tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post8500171978580265436..comments2024-03-15T11:16:44.045-04:00Comments on Delta's D&D Hotspot: Monte-Carlo Measures of Monster Levels, Pt. 7Deltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-67326470040967438762016-03-26T18:31:16.463-04:002016-03-26T18:31:16.463-04:00I totally agree with everything you just said, inc...I totally agree with everything you just said, including your opinion wrt. kobolds. <br /><br />My avatar is, in fact, the kobold from 'Het oog des Meesters' (translated into English under the name 'Dark eye'); it was my first RPG back in the 80s. In that RPG kobolds were indeed physically weak, but very mean and cunning!<br />pileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06008654668836414680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-13772372635150118532016-03-26T13:51:37.007-04:002016-03-26T13:51:37.007-04:00Right, it's something I have to deal with as w...Right, it's something I have to deal with as well, so I'm accustomed to replies sometimes landing a bit further down. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-83571225082990163172016-03-26T10:33:09.541-04:002016-03-26T10:33:09.541-04:00Oh, I'm sure. I didn't think you were down...Oh, I'm sure. I didn't think you were down playing anything and it's an interesting discussion how this does all work beyond vanilla combat (on both sides). If everything could be simply rated I suspect we wouldn't still be enjoying discussing a fifty-year-old game! Chess is a good example; we know a Rook is generally worth more than a Knight, but sometimes a Knight can be exactly what you need for a winning move and it's pretty hard to quantify their values despite the vast effort that has gone into it over many more games/datapoints and fewer pieces.<br /><br />Exp is such a key concept in D&D compared to many other games of its time. But I'm never entirely happy (a DM award seems too arbitrary, just as for treasure amounts, and for kills only encourages senseless murder and so on..). A lot of it is just 'feel': you must have some advancement sometimes, but not too easy.<br /><br />Certainly DMing of monsters is suboptimal. They are often played stupidly (or they would prepare and kill the characters most times). On the other hand, I've always taken a liking to extremely cunning kobolds who really offer much more threat than their hit dice/M or whatever suggests they should by working together. One of the good things about finding others on the net in the OSR is to find I'm not alone in my love of the little guys.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-49458342746788265102016-03-25T17:32:29.114-04:002016-03-25T17:32:29.114-04:00I agree that the M-metric indeed tells something a...I agree that the M-metric indeed tells something about relative power levels for vanilla creatures.<br /><br />Just to be sure, I really enjoyed your comments on the new metric and had not the intention to down play them.<br /><br />On XP for kills, I see your point, but flavourwise I think learning something from entering the fray is a valid design concept.<br /><br />Maybe it is also sub-optimal DM-ing? If petty humans get bullied by, say, ogres, adventurers are called for. I guess the goblins could do something similar when bugged by PCs, right?pileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06008654668836414680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-54664920737225187922016-03-25T14:24:40.131-04:002016-03-25T14:24:40.131-04:00I've figured it out: even though I hit Reply d...I've figured it out: even though I hit Reply directly below the comment that I want to reply to, it goes to the bottom if I then have to authenticate via Google. Once I have signed it, it goes where I expected it to... sorry for messing up the continuity here, I've moved one comment back up, but the earlier one isn't worth moving now, it has lost its place in the thread.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-20148562081185730102016-03-25T14:20:07.094-04:002016-03-25T14:20:07.094-04:00Yes, but I think it is still OK for relative power...Yes, but I think it is still OK for relative power until the monsters have 'special powers'. Then it becomes a matter of hand tuning/waving again.<br /><br />M is the damage that monster will hand out to any AC2 targets (which is common for PCs in OD&D) in the time taken for first level FM to kill it. Clearly that time gets less with higher level PCs, but a lower M will not be more dangerous than a higher M one, unless it has special attacks that throw it all off.<br /><br />I'm thinking poison: true, a lower level PC will have a harder time making a save than a higher level one will, but they also have 'less to lose' especially if a monster does damage with the attack as well that might kill them anyway. I could imagine that a spider, say, is deadlier to lower levels, but is still a risk to higher ones, whereas a ogre goes from fearsome to not much of a threat at higher levels. Not that I often got there alive...<br /><br />Magic just breaks the system. A high level MU wouldn't have a meaningful M really, it just goes back to intuition like Greyhawk itself.<br /><br />I'm not advocating M for experience, or anything else really, but this great series of posts reminded me of it (and provided a great excuse to dig out the articles that I have sent to Delta) and it might be fun to see how well it correlates. It's worth remembering that in 1977 a pocket calculator even was a luxury item, and most did not have access to any sort of computer, but a lot of the same thoughts were going through people's heads.<br /><br />On a side-track, I've never really been happy with experience for kills. It's pretty obvious form the pseudo-exponential level boundaries, and experience progression per HD (at lower numbers anyway) from Greyhawk, and scaling awards by monster level/character level in M&M, that the original designers had a real issue with players sticking around to bully goblins if they could get away with it!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-43034082416454075772016-03-25T12:16:57.512-04:002016-03-25T12:16:57.512-04:00Thanks so much for the comments!
