Teach Me Your Old-School Ways

[Papercut]

Mapper and caller have been odd ideas to me. I guess a mapper makes sense if you are in a long and deep maze and the point is to find secret rooms bu spacial recognition, but caller? What is the point (honest question)?

 

[S'mon]

Is that 30 minutes of table time or 30 minutes of in-game time? If the latter, how do you track in-game time?

30 minutes of game time. If the party has a 12" move rate then moving 120' through the dungeon while searching & mapping takes 10 minutes - 1 Turn. A battle followed by rest & binding wounds takes 1 Turn, likewise. Every 2 or 3 Turns check for wandering monsters. A party running from monsters or leaving the dungeon with 12" move, moves 1200' in 1 Turn.

 

[S'mon]

This is interesting, and not what I would have expected. What's the reasoning behind this? (By the way, I clearly need to get copies of the old 1e books since they seem to be full of answers to my questions.) Does this have a specific impact on healing and other resource management? (The only healing rules I have off the top of my head are 3e and 4e, but in 3e at least spending a month in town between delves would be a huge boon to a cleric-less party, as non-magical healing is 1 hp per day.)

It accommodates the kind of variable player base Gygax GM'd Greyhawk for - a variable group of players & PCs get together on the appointed day (real world and game world) for a discrete 'delve', then go home (and heal, if necessary). In my PBB campaign the PCs are all members of the Swordsmen's Brotherhood mercenary/adventurer society, and the Delves are missions for employers.

I could choose a different arbitrary amount of time to pass between adventures, but following Gygax's advice works perfectly, so why change it?

 

[S'mon]

This makes sense from a game perspective, as there's surely an ideal rate of discovery for hex encounters that keeps things moving without having nothing happen at all (the 1/6 miles or 1/8 miles you mention). It does have the curious effect, though, that the larger an area you pass through, the more likely you are to find something in it, which is of course not at all like real life. I think as I put together my hexes I'll go for smaller and denser so there's a high rate of passing things by. This feels more realistic to me and also increases the replay value of the area. I'm assuming there are standard rates of travel written down somewhere? I think I worked out the 4e rate of overland travel to be about 4 6-mile hexes per day, which is then modified by terrain type. EDIT: Because it was about 25 miles per day, not because 4e has anything to say about hexmapping.

How about wandering monster rates in the wilderness?

Standard rates of travel - various iterations of D&D and other games have these, normally based off an unburdened man on level terrain walking at 3 miles an hour for 8 or 10 hours a day. So 24 miles/day or 30 miles/day is pretty standard.

Wandering monsters - in the 1e DMG you check between 1 and 6 times/day, depending on terrain, with a 1 in 10, 1 in 12 or 1 in 20 chance of an encounter on each check. The DMG does not address hexes, nor does it give different encounter probabilities when staying in place vs travelling, except for the territory development section's rules on wanderers into your nascent domain.

 

[KesselZero]

Standard rates of travel - various iterations of D&D and other games have these, normally based off an unburdened man on level terrain walking at 3 miles an hour for 8 or 10 hours a day. So 24 miles/day or 30 miles/day is pretty standard.

Wandering monsters - in the 1e DMG you check between 1 and 6 times/day, depending on terrain, with a 1 in 10, 1 in 12 or 1 in 20 chance of an encounter on each check. The DMG does not address hexes, nor does it give different encounter probabilities when staying in place vs travelling, except for the territory development section's rules on wanderers into your nascent domain.

Sounds like movement rates, at least, haven't changed over the editions. That's pretty cool, actually. I like those probabilities about encounters per day. I tried to put together my own random encounter tables just based on what seemed right, and they ended up a bit too common, with something happening almost every day, which gets a bit dull (especially as we're playing 4e, in which combat takes a long time to resolve).

30 minutes of game time. If the party has a 12" move rate then moving 120' through the dungeon while searching & mapping takes 10 minutes - 1 Turn. A battle followed by rest & binding wounds takes 1 Turn, likewise. Every 2 or 3 Turns check for wandering monsters. A party running from monsters or leaving the dungeon with 12" move, moves 1200' in 1 Turn.

