT automatically spot the lair unless they said they were looking for lairs or I knew that they were because they were clearing the land. 6. I look at this as levels of scale. Super-heroic levels clear land for their baronies: one lair per five mile hex, max, is all I do for that. But at lower levels, their may be many lairs per hex of less significance to a baron but good for a party of lower levels to explore in order to gain experience. The local baron, upon hearing that orcs are raiding his village of 100, may hire the new set of characters to go clear it for him, now that he is semi-retired from adventuring in order to run a barony and fight the war on chaos at higher levels. So on those lower scales, perhaps there are about one lair per one mile hex, or something like that. There are ruins everywhere because their are layers of mighty civilizations and layers of apocalypses that ended them. Hope that helps. At least it gives you a glimpse of how another referee runs things.
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jul 21, 2020 16:26:20 GMT -6
I assumed it worked like this: a wandering monster is always wandering, not in lair. I agree with this guy and the MM. Seems like lairs are something you pre-determine while you're populating your dungeon. Wandering monsters are supposed to be wandering, not providing treasure hoards to the players. Wilderness, I'm not sure...I guess it could go either way, but I would still lean towards pre-determined lairs.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 21, 2020 18:31:27 GMT -6
I use % lair to populate hexes.
Per FFC, roll a d6 for each hex to produce 0-5 adventures. For each adventure I roll to determine type according to terrain. Then roll for chance of it being in it's lair.
If it's a lair I develop it a little more paying attention to the monsters descriptions in M&T (ie. goblins will have a goblin king). If it's not a lair, it's simply a wandering monster. Though it may have a lair nearby or in a neighboring hex. This is sometimes a connect the dots sort of thing.
Then roll for number appearing. If it's a lair I take this number as suggested in the FFC and split it 40/60 (where applicable). 40% will be in the lair. The remaining will be wandering. Roll a d6 for how many miles away. If it pushes it into another hex I make a notation. On a roll of 6, split the number in half and roll again to see how far away the next group is and make a notation with hex number.
When a party enters a hex and rolls an encounter it will be one of these predetermined encounters. If there's four adventures in the hex, they will have a 1 in 4 chance of it being any of them. If the hex is empty and they roll an encounter I may or may not roll for a truly random wandering monster showing up (no chance of it being in lair). Depends on the pace of the game.
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 21, 2020 18:51:39 GMT -6
Forgive me but I thought this was about volume II of the original box set. As such, I don’t use the Monster Manual to tell me what to do. The question, at least what I thought it was, was how other people do it. Actually it was how most other people do it. And what the “best practices are”. Well. I don’t know how most people do it. And I think the best practices are whatever works in the limited time you have to make a decision. Make the rules your own! That’s the spirit of OD&D. Fight on! Sure, dicebro. You are technically correct. But D&D is also an interpretive tradition. Some of us like to reason from other TSR and even retro-clone material to make sense of the 3LBBs. I'm a theologian, so I guess I am used to this kind of thinking. I look at, say, Augustine or Aquinas to help me make sense of the scriptures. But they are NOT - in any way - scripture. Love the D&D tradition. Helps me interpret what matters: the 3LBB. That is, I think, the spirit in which other folks are using later material in threads like these. They can correct me if I am wrong. Nothing wrong with how you want to do things, so long as you’re having fun!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 21, 2020 18:57:15 GMT -6
Per FFC, roll a d6 for each hex to produce 0-5 adventures. Thanks for reminding me of this. I think this is what I am thinking about with regards to populating hexes for campaigns with characters who are not superheroic and perhaps just normals. I think I will still keep to just one possible encounter per hex when superheroes are clearing the land.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Jul 21, 2020 20:00:48 GMT -6
Forgive me but I thought this was about volume II of the original box set. As such, I don’t use the Monster Manual to tell me what to do. The question, at least what I thought it was, was how other people do it. Actually it was how most other people do it. And what the “best practices are”. Well. I don’t know how most people do it. And I think the best practices are whatever works in the limited time you have to make a decision. Make the rules your own! That’s the spirit of OD&D. Fight on! You can do what you want obviously. When the creator of the game makes explicit what he meant, you can also choose to ignore it. Now I know how gronan felt all the time
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 21, 2020 20:22:44 GMT -6
Wow, so there's even more variation here than I expected. I'll say one assumption I had going in (not part of my questions) was that, like coffee and makofan express, when a wandering monster shows up, you roll the % In Lair then to see if you found a lair. I presume that the MM language is consistent with the expected usage in the LBBs (and the phrasing in terms of probability doesn't seem to synch up with an interpretation as a ratio of monsters taken out of wandering units). Thanks in particular to waysoftheearth and tetramorph for addressing the specific mechanical questions (even if it looks like you've got very different takes on it). I will say re: @waysofthearth, item (4), FFC quote: the advice there definitely weirds me out a bit in that say: previously in hex A45 we've run into giant spiders, griffons, a flying dragon, etc.; but after day 50 that won't ever happen again because we discovered a lair of goblins in that hex. That honestly would bother me too much to implement. If I get a chance, I may turn some of these items into polls. Starting with (quasi-FFC) whether people pre-locate all the lairs on their campaign map, vs. rolling/discovering them on the fly. It seems to me like pre-locating all lairs and only presenting wanderers locally based on those lairs would void all of the wilderness wandering monster tables/mechanics from Vol-3 p. 18-19 (and in fact Arneson in FFC seems to say that he's presenting a distinctly alternative method).
