|
Post by delta on Jul 23, 2020 19:38:15 GMT -6
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. I really don't see how it could mean that. The prior three sentences are all using "area/square" in terms of the 10 x 10 mile space. Moreover, the quoted sentence and the following one refer to a multiple of lairs per area, and I'm assuming you don't think the idea is up to 5 lairs per square-mile mini-space.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 23, 2020 21:44:06 GMT -6
Yeah, reading p25 closely we see "sector", "hex", "square", and "area" used more-or-less interchangeably. Then we have "adventure", "encounter", "lair", and "spot" referring to the more specific locations within a 100x100 mile hex where stuff happens. The line: "This will determine how any encounters live in the area" clearly implies that "area" refers to the 100m2 hex (at least in that specific line).
That said, an interesting fragment from the quoted section is the parenthetical: "see advanced method for other results". It's not immediately obvious (to me) what the "advanced method" or the "other results" refer to..?
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 24, 2020 7:40:29 GMT -6
% in Lair Why do we care? How many monsters with treasures in there?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 24, 2020 10:22:36 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. ""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)." FFCp26 Case 2 isn't supported by the text - the Griffon encounter was established as "one of those already present." Whether the PC's found the lair is neither here not there. Case 1 would be correct (per FFC) for a hex determined to have only 1 "adventure" in it. I definitely see the concern, but for situations where a more nuanced game is desired, such as when a party will be traveling repeatedly through a hex and not just once or twice, Arneson provides the "advanced method" on page 27, which is to subdivide the hex and specifically locate the lairs. If the party is then traveling in non-lair areas of the hex they may encounter other things, it seems to me. However you read it, it's pretty clear that Arneson is giving a basic play method with the caveat that if you need to you can make it more complex. As for encountering flying creatures, you can always make that a separate roll from land encounters, and you should if the players are flying too(FFC p24 #1 in Map Movement).
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 24, 2020 10:36:52 GMT -6
Yeah, reading p25 closely we see "sector", "hex", "square", and "area" used more-or-less interchangeably. Then we have "adventure", "encounter", "lair", and "spot" referring to the more specific locations within a 100x100 mile hex where stuff happens. The line: "This will determine how any encounters live in the area" clearly implies that "area" refers to the 100m2 hex (at least in that specific line). I'm sorry but I completely disagree with this. Except in a case such as this where he loosely refers back to the square as an area, he is clearly distinguishing between square/hexes and the areas/spots/adventures within them. Arneson's intended meaning is not particularly obscure here.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 24, 2020 13:00:10 GMT -6
That said, an interesting fragment from the quoted section is the parenthetical: "see advanced method for other results". It's not immediately obvious (to me) what the "advanced method" or the "other results" refer to..? I'm broadly guessing that refers to the "Drawing your own Map" section and the material under there (including the square-mile mini-area detail). E.g., it says "There will be some, as there always are, who wish to draw their own map but do not know exactly where to begin." This seems to echo the distinction in Vol-3 between standard adventures on the Outdoor Survival map, and special exploratory adventurers on the Referee's Map. Or alternatively it could be a hoped-for piece of rules that never got written down. :-)
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 24, 2020 13:11:08 GMT -6
""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)." FFCp26 Case 2 isn't supported by the text - the Griffon encounter was established as "one of those already present." Whether the PC's found the lair is neither here not there. So your interpretation seems to be that a monster can be among those that "lives at each spot", but without having a lair there. That seems like a surprising interpretation. Throughout that section, Arneson seems to interchangeably use "adventure/encounter/camp/lair", and there's no consideration of such set encounters entirely lacking a camp/lair. E.g.:
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 24, 2020 19:00:18 GMT -6
Yeah, reading p25 closely we see "sector", "hex", "square", and "area" used more-or-less interchangeably. Then we have "adventure", "encounter", "lair", and "spot" referring to the more specific locations within a 100x100 mile hex where stuff happens. The line: "This will determine how any encounters live in the area" clearly implies that "area" refers to the 100m2 hex (at least in that specific line). I'm sorry but I completely disagree with this. Except in a case such as this where he loosely refers back to the square as an area, he is clearly distinguishing between square/hexes and the areas/spots/adventures within them. Arneson's intended meaning is not particularly obscure here. I think we're saying the same thing Dan, or--at least--I'm not sure what the disagreement is? I agree it's clear that two scales are being discussed: the 100x100 mile squares/hexes, and the more localised lairs/encounters/adventures. In my post I was merely remarking that the use of nouns is somewhat loose and that, in the specific sentence I quoted: "encounter" appears to refer to the localised scale, while "area" appears to refer to the broader scale. Is that not how you're reading it?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 24, 2020 19:13:30 GMT -6
I'm broadly guessing that refers to the "Drawing your own Map" section and the material under there (including the square-mile mini-area detail). E.g., it says "There will be some, as there always are, who wish to draw their own map but do not know exactly where to begin." I thought so too, but that section largely re-iterates what is described on p25. Sure, it adds the specifics of dicing for the explicit locale within a square/hex where a camp/lair is, but it's not obvious to me what "other results" can be derived from this? However, an important note appears at the bottom of the Human Habitation section, which says: "Note: other color can be added at the Judges discretion, who should have enough to go on now to finish the job." Which essentially gives the ref license to do whatever she or he likes. Presumably, this advice can be applied to the entire game (not just dicing for towns)!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 24, 2020 19:27:55 GMT -6
The language here is being used in reference to populating (stocking) a hex, not encounters on the fly.