Okay, so you're really tracking exact location in the dungeon as they move. Obviously they move a lot faster when not mapping! Does every battle/rest period take 1 turn (10 minutes), no matter how many player actions it actually takes?

 

[grodog]

So this starts to get into the question of monster tactics. Would you be willing to shed some light on your decision-making process for how smart you have monsters act, and how wise they are to the PCs' methods?

In my experience, that's going to vary by:

- how careful the PCs are in approaching the dungeon, including if they have been loud/obvious in their approach, taken the same approach repeatedly, left an obvious trail, and/or have been very successful (either from the POV of town-based threats, because PCs have come back rich!, or from the POV of dungeon-based threats, because the PCs have wreaked major havoc)

- how smart the monsters rolled (presumably WM) are---this is based on their Int, and to a lesser degree, their alignment (since lawful/organized monsters are more likely to have sentries, set spies/traps, etc.) and/or demeanor/nature (are they vengeful, unable to survive in sunlight, etc.)

- how careful the PCs are in navigating the dungeon (similar to the first Q about approaching the dungeon, but from the POV of its inhabitants): are PCs moving through the areas methodically, or willy-nilly; are they loud/noisy (spiking doors, lots of battles in hallways, etc.); what light sources are they using (continual light and bullseye lanters are wonderful, but negate the PCs' chances to surprise enemies and are visible from FAR away....); etc.

- how careful the PCs are in encounters: have many monsters survived battle with the PCs (if so, smart/organized ones will learn between battles), have the PCs dropped unintended hints about their goals/identities/etc. (names shouted out in battle, wearing obvious heraldry/holy symbols/etc., questions asked of monsters, etc.)

Your ambush example is a good one, since there are a few decisions you need to make. How do you decide if the PCs were being stealthy enough? How do you decide if there were any monsters around to hear them clattering down the stairs or whatnot? And how do you determine (and this point seems key) that the monsters decide to set up an ambush, expecting the players to return via the same path home, rather than just jump out and attack them then and there, or follow them secretly through the dungeon, or hide in fear, or some other tactic? I'm sure all of these things are judgment calls, but I'd be very curious to know what sorts of factors you take into account and how you weigh them. Thanks!

The two articles I mentioned in WD38 offer some excellent advice around these Qs, KZ. They're entitled "Monsters Have Feelings Too: How to Get the Most from Your Monsters" by Oliver MacDonald, and "Extracts from the Uruk-Hai Battle Manual" by Graeme Davis (WD38, Feb 1983). Worth digging up, if you're able.

And also-- I'm hitting the "you must spread XP around" limit for you guys, but be it known that I'm really, really enjoying and appreciating this thread and all the help.

Glad to hear it

 

[grodog]

Mapper and caller have been odd ideas to me. I guess a mapper makes sense if you are in a long and deep maze and the point is to find secret rooms bu spacial recognition, but caller? What is the point (honest question)?

My take:

Mappers are useful so that players and their PCs can find their way out of the dungeon; without a mapper, unless the players have some sort of photographic/eidetic memory, then they're probably going to get woefully lost. In general, I recommend that there be at least two mappers in a party, in case one falls into a vat of acid along with his/her map, one fails a saving throw vs. fireball and some of his items burn up (including the map...), etc. Basically, my POV is that the mappers are the most important PCs in the party, and the maps are among the PCs' most important equipment (and are probably more important than many of the PCs themselves in a larger party ).

Callers I find somewhat less useful, personally. They're more helpful in larger parties (7+ players) and in convention/tournament play, since they help to speed the party along and not spend too much time dwelling on the dungeon dressing. When managed badly, however, callers can hog the spotlight and prevent others from has as much fun in the game, which is a definite drag.
Not sure if that helps or not?

Okay, so you're really tracking exact location in the dungeon as they move. Obviously they move a lot faster when not mapping!

I track PC movements on my maps usually by laying the point of a pen/pencil on their location. That also helps me to track how far they can see, based on the light source(s) that they're using, too---so that I don't give them too much information about the far side of a larger room, for example.