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 21, 2020 22:04:13 GMT -6
Although it was published later, I think it may be that the content of FFC p25 (Outdoors in Blackmoor) came first and UWA came second. Happy to be corrected by someone closer to the source on that one... Either way, Outdoors in Blackmoor has some invaluable hints for this kind of stuff. Just looking at this: it seems to me that the introductory statement to FFC's Outdoors in Blackmoor section (p. 25) is a comment/critique/reference back to the rules in Vol-3 (both in terms of the special Castle rules and high ratio of wandering monsters), and thus was probably written after the LBB rules were written and playtested.
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 22, 2020 5:46:48 GMT -6
Forgive me but I thought this was about volume II of the original box set. As such, I don’t use the Monster Manual to tell me what to do. But D&D is also an interpretive tradition. Some of us like to reason from other TSR and even retro-clone material to make sense of the 3LBBs. I'm a theologian, so I guess I am used to this kind of thinking. I look at, say, Augustine or Aquinas to help me make sense of the scriptures. But they are NOT - in any way - scripture. Sure! Some religions are: “there is only one true path“ Others: “there are many paths“ One of my favorites: “there is no path!”
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 22, 2020 5:48:50 GMT -6
It seems to me like pre-locating all lairs and only presenting wanderers locally based on those lairs would void all of the wilderness wandering monster tables/mechanics from Vol-3 p. 18-19 (and in fact Arneson in FFC seems to say that he's presenting a distinctly alternative method). Not at all.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 22, 2020 18:31:32 GMT -6
I will say re: @waysofthearth, item (4), FFC quote: the advice there definitely weirds me out a bit in that say: previously in hex A45 we've run into giant spiders, griffons, a flying dragon, etc.; but after day 50 that won't ever happen again because we discovered a lair of goblins in that hex. That honestly would bother me too much to implement. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at delta; could you expand on this? I guess, from where I'm sitting, hex A45 is either well described (i.e., you know in advance what monster lairs are present), or it is not (i.e., you'll figure out what's there on the fly). If A45 is well described: then the local population will influence/override random monster and/or lair checks. I.e., perhaps X-in-6 (X=number of lairs in the hex) of encounters are with monsters from the lairs in the hex (who are automatically "in lair"), and the remainder are randomly determined with the monster tables (and are automatically not "in lair"). If A45 is not yet described: when an encounter occurs use the monster tables and % in lair checks to see what's there. If it happens to be an "in lair" encounter, then note that down on the hex, and thus populate/describe it as play unfolds. At some point (when the ref is content with the 0-5 lairs that have been found in the hex), the hex is fully-described and then you'd use the procedure for well-described hexes instead. It seems to me like pre-locating all lairs and only presenting wanderers locally based on those lairs would void all of the wilderness wandering monster tables/mechanics from Vol-3 p. 18-19 (and in fact Arneson in FFC seems to say that he's presenting a distinctly alternative method). I don't really understand this either. I don't think it's a binary thing. For me, it's more like some small fraction of my wilderness hexes are well-described from the beginning (or in advance of players arriving there), mostly limited by my time. I.e., I'll put my design effort into the hexes near where the players start and/or are likely to go first. The rest of the map is pretty hazy, with a terrain type and maybe a few towns/cities, but largely waiting to be filled out if/when the players ever go there. Note also the method I outlined above allows for totally random (wandering) monsters to occur even in previously described wilderness hexes. Hope that's useful
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 22, 2020 18:35:55 GMT -6
Although it was published later, I think it may be that the content of FFC p25 (Outdoors in Blackmoor) came first and UWA came second. Happy to be corrected by someone closer to the source on that one... Either way, Outdoors in Blackmoor has some invaluable hints for this kind of stuff. Just looking at this: it seems to me that the introductory statement to FFC's Outdoors in Blackmoor section (p. 25) -- "Travel from one perilous adventure to another in a neighboring Castle can result in a great deal of frustration for the players, or at least confusion, as the road is always populated by evil creatures." -- is a comment/critique/reference back to the rules in Vol-3 (both in terms of the special Castle rules and high ratio of wandering monsters), and thus was probably written after the LBB rules were written and playtested. aldarron increment any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 22, 2020 19:45:55 GMT -6