It can be further assumed that Arneson is speaking almost exclusively about Orcs with this comment, though it might include Men types.
Since my other comments have apparently been ignored by the OP, it's questionable whether this will sink in.
If you look at the "encounter matrix" on p23 you will notice that it's a d20 table broken up by terrain "squares". At the bottom of this table it lists only orcs and men as appearing in such numbers.
So, Arneson could use this table to both stock a "square" and determine if there would be an encounter during the turn. If the result was "-", then no encounter occurs. If the result was 1-7 for open terrain, as an example, then there is an encounter and it will be based on what is already in the "square". Which one would randomly be determined. If there's four encounters possible, then 1-4.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 24, 2020 19:36:44 GMT -6
So, Arneson could use this table to both stock a "square" and determine if there would be an encounter during the turn. If the result was "-", then no encounter occurs. Great observation derv. Presumably the footnote "(1 PD) (3 Die)" implies "once per day" and "three 20-sided dice". Thus zero to three encounters could occur per day using this table? Have to say that it seems "cleaner" than UWA p18-19... What do others think?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 24, 2020 20:37:08 GMT -6
""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)." FFCp26 Case 2 isn't supported by the text - the Griffon encounter was established as "one of those already present." Whether the PC's found the lair is neither here not there. So your interpretation seems to be that a monster can be among those that "lives at each spot", but without having a lair there. That seems like a surprising interpretation. Throughout that section, Arneson seems to interchangeably use "adventure/encounter/camp/lair", and there's no consideration of such set encounters entirely lacking a camp/lair. E.g.: Not at all. Delta I get the sense - maybe wrong - that for some reason you may be interpreting a failed % lair roll to mean that no lair exists. It does not mean that. It means that the PC's failed to find the creatures in its lair. Not that it doesn't have one somewhere in the hex. What I see the text saying is that if the players are in the flying monkey village and the dice tell me that the PC's have encountered a monster in the flying monkey village it will be a flying monkey, but if the players are more generically located as they wander through a hex and there have been previous encounters with monsters in that hex (up to the total for the hex which was 4 in Arneson's example) then the encounter will be one of the 4 already established to be present. Going back to your case 2. Let's say for that hex you rolled a d6 and got a 4 for 4 adventures. Lets say the PC's pass through a couple times without triggering an encounter, but on the third trip through the hex they encounter the Griffon and fail the % lair roll. That means 1 of our 4 encounter monsters in the "area" is a Griffon - unless the PC's kill the thing and then we are back to square one. Every time the PC's pass through the hex, an encounter roll is made. Each time there is a positive encounter it counts towards one of the 4 "natives" to the hex. Whether it is done on the fly each time the players pass through the hex or all pre=rolled ahead of time, eventually all 4 encounter slots for the hex will be filled (minus exterminated creatures), and thereafter encounters can only be with one of the 4 types present in the "area". Again area can mean the hex as a whole or the specific portion of the hex a lair is placed if using the "advanced method" with the hex sub-divided. So in our 4 encounter hex we have: First hex encounter griffon out of lair Second hex encounter goblins in Lair Third Hex encounter More goblins, also in lair - same tribe (per p25) but different lair. Fourth Encounter centaurs out of Lair That's it then. Those are the monsters in that hex, until or unless one or more are exterminated or leave or die off, presumably, allowing for eventual restocking. Now each time the party passes through the hex, those 4 monsters are the ones they will encounter. The players have already found two goblin lairs - they know where these are and can avoid them but might still have encounters with out-of-lair goblins. However each time they encounter a griffon or centaur in the hex there will be a % lair roll until these lairs are also found or the creature is killed before that happens. None of this is static though. Events will change things, which is why Arneson adds "Every Spring, the Judge will roll the percentage dice to determine if any new monsters have migrated into the cleared areas or come in from any of the areas outside the ones already laid out." And there is also the bit about monsters fighting each other, etc.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 24, 2020 20:47:41 GMT -6