I've had at ...Thanks so much for the comments! <br />I've had at least one close friend recently say he was very impressed by the high-quality of comments we get posted here. So feel free to make me look smart any time you like. :-)Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-68435696629512229312016-03-25T12:14:52.788-04:002016-03-25T12:14:52.788-04:00^ That's kind of what my intuition was, too.^ That's kind of what my intuition was, too.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-86837476855205636182016-03-25T05:52:00.641-04:002016-03-25T05:52:00.641-04:00Fair point. In practice, the stats are in table fo...Fair point. In practice, the stats are in table form, so there are headers. I've mailed you scans. My main compliant is the damage average, I'm fine turning 1-8 or d8 into 4.5, but I guess it isn't natural to everyone, and only giving the average is ambiguous as a quick reference. <br /><br />I work for a notoriously fussy institution that would slaughter a lot of the notation that is used, so I know what you mean about grading ;-)<br /><br />By the way, I meant to say I've really enjoyed your blog; I'm not often tempted to comment, so take that as a compliment of sorts :-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-71090303215327896232016-03-25T05:36:46.148-04:002016-03-25T05:36:46.148-04:00The reference for the M-metric is an FM1 and its v...The reference for the M-metric is an FM1 and its value reflects how dangerous the monster is to a low-level fighter.<br /><br />High M indicates that the encounter is too much for a single FM1 PC and is better suited at high(er) level.<br /><br />However, since 'dangerousness' does not scale equally with level for all monsters, it might be that, say, a M=300 monster is actually more dangerous for a FM6 PC than a M=400 monster.<br /><br />So, the M-metric might not be a good basis to determine XP, after all.<br /><br />Or am I overlooking something?pileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06008654668836414680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-82621342356572957292016-03-25T00:30:04.103-04:002016-03-25T00:30:04.103-04:00That's really interesting! The M-metric idea s...That's really interesting! The M-metric idea seems like a good one.<br /><br />The one critique I'd have is I never have a good time parsing stat blocks with just numbers in a certain sequence; I always need labels to cue what I'm looking at. (AC 2, HD 8, etc.) In fact, I actually grade on that for graphs on my in-class tests. :-)Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-16427278880433441592016-03-24T15:04:49.851-04:002016-03-24T15:04:49.851-04:00A couple of observations: Don Turnbull uses a real...A couple of observations: Don Turnbull uses a really nice, compact notation for monster attacks in one line of the form<br />AC HD N : p1n1 : p2n2 ... : S<br />where N is the number of attacks, p1 the probability of one causing damage n1 and S a letter code that keys to special powers. I like that, and had forgotten it. He didn't think Greyhawk made sense when some monsters attacked with both horn and bite (reflecting how long he saw a melee round as being, I suppose), so some are non-standard here.<br /><br />e.g. a vampire is written simply<br /><br />vampire 2 8 1:100% 5.5:LLMa (M=440)<br />(two 'L's for two levels drained, Ma for other magical attack/defence!)<br /><br />or <br /><br />ent 2 8 2:100% 10.5:100% 10.5: - (M=420)<br /><br />And M really reveals the importance of AC rather than just HD in how tough a monster is.<br /><br />Finally, he makes the interesting observation in a couple of places that multiple monsters are much worse -- but it is impractical to calulate that. In particular, if experience refelects risk, then killing a group of 50 hobgoblins shouldn't just give you 50 times the experience of killing a lone hobgoblin -- the risk isn't linear. Over to your program!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-2891853882178291632016-03-24T14:47:59.897-04:002016-03-24T14:47:59.897-04:00OK, I've found it. The Monstermark was publish...OK, I've found it. The Monstermark was published in White Dwarf 1--3 (Jun/Jul--Oct/Nov 1977), building on something earlier in 'Owl and Weasel' but much more complete.<br /><br />The basic idea is this.<br /><br />Defence (D) is the number of rounds a monster will expect to survive being attacked by a sword-weilding FM1 (this is all Greyhawk d8 HD and sword damage, but it doesn't matter for D).<br /><br />D = (HP * 40)/(9*(AC +2))<br /><br />Aggresiveness (A)is the amount of damage that a monster can expect to do in D rounds to AC2 targets (i.e how much it dishes out before it dies).<br /><br />A = D * Prob(hit AC2) * average damage<br /><br />For straightforwrad monsters, Monstermark (M) = A.<br /><br />Example, an ogre: D=12.1, A=M=29.9<br /><br />For 'special powers' there is a hand-tuned factor, e.g. if a paralysis attack, then M = 2A and so on. This is the weak spot in the system, especially with magic and level drain if the monster has otherwise low damage.<br /><br />He evaluates every D&D and EPT monster of the time from a kobold (M=1.1) to the Iron Golem (about 32,000 -- but not much is over M=2,000).<br /><br />Apart from checking the Greyhawk tables (he makes a new set of 12 levels), there's ideas for determining the number of wandering monsters and dungeon-stocking and what I remembered, a new exp system of exp=10*M/level (although '10 may be too high'). I only abandoned that later when I realised I was doing a lot of work for a relatively minor award compared to treasure.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-52221513947765970862016-03-24T14:23:25.758-04:002016-03-24T14:23:25.758-04:00Sorry, this was meant to go intot the discussion o...Sorry, this was meant to go intot the discussion of stacking shield bonuses. Don't know what happened -- iPad late at night, I think.