tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post4252589966490239080..comments2024-03-29T10:34:22.739-04:00Comments on Delta's D&D Hotspot: Arena v1.11: Man vs. Monster, Pt. 1Deltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-39048865844446330842019-07-20T11:26:01.246-04:002019-07-20T11:26:01.246-04:00Thanks for the comment! I agree, and that's pr...Thanks for the comment! I agree, and that's pretty much what I'm doing these days myself. Assuming a party in the 4-6 range, I'm rolling a base 1d3 for wandering monsters, or 1d6 for a dungeon lair. My current megadungeon is designed for the 7-9 PC range of a certain level, so I'm rolling 1d6 for wandering, and 2d6 for lairs when I need them. (I did slightly more fiddly stuff like 1d4+1 a short while ago, but got sick of it and just switched back to d6's.)<br /><br />You can see that in the last paragraphs of the suggested handout <a href="https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2018/06/underworld-overhaul-pt-6-revised.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <br /><br />Admittedly I just ignore the "group types" clause, which seems would be numerically broken to me. Everything follows this same system. However if a monster is _weak_ in terms of EHD then it gets multiplied by that ratio, so maybe the end result is like Gygax was thinking. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-15634863441358655602019-07-19T23:43:19.646-04:002019-07-19T23:43:19.646-04:00I know this is years later, but I'm going thro...I know this is years later, but I'm going through the encounter tables interpretive dance and maybe...<br /><br />"If the level beneath the surface roughly corresponds with the level (monster level table) of the monster than the number of monsters will be based on a **single creature**, modified by type **[as in single types vs group types]** ... and the number of adventurers in the party. A party of from 1-3 would draw [1x], a party of 4-6 would bring [2x], and so on [7-9 = 3x]... [blah blah blah about other variables and ref judgment.]"<br /><br />If you take that rule, and add in a wide-specturm random element, the base number appearing should be either 1 or 1d2 for 1-3 players, and something like 1d3 or 1d6 for 7-9 players.<br /><br />If you narrow the randomization a bit by just doubling the base number appearing from the original random roll, you get something like 3 or 3d2 for 7 to 9 players.<br /><br />Then it's just a matter of identifying which monsters are singles and which are group-types.CountingWizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03096059050922240797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-2892364718062703782016-06-01T11:48:07.087-04:002016-06-01T11:48:07.087-04:00My pleasure!My pleasure!Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-13633983682078586532016-05-31T14:59:54.956-04:002016-05-31T14:59:54.956-04:00I see! Thanks for the specific citations!I see! Thanks for the specific citations!Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-22448715654291010262016-05-31T14:42:27.290-04:002016-05-31T14:42:27.290-04:00Well, this partly gets into a matter of interpreta...Well, this partly gets into a matter of interpretation with what's written in OD&D.<br /><br />In Vol-3 p. 11, the note on numbers of monsters is that it's "modified by type... and the number of adventurers in the party". So it seems to imply that PCs = monsters, or at least that the DM is expected to proportionally increase monster numbers when a bigger party shows up. In that sense, an estimate of 1 PC to 1 monster seems like a fair model. <br /><br />Likewise, when I read p. Vol-3, p. 12, the first thing I see is "Monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any characters they 'see', with the exception of those monsters which are intelligent enough to avoid an obviously superior force". The famous Reaction Table there is for the exceptional case of "more intelligent monsters" deciding what to do, whereas the default is simply always-attack. That's one of those text expectations that got lost in AD&D, and from a little of people's minds because of the visual impact of the table. (<a href="https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2011/09/power-of-pictures.html" rel="nofollow">Link</a>)Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-6329361583810232602016-05-31T14:35:41.563-04:002016-05-31T14:35:41.563-04:00Those are fair points. Admittedly strategy can mak...Those are fair points. Admittedly strategy can make a difference (and we hope it does under the "excellent play" rubric!), although simulating that would effectively take strong AI. I'm not simulating any equipment or magic items other than straight bonus-adding weapons and armor. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-88220879222351968182016-05-31T14:32:04.704-04:002016-05-31T14:32:04.704-04:00Thanks for the kind words! That's a good insig...Thanks for the kind words! That's a good insight on the late basic D&D black box set, since I never saw in that. I have noted the Holmes table before. And that's a fascinating writeup of the Arneson points-based method!Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-28137947846217752662016-05-31T14:24:19.023-04:002016-05-31T14:24:19.023-04:00There's a lot a gray area around what the expe...There's a lot a gray area around what the expected number of monsters should be in an OD&D dungeon, but I do think of Vol-3, p. 11 where it the only note in that regard says, "the number of monsters will be... modified by type... and the number of adventurers in the party". So that at least suggests something like PCs = encountered monsters; or at least an expectation that if you bring a bigger party, then the DM will commensurably increase the number of monsters, to keep the threat ratio balanced. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-47207891577795514562016-05-10T00:29:20.807-04:002016-05-10T00:29:20.807-04:00Wait, if this is going back to one-on-one fights, ...Wait, if this is going back to one-on-one fights, why do you use it as a basis that this encounter table is "broken"?<br /><br />Aren't you generally going to see a relatively large group of PCs with NPC hirelings, and aren't they going to be rolling reaction checks to see whether they start out negotiating rather than straight-up fighting? You've pointed out before that most of the powerful monsters fare less well against groups of soldiers, and presumably even then the fatality rate is going to be cut significantly by some members of a party fleeing after a deadly opening salvo shows that engaging a given enemy would mean a TPK. Beyond this, parties can ally with some monsters and talk their way out of fights with others. I'm not sure how you'd take stuff like this into account in your program, and it's entirely unrelated to XP-for-combat calculations, but it sure should inform our perceptions of what kind of encounters are "appropriate" on a given dungeon level.Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-67461426375498854752016-05-09T14:21:50.290-04:002016-05-09T14:21:50.290-04:00Now that the sim is being used for more complex th...Now that the sim is being used for more complex things, there are some things that start mattering more: <br /><br />1A: While monster group composition is typically homogeneous, delver groups contain multiple types of abilities that can synergize well. In some situations this might make it so a powerful monster ability that can be negated by a typical PC ability (like gargoyles needing +1 weapons to hit) is also possible in the other direction (Elves virtually immune to Sleep and Charm while their buddies suffer). <br /><br />1B: In a dungeon setting, you see a front rank of two or three figures. So a party of 5 zombies for example can't bring all of their numbers to bear. An adventuring party typically works out how to let every member participate in the fight, whether with spells, missiles hurled over short PCs in the front rank, spears wielded from the second rank, casting healing spells on the front-rank fighters, etc. Whatever total power the PCs can offer, a monster party of more than 2 must be able to offer proportionately less. Some exceptions include very small monsters that can slip among the party (like Giant Rats), tool-using monsters who can use spears and missiles (humanoids ... and things like manticores?), or monsters with ranged special abilities (Vampire charm, medusa gaze). Perhaps for missile users, this sustained ability to contribute to the fight from the back rank - and take advantage of arrow slits and high places - is why they are worth more XP, rather than just the free attack before closing to melee and possibly a free attack after the enemy has fled. <br /><br />2: Players are more likely than DM-run monsters to focus fire on one target until dead and then move on. The effectiveness of this tactic can be reduced by requiring action declaration before resolution, because it will tend to result in either the monster remaining alive at the end of the round because the party underestimated the attacks required, or more damage wasted in overkill. Regardless, I've found players far more frequently redirect their attention to spend an attack to kill off a monster than a DM doing the same. This may fall under the "DM tends to be less than 100% ruthless" which a simulator - or reality - wouldn't include. However it makes sense that low-INT monsters and animals might lack the tactics required to focus fire. PCs fighting animals should also benefit from their much greater ruthlessness in that animals will typically try to avoid the fight or waste time deciding whether to fight, while the humans make that decision immediately and then lay waste. <br /><br />3: Surprise can completely change the combat results, especially if using the 1E method where you're surprised 2 in 6 and the surprise duration is the number rolled on the die (and especially terrible is when a stealthy character surprises on 4 in 6!). <br /><br />4: What do the adventurers do with their nonmagical treasure? Do they have the choice to consume single-use magic items like potions in a dire situation?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-35678225967649829662016-05-09T11:45:38.131-04:002016-05-09T11:45:38.131-04:00Great stuff Dan!
>>>"This is highli...Great stuff Dan!<br /><br />>>>"This is highlighted by the fact that no one ever used it again in that format;"<br /><br />Yes, although we do have an example in print of a 6 level dungeon stocked using this table, from the 1976 GenCon Castle Blackmoor dungeon. Discussed here: http://boggswood.blogspot.com/2015/11/appearing-in-blackmoor-dungeon.html<br /><br />Now I don't know what other tables you are going to look at, and I don't want to steal your thunder, but there are a couple other more or less "official" OD&D methods. The first is average monster HD (round up for +l) = Dungeon level. This is exemplified by the xp award discussion on page 18 of Men and Magic. Further, this Monster HD "level" equals dungeon level is actually what was finally adopted in the last version of classid D&D (blackbox) "The difference between a monsters’ level and a dungeon level should usually be no more than 2. (p68)"<br /><br />The other sort of "official" stocking method for OD&D would be Arneson's point buy method, which actually works really well and is probably the best way to do it. Discussed here http://boggswood.blogspot.com/2014/08/point-buy-systems-for-stocking-dungeons.html<br /><br />Last thing to mention is that it would be interesting if you had a look at Gygax's revised Monster Level Determination table in Holmes (p10) which weights the average monster level much closer to the actual dungeon level.<br /><br /><br />DHBoggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170439175265397893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-75077608356764489092016-05-09T09:11:01.256-04:002016-05-09T09:11:01.256-04:00Correction - I must have been thinking of one of t...Correction - I must have been thinking of one of the basic sets, I just looked at my pdf and it appears that fewer rooms have treasure without monsters - only 1 in 6 out of the two-thirds of monsterless rooms, or 1 in 9 overall. Much less common, but still tempting to a sneaky looter, considering the expected value of a treasure on Dungeon Level 1 is just shy of 300 gold pieces and a 5% chance of magic - with a chance for much, much more if RNGesus is with you.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14285793254382192231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-2561659319120457922016-05-09T09:05:46.093-04:002016-05-09T09:05:46.093-04:00One thing that comes to mind is that in the sugges...One thing that comes to mind is that in the suggested dungeon generation, one in three rooms have monsters while one-half have treasures. So on average, one-sixth of rooms have monsters but no treasure and are to be avoided, one-sixth have monsters with treasure, and one-third have unguarded treasure.<br /><br />With this in mind, a lone treasure hunter would be best served to avoid fights entirely and seek the unguarded treasures. The solution to the deadliness of even one-on-one fights is meant to be solved by assembling an organized expedition - and adventuring party. Even then, there is the impetus to avoid overly dangerous fights, or those without obvious rewards, as a single hit can lay low a neophyte adventurer of any class, and at the end of the day every member of the party's number one goal is to return to the surface alive, riches in tow.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14285793254382192231noreply@blogger.com