I'm sorry but I completely disagree with this. Except in a case such as this where he loosely refers back to the square as an area, he is clearly distinguishing between square/hexes and the areas/spots/adventures within them. Arneson's intended meaning is not particularly obscure here. I think we're saying the same thing Dan, or--at least--I'm not sure what the disagreement is? I agree it's clear that two scales are being discussed: the 100x100 mile squares/hexes, and the more localised lairs/encounters/adventures. In my post I was merely remarking that the use of nouns is somewhat loose and that, in the specific sentence I quoted: "encounter" appears to refer to the localised scale, while "area" appears to refer to the broader scale. Is that not how you're reading it? Right you are. My initial read was that you meant it was hopelessly muddled, which is clearly not what you meant. My only point really is that it's not hard to follow when read in context.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 24, 2020 21:59:12 GMT -6
So, Arneson could use this table to both stock a "square" and determine if there would be an encounter during the turn. If the result was "-", then no encounter occurs. Great observation derv. Presumably the footnote "(1 PD) (3 Die)" implies "once per day" and "three 20-sided dice". Thus zero to three encounters could occur per day using this table? Have to say that it seems "cleaner" than UWA p18-19... What do others think? I think it's a pretty good method for the most part. U&WA seems like a distilled approach of what Arneson was doing. Consider as an "advanced method" that you have further sectioned off your 10 mile hex into "squares" that consist of different terrain types. Each turn you might roll for chance of an encounter among any of these possibilities. So, the probabilities of an encounter might be lesser or greater depending on what terrain is present (see p27 FFC). Let's say a hex is very hilly (5 hills-4 sq x 2 sq) almost 50%, with woods (10%), and water (small river covering 10 sq) 11%. A GM might roll twice for mountains (70% chance) and once for woods (70% chance) or river (40% chance) as an example. Or he could use the worst category and subtract 2 pips as suggested under table (80% chance). I'm guessing that Arneson made and used different matrixes for different territories since the FFC lists the Matrix as "I". Another interesting inclusion in the FFC is that Arneson noted the sex of creatures. Remember that discussion about the purpose of a "sex" stat. Well, it's relevant to population growth in the FFC (see p25 FFC). On the same page Arneson's advice for populating a map is "begin with one area (hex) and the surrounding 6 areas. Once the central area has been determined and cleared out, then add adjacent areas as you progress and build up the size of your fantasy game." No one is expected to populate an entire map all at once. edit: on p24 Map Movement (Weekly) it suggests encounters for daily movement be cut to a 1/6 chance of movement too. I do not think this is referring to chance of an encounter though it appears similar to the LBB's. I think this is referring to the previous line #4. If there is an encounter and the creature is wounded there is a 1/6 chance it will move to another square. Otherwise, no movement. Thought it was worth pointing to since it can be a source of confusion with the Encounter Matrix.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 24, 2020 22:12:50 GMT -6
Whether it is done on the fly each time the players pass through the hex or all pre=rolled ahead of time, eventually all 4 encounter slots for the hex will be filled (minus exterminated creatures), and thereafter encounters can only be with one of the 4 types present in the "area". Again area can mean the hex as a whole or the specific portion of the hex a lair is placed if using the "advanced method" with the hex sub-divided. So in our 4 encounter hex we have: First hex encounter griffon out of lair Second hex encounter goblins in Lair Third Hex encounter More goblins, also in lair - same tribe (per p25) but different lair. Fourth Encounter centaurs out of Lair That's it then. Those are the monsters in that hex, until or unless one or more are exterminated or leave or die off, presumably, allowing for eventual restocking. A nuance I'd add is that I still think it's possibile that an out of lair result could indicate wandering monsters whose lair is either in this hex or in another hex. This allows, for example, flying creatures to hunt further afield than just their 10 miles from their lair (Rocs and Dragons, for example, could easily fly scores of miles), or expeditionary armies of man-types marching across the map in pursuit of their campaign objectives. As a ref I love figuring out what these kinds of encounters mean for the broader setting and weaving them into the overall game story. fun stuff
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 24, 2020 22:53:34 GMT -6