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-7298407996954611132016-03-24T12:09:04.123-04:002016-03-24T12:09:04.123-04:00Agree that was a critically necessary fix-up in Su...Agree that was a critically necessary fix-up in Sup-I.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-53515548875819711852016-03-23T12:20:06.259-04:002016-03-23T12:20:06.259-04:00I always read that "additional" as "...I always read that "additional" as "higher," personally. So if your shield is +3 and your armor is +2, you have a one-third chance of the "additional" +1 taken into account. It was a weirdly-phrased mess from start to finish - like the usage of "hit dice" to refer to the attack roll. Cleaning that up was one of the best things Supp-I did. Of course, with the advent of variable weapon damage, Gary kind of needed to buff shields in order to make them a viable alternative to two-handed weapons.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14285793254382192231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-83792319846786418972016-03-23T11:03:43.665-04:002016-03-23T11:03:43.665-04:00Sounds like good material!Sounds like good material!Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-17703552611387492092016-03-22T19:54:36.700-04:002016-03-22T19:54:36.700-04:00I'll see what I can type in. I do have origina...I'll see what I can type in. I do have original issues 1-20 or so, but I'm nervous about posting a scan because of copyright issues, so I'll think about some fair use quotes.<br /><br />I loved the early WDs, they were quirky and uneven but had a unique atmosphere. It lost it later when GW became a more professional business. I sold most of my collection (with all my OD&D stuff) for a pittance to a US serviceman when I went to university to raise cash. Not a great financial decision when I see what they go for now...<br /><br />Actually, I remember programming the MonsterMark formulae up on a HP calculator. Fun times. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-77772776644435467892016-03-22T19:42:11.654-04:002016-03-22T19:42:11.654-04:00Yes, it's a bit unclear. Like the rest of 1974...Yes, it's a bit unclear. Like the rest of 1974 combat really. It's just a pain to implement and I've always stacked anyway. Few enough PCs ever got good enough armour and shield, so good luck to those who did. And helping basic FM was often an effect I wanted as they seemed to be outclassed by everyone else in the end.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-85140033981304558542016-03-22T12:08:31.388-04:002016-03-22T12:08:31.388-04:00That sounds great, I'd love to see it! I don&#...That sounds great, I'd love to see it! I don't think I've ever had my hands on a single copy of White Dwarf ever in my life (but it always sounded great). I must admit I feel super lucky to live in the era of copious computing power that makes these exercises a lot easier. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-78134969149298478222016-03-22T12:06:03.177-04:002016-03-22T12:06:03.177-04:00You're basically right that it gets complicate...You're basically right that it gets complicated like that. Vol-2 p. 31 says: "Armor proper subtracts its bonus from the hit dice of the opponents of its wearer. If the shield's bonus is greater than that of the armor there is a one-third chance that the blow will be caught by the shield, thus giving the additional subtraction." <br /><br />So with a magic shield there's at least a <i>chance</i> each attack that the shield's bonus stacks to penalize the attacker. (Unless by "additional" he meant "higher".) Super glad to have that rule scrubbed out. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-67821390150427326492016-03-20T19:49:22.273-04:002016-03-20T19:49:22.273-04:00I think in true LBB armour and shield / other magi...I think in true LBB armour and shield / other magic things don't stack, so the best is equivalent to AC -1, although it's written as AC 2 with 3 subtracted from the attack die, of course and I don't remember playing it that way, but I didn't really start until 1977.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-83252822400194977482016-03-20T19:41:24.016-04:002016-03-20T19:41:24.016-04:00...or it might have been the number of hit points ......or it might have been the number of hit points expected to be handed out by each monster to such an infinite line of fighters before it went down. It was a long time ago now, I'll try and dig it out to check. I remember he had problems with level drain and pulled a bonus out of thin air for that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-64203598467435979022016-03-20T19:31:44.537-04:002016-03-20T19:31:44.537-04:00Have you read the "Monstermark" series o...Have you read the "Monstermark" series of articles by Don Turnbull from the early UK White Dwarf magazines (1977)? They were pencil and paper calculations almost exactly like these. He found the number of first level AC2 FM needed to kill each monster in the game if queued in a line and fighting one by one. Many found it a little too mathematical, but I loved it and based my early exp. system on it. The table he produced was also an excellent monster quick reference sheet. Really got me into D&D. This was LBB plus Greyhawk, which was what most of us did around the time of Holmes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445300985433237675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-5988416502961115372016-03-17T19:34:51.962-04:002016-03-17T19:34:51.962-04:00Yeah, when I was driving into work it dawned on me...Yeah, when I was driving into work it dawned on me that btb OD&D (pre Sups) you'd not have that tricked out fighter anyway. Thanks for being gracious in pointing that out!Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11109361392288271963noreply@blogger.com