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at delta; could you expand on this? I guess, from where I'm sitting, hex A45 is either well described (i.e., you know in advance what monster lairs are present), or it is not (i.e., you'll figure out what's there on the fly). If A45 is well described: then the local population will influence/override random monster and/or lair checks. I.e., perhaps X-in-6 (X=number of lairs in the hex) of encounters are with monsters from the lairs in the hex (who are automatically "in lair"), and the remainder are randomly determined with the monster tables (and are automatically not "in lair")... I don't think it's a binary thing... Okay, thanks for following up on that. Let me just look back at the FFC passage you quoted (emphasis mine): So per the Arneson quote: that really does look like a binary thing. Read literally, there's no remainder of encounters coming from the general table: that's been "restricted" out of the picture by this rule. Now, I would like your suggested rule quite a bit better, actually. But I think we have to admit that the partial-influence/X-in-6, remainder from the general tables, is not something that's actually written in those rules. And therefore I wouldn't want to presume that there's a consensus around that very nice house rule.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 23, 2020 7:55:48 GMT -6
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at delta; could you expand on this? I guess, from where I'm sitting, hex A45 is either well described (i.e., you know in advance what monster lairs are present), or it is not (i.e., you'll figure out what's there on the fly). If A45 is well described: then the local population will influence/override random monster and/or lair checks. I.e., perhaps X-in-6 (X=number of lairs in the hex) of encounters are with monsters from the lairs in the hex (who are automatically "in lair"), and the remainder are randomly determined with the monster tables (and are automatically not "in lair")... I don't think it's a binary thing... Okay, thanks for following up on that. Let me just look back at the FFC passage you quoted (emphasis mine): So per the Arneson quote: that really does look like a binary thing. Read literally, there's no remainder of encounters coming from the general table: that's been "restricted" out of the picture by this rule. Now, I would like your suggested rule quite a bit better, actually. But I think we have to admit that the partial-influence/X-in-6, remainder from the general tables, is not something that's actually written in those rules. And therefore I wouldn't want to presume that there's a consensus around that very nice house rule. I'm not sure I'm groking the problem with the "restricted to those already present" business. So let's say I have a hex map, of I dunno, an island. Let's call it the Isle of Dread. I can sit down and fill out the hexes with a forest of flying monkeys, a pirate cove, etc. So when my players go into the forest of flying monkeys, any encounters they have at that specific location (i.e areaa per Arneson) are restricted to the flying monkeys unless the flying monkeys were all wiped out on their previous visit. In other words, the flying monkey village isn't going to mysteriously disappear and be replaced by giant termite mounds the next time they enter the area and then replaced again by a dinosaur nest the next time and so on. So that's how it works if you pre-populate your "areas". I'm specifying areas because we might or might not be talking about a whole Hex depending on scale. As WoTE pointed out, Arneson was suggesting up to 5 adventures (areas) per 10 mile "square"(as he preferred squares over hexes). It is important to realize that the areas Arneson was talking about are specific sites within a square/hex. Now, it makes no difference if the hex had been predetermined as in my Isle of Dread above or an undetermined blank randomly populated on the fly by a % lair roll. Once you populate an area, the encounters are restricted to what is actually there, until it isn't there anymore, right? So restricted to what's there means no more wandering monster rolls for random monster types at that area of the hex. Any rolls you might make in that area are for the monster that is already known to be there. If you don't know exactly where the party is (typically you don't), then you have up to 5 different possibilities of monsters encountered (0-5 "adventures") Hexes are the same thing as a dungeon with 5 rooms in this regard. If I have a room populated with ghouls already, I'm not going to roll a wandering monster roll to see what monsters are in the room the moment the players walk in, nor would I change the monsters the next time the party enters to trolls or what have you if the ghouls were still there. Look at what Arneson