However each time they encounter a griffon or centaur in the hex there will be a % lair roll until these lairs are also found or the creature is killed before that happens. I'm not sure there is any assumption that there has to be a lair in the hex if you have predetermined the creature is not in it's lair. So, the method for "If an encounter is indicated" is: 1. roll for which group is met 2. roll probability chance of group being met in lair. 3. 10-60% will be out of lair and 40+% will be in lair. 4. For groups out of lair, roll location. If a monster has already been predetermined to not be in a lair (wandering) #2 will be 0%. This is especially true if there is only one of it's kind present. #2-4 is most relevant to large group types like orcs, where the number present in camp at any one time can fluctuate. Also consider that the FFC does not give % lair for monster types, but the matrix does include types that M&T list as "nil".
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 24, 2020 23:17:01 GMT -6
Going back to your case 2. Let's say for that hex you rolled a d6 and got a 4 for 4 adventures. Lets say the PC's pass through a couple times without triggering an encounter, but on the third trip through the hex they encounter the Griffon and fail the % lair roll. That means 1 of our 4 encounter monsters in the "area" is a Griffon - unless the PC's kill the thing and then we are back to square one. That seems like a very surprising interpretation -- you're saying that every encounter always implies that there's a lair for that monster in the immediate hex. Monsters (e.g., dragons) never wander into a neighboring hex to prey on other creatures there? What about monsters (e.g., elementals, treants) who are given "Nil" % In Lair chance?
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 25, 2020 5:59:53 GMT -6
“To learn which questions are unanswerable, and not to answer them: this skill is most needful in times of stress and darkness.” ― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 8:37:38 GMT -6
Makofan nailed it. If the monster isn't in its lair, it probably has no treasure. Fun fight, no loot. With notable exceptions, such as Giants, which Monsters & Treasure specifically mention always carry a certain amount in their giant bags.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 25, 2020 8:56:54 GMT -6
However each time they encounter a griffon or centaur in the hex there will be a % lair roll until these lairs are also found or the creature is killed before that happens. I'm not sure there is any assumption that there has to be a lair in the hex if you have predetermined the creature is not in it's lair. So, the method for "If an encounter is indicated" is: 1. roll for which group is met 2. roll probability chance of group being met in lair. 3. 10-60% will be out of lair and 40+% will be in lair. 4. For groups out of lair, roll location. If a monster has already been predetermined to not be in a lair (wandering) #2 will be 0%. This is especially true if there is only one of it's kind present. #2-4 is most relevant to large group types like orcs, where the number present in camp at any one time can fluctuate. Also consider that the FFC does not give % lair for monster types, but the matrix does include types that M&T list as "nil". Agreed if you mean the DM predetermined the encountered creature was just passing through ahead of time. A creature doesn't have to live there if you don't want it to. I think we would all agree that DM discretion is always a given. I'm not sure why "one of a kind" creatures would be subject to different treatment here though.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 25, 2020 9:33:51 GMT -6
Going back to your case 2. Let's say for that hex you rolled a d6 and got a 4 for 4 adventures. Lets say the PC's pass through a couple times without triggering an encounter, but on the third trip through the hex they encounter the Griffon and fail the % lair roll. That means 1 of our 4 encounter monsters in the "area" is a Griffon - unless the PC's kill the thing and then we are back to square one. That seems like a very surprising interpretation -- you're saying that every encounter always implies that there's a lair for that monster in the immediate hex. Monsters (e.g., dragons) never wander into a neighboring hex to prey on other creatures there? First, keep in mind we are talking about a 100 square mile area, second, never say never! Heh. I'm not seeing it being a surprising interpretation to say that encounters that take place in a 100 square mile wilderness are very usually going to be with the creatures that live within the 100 square mile wilderness. For reference Dan, that's an area the size of Queens or 5 times the size of Manhattan. Or the size of Allegheny State Park Map If you were to hike around the park, I'm sure you would agree that you would presume any animals you might encounter also live there. However if they feel there is a need or good reason there is nothing to prevent a DM from ruling some creature is migrating or passing through because