WRT movement rates:

The movement distance in the dungeon is 1" to 10' over a turn of 10 minutes duration while exploration and mapping are in progress. If the party is following a known route or map, the movement rate is 5 times greater, so each move takes 1/5 of a turn (2 rounds). If the party is fleeing, all movement - excluding encumbered movement, is 10 times faster, so each move takes only 1/10 of a turn, or 1 round.

So, mapping = PCs with 12" movement rates cover 120' of linear distance (assuming that they don't stop along the way, which they do a lot ). While travelling through previously-mapped areas, PCs with 12" movements cover 5x120' = 600' of distance. They double that distance covered only when in pursuit or in flight, and they cannot map during such movement.

Does every battle/rest period take 1 turn (10 minutes), no matter how many player actions it actually takes?

Battles that take longer than 10 rounds move into the second turn of combat (and I roll the WM check after the first turn of combat, which may mean that additional antagonists appear while a long battle is still ongoing!). Once the battle ends (including flight/pursuit), then I mark off the number of turns, rounding up for all fractions (i.e., a battle lasting 13 rounds counts as 2 turns of battle). Then after each battle, PCs must rest a turn (and WM are rolled for too ).

(By the way, I clearly need to get copies of the old 1e books since they seem to be full of answers to my questions.)

Well, WotC's going to reprint them in July, so you can always buy them then (at ~$110 for all three books), but if you don't want to wait that long/spend that much money, you should be able to find good, used copies on Amazon, ABEbooks, eBay, etc. pretty cheaply ($8-15 each, depending on how picky you are). You can also download OSRIC (the AD&D retroclone that cleans up and reorganizes the AD&D core rules from the MM, PHB, DMG in one volume) for free @ OSRIC You can also buy a copy of OSRIC from Black Blade @ All Products > Store ($26 for a hardcover that's superior to the one available on Lulu.com)

 

[Jacob Marley]

Sounds like movement rates, at least, haven't changed over the editions. That's pretty cool, actually. I like those probabilities about encounters per day. I tried to put together my own random encounter tables just based on what seemed right, and they ended up a bit too common, with something happening almost every day, which gets a bit dull (especially as we're playing 4e, in which combat takes a long time to resolve).

Remember, not every encounter needs to be combat. In fact, a goodly portion of wilderness encounters will either be avoided -- Oh look, a herd of buffalo! -- or will be role-playing interaction -- Hi Mr. Merchant!

Looking over my Greyhawk encounter tables, for example, a party traveling in the Domain of Greyhawk has approximately a 43% chance of encountering Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Merchants, Patrols, Pilgrims and other entities unlikely to be initially hostile to the party. (Of course, a good DM will occasionally make the Pilgrims followers of Incabulos and have the Patrol be on the take!)

 

[S'mon]

Sounds like movement rates, at least, haven't changed over the editions. That's pretty cool, actually. I like those probabilities about encounters per day. I tried to put together my own random encounter tables just based on what seemed right, and they ended up a bit too common, with something happening almost every day, which gets a bit dull (especially as we're playing 4e, in which combat takes a long time to resolve).

In the 1e DMG, wilderness encounter probability varies from 6 1 in 10 checks/day in Wilderness Swamps (swamps are traditionally nasty!) to 1 in 1 in 20 check/day for deep ocean travel. On land you use d10s for wilderness, d12 for borderlands and d20 for inhabited areas to check for significant encounters. In Borderland & Inhabited areas, 20% (AIR) of encounters will be with a patrol, others may be non-hostile encounters with merchant caravans & such.

 

[S'mon]

Remember, not every encounter needs to be combat. In fact, a goodly portion of wilderness encounters will either be avoided -- Oh look, a herd of buffalo! -- or will be role-playing interaction -- Hi Mr. Merchant!

Yup, quite possibly more than half will not result in combat.

OTOH, the AD&D assumption is that if combat does occur on a wilderness encounter, it is likely to be highly significant - 30-300 orcs or 1d4 red dragons significant! In 4e terms, the EL is likely to be very high; possibly well beyond Party Level+4 if all foes are fought at once. 30-300 orcs 'in lair' is arguably more an 'adventure' than an 'encounter'. You could see the system as in some ways more as an environment-generator than a mere wandering monster system; you can encounter Fortresses, for instance - 1 in 20 chance on a Wilderness encounter check.