actually says on page 26. He tells us that a hex can have 0-5 adventures: "Each of these hexes will contain some adventures which may range from a monster holed up in a small cave to an abandoned Castle full of Orcs. A chart is provided for laying out the basics of the area and can be modified to suit the individual taste of the referee and his eagerness to lay out all the needed work. Each square should contain an average of say two adventures (assuming 10 miles by 10 miles) determined by rolling a six sided dice (upon a roll of six would mean that there are no adventures in the square). This will determine how many encounters live in the area." He tells us a Hex or square can be divided into 88 "areas" on page 27, 11% of which might have a human ruler. And for the full context of the restricted quote: "For each encounter consult the encounter matrix for the type of creature that lives at each spot. Whenever there is an encounter in the area in the future it will be restricted to one of those already present (See advanced method for other results). If there are four encounters you roll a four sided die to determine which of the four has been found, all other details having already been worked out, the normal chances of the creature being in it's lair are worked out as they normally are. So if encounter six has a 30% chance of being found in it's lair, then that % is used and the number of creatures encountered will then be any number up to the total number present in the hex." Delta and most of you know already, but for some others who may be newer I have a fairly extensive writeup on the subject HERE
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 23, 2020 10:30:22 GMT -6
Now, it makes no difference if the hex had been predetermined as in my Isle of Dread above or an undetermined blank randomly populated on the fly by a % lair roll. Among the major differences is the possibility for non-lair wandering encounters in a given hex. Below, assume PCs pass through a given hex and have an encounter on days 10, 20, and 30 below; no lair is ever cleared out: Case 1: A pre-stocked hex with a goblin lair. Day 10: PCs can only encounter goblins, nothing else. Day 20: Same. Day 30: Same. Case 2: An unstocked hex with encounters to be randomly determined. Day 10: PCs encounter a non-lair, flying griffon. Day 20: PCs discover a (randomly determined) goblin lair. Day 30: PCs enter hex and can only encounter goblins. Griffons are now impossible, even though PCs encountered them previously in this hex on Day 10. What explains the griffon fly-by being possible on day 10 but not day 30? Personally, I'm assuming that the goblin lair was conceptually in place, merely undiscovered, all through the month (they didn't move in on Day 20, did they?). Also, I kind of want flying griffons and dragons throughout the skies of my campaign world, ever over the goblin lair hexes and whatnot.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 23, 2020 15:32:52 GMT -6
The real difference is that the randomness is done up front instead of on the back end. Up front randomness can have the same results as case 2.
So, instead of using the U&WA wandering monster tables on the fly as a party explores hexes, you would generate these results ahead of time using the same tables for stocking. The results can bear out a non-lair griffon in the hex (wandering monster). It's up to the GM to creatively present the creature should it be encountered- flying, hunting, playing, searching as if lost, what have you.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 23, 2020 17:35:10 GMT -6
Okay, thanks for following up on that. Let me just look back at the FFC passage you quoted (emphasis mine): So per the Arneson quote: that really does look like a binary thing. Read literally, there's no remainder of encounters coming from the general table: that's been "restricted" out of the picture by this rule. Possibly, "area" refers to the smaller (1/100th of a square or 1/60th of a hex) "area" within a hex, per the diagram on p28. In that case, it implies roughly that when the players are at the specific area the orc lair is in, they will encounter the orc lair and not something else. Now, I would like your suggested rule quite a bit better, actually. But I think we have to admit that the partial-influence/X-in-6, remainder from the general tables, is not something that's actually written in those rules. And therefore I wouldn't want to presume that there's a consensus around that very nice house rule. Totally agree that my method isn't exactly by the book. It's been a while since I've looked at exactly what FFC says and, to be honest, I had kinda forgotten that I've "hand waved" the extra detail around specific "areas" within hexes, seasonal migration, population growth, and lair-vs-lair battles. I've essentially rolled all that up into a d6 roll to see what players bump into in a hex that allows for some randomness. It's not verbatim FFC, but it's the right level of detail for me. Hope that helps
|
|