they were forced to or what have you. The text makes allowances for these sorts of DM fiats. Keep in mind there are also (per Arneson) at least two other reasons an outsider might be encountered: 1). Refugees from a war in an adjacent hex 2). The spring migration check when "For each hex side, there is a 5% chance that a new creature has entered the area." What about monsters (e.g., elementals, treants) who are given "Nil" % In Lair chance? Simplest of all right? A treant or elemental etc. obviously don't live inside any kind of built environment - they live in a territory where you find them. So if you are crossing a plain and encounter a wind elemental or sailing across a lake and encounter a water elemental, you have entered their space, but you wouldn't find a hidden cave or something that was the elemental's lair, because they don't live that way.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 25, 2020 12:32:29 GMT -6
Agreed if you mean the DM predetermined the encountered creature was just passing through ahead of time. A creature doesn't have to live there if you don't want it to. I think we would all agree that DM discretion is always a given. I'm not sure why "one of a kind" creatures would be subject to different treatment here though. It's seems to me that there is a difference in intent in the p25-26 text and the brief synopsis on p27 (your page reference may be different). What is presented first is what I would consider "campaign management" for a GM from a wargamers perspective. We have this whole bit about groups of same types being friendly and groups from adjacent hexes may aid a group at Judges discretion. There is also this bit about two or more groups of different races fighting it out and results recorded for future reference. In other words, this is all activity that a GM would do up front while creating his campaign, some of which could lead to table top battles. This is followed by procedures for accounting for losses and replacements. These would not be on the fly procedures. The synopsis, on the other hand, seems to present a procedure for running a foray of adventurers into the wilderness and makes no provisions for what has already been put in place and outcomes of previous incursions. In particular, it is misleading in it's use of the word "lairs" instead of "adventures" in #1. If there are monsters present in a hex from a neighboring hex, they should be included in the roll for which group is met. Clearly, if they are wandering from an adjacent hex there is 0% that they will be met "in lair". I wonder if the use of the term "lair" was an editing mistake here.
|
|
|
Post by linebeck on Jul 25, 2020 15:10:54 GMT -6
From player’s perspective, doesn’t every monster have a lair? If I encounter a monster, I should be able to ask it where it’s lair is. Usually I would assume that it is somewhere in the same hex. If the lair is a hex or more away, the monster should have some reason for why it is “wandering” so far from home - I.e. it is going somewhere specific.
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 25, 2020 16:38:06 GMT -6
Wow, this thread got very complex. Is there a simple answer to the question that doesn’t require an academic scholar’s level of scrutiny?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 25, 2020 18:30:07 GMT -6
Wow, this thread got very complex. Is there a simple answer to the question that doesn’t require an academic scholar’s level of scrutiny? Here's my take, FWIW: Wilderness StockingThere will be 0-5 lairs per 10x10 mile square or 10 mile wide (6 mile edge) hex. Predetermine lairs in campaign starter hex(es); discover remainder on the fly. Each lair will have a number of monsters in it (FFC p23, M&T p3-4). Wilderness Exploration1) Dice for encounters as players move across the wilderness map (UWA p17-18).* 2) When an encounter is indicated, dice for monster type*: A. If all lair types in the encounter hex are known (to the ref): Determine which group is met; equal chance of encountering denizens of each lair in the hex.** B. If any of the hex's lair types remain unknown (to the ref): Determine the monster type encountered (FFC p23, UWA p18-19, ref's campaign monster table).*** 3) Dice to determine if the group is met "in Lair" (M&T p3-4). A. If not in lair: 10-60% of the total lair numbers are encountered out in the countryside. If a 6 is rolled the group is split in two (and only one is encountered). B. If in lair: 40-90% of lair numbers will be found in the lair along with their treasure type (M&T p3-4). There is also a chance of additional leader/player-types being present in an encounter (FFC p27, UWA p19). * FFC p23 combines the chance of encounter and monster type throws. ** House rule: allow a chance for "random" (non-lair) interlopers to appear; these would never be "in lair". *** When some lair types within a hex are known and others unknown the ref would possibly allow proportional chances of encountering the "known" and "unknown" monster types. Is that pretty much it?
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 26, 2020 6:07:18 GMT -6
Thank you. I will give it a try and see what happens!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2020 7:08:37 GMT -6
From player’s perspective, doesn’t every monster have a lair? If I encounter a monster, I should be able to ask it where it’s lair is. Usually I would assume that it is somewhere in the same hex. If the lair is a hex or more away, the monster should have some reason for why it is “wandering” so far from home - I.e. it is going somewhere specific. For that matter, when certain classes/abilities/spells got added to the game later - let's use Rangers as the iconic example - the question of "where is its lair" actually gets die rolls that might potentially lead one to said lair, which is a clue in the direction of %in lair either being about chances of the monster being home or the number of monsters in the lair.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 26, 2020 7:55:15 GMT -6
In my opinion you have these flip-flopped. The difference could be associated with what U&WA calls "off hand adventures" using a pre-existing map like the Outdoor Survival board and "exploratory journies". p15
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 26, 2020 10:46:22 GMT -6
Wow, this thread got very complex. Is there a simple answer to the question that doesn’t require an academic scholar’s level of scrutiny? Well, technically, the question was "How do YOU do it?" So here's my simple answer: - Decide the number of lairs in an area however you want. There's no rule listed in 3LBBs or even Greyhawk/Blackmoor, so there's no official way to do this. Everything's just one guy's method, including Arneson's. Since new monsters could move into an area later, you might want to consider the number to be fluid, unless the PCs are directed to the area by a map.
- If you roll a wandering monster, it's not in its lair. It's wandering. PCs can find the lair through in-gameworld means like tracking, magic, asking around, or just plain dumb luck.
- If PCs find a lair and the occupant is still alive, roll % In Lair to see if the monster is home. Maybe roll this again periodically while they are there, too, to determine if it returns.
- If PCs revisit an area or a lair they've previously cleared, decide however you want whether there are new monsters living there. If it's gathering treasure, scale the amount of treasure based on how long it's been there: a few weeks means hardly any treasure, a full year might mean at least half normal treasure or more.
People have mentioned the idea of 0 to 5 lairs in a 10 mile x 10 mile area. That seems fairly reasonable, but since I use two-league hexes, I'd want to adjust this downwards: d6/2, dropping fractions. For ordinary countryside, I'd roll 2d6 and keep the lowest. For more dangerous wilderness, I'd keep the highest. Aside from a few hand-placed lairs, I think I'd prefer to have standard maps for caves and abandoned buildings (think: Frontier Forts of Kelnore) and pull one out when a lair needs to be added. If a wandering monster is encountered in a newly-generated area and I want to determine if it has a lair nearby or is truly migrating, I'd probably just roll a d6 and give it a lair on 5+. I'd also use this when revisiting a cleared lair to see if it has a new occupant. Again, I would never, ever roll % In Lair to determine if a random encounter is taking place in a lair. I roll that when PCs are in a lair they've discovered, to see if the monster is home or out hunting.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 26, 2020 13:30:04 GMT -6
From player’s perspective, doesn’t every monster have a lair? If I encounter a monster, I should be able to ask it where it’s lair is. Usually I would assume that it is somewhere in the same hex. If the lair is a hex or more away, the monster should have some reason for why it is “wandering” so far from home - I.e. it is going somewhere specific. Well, prominent in my mind is that numerous monsters in Vol-2 are listed with "Nil" % In Lair. I haven't done a complete analysis, but eyeballing the wilderness wandering monster tables, I'm guessing something on the order of one-third of the lists in both Vol-2 and Vol-3 are in that "Nil" lair category. This includes all of the normal and giant animals, which technically say "Variable" but without any specifier for lair/treasure I'm assuming are effectively none; indeed, spot-checking the AD&D MM, it looks like all or most of them got filled in with "Nil" there.
|
|