Dungeon Level = Monster Level?

[Lhorgrim]

So I've been putting together a B/X campaign for my son, and I re-discovered the advice that dungeon level and monster level(hit dice) should usually correspond.

I was just wondering how closely you follow that advice in your present day game, and if you or your DM followed it back in the olden days?

I had forgotten about it, but re-reading the rules reminded me that we did follow the level recommendations pretty closely. We switched over to AD&D after a short while, so we never ran into an issue of 12th level basic characters having to wade through 10 or 11 levels of a dungeon complex to get to a challenge.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't think I've ever been in a campaign like that, beyond Angband (a video game). Dungeons tend to be organized by monster type, IME, and maybe the hobgoblin section is mainly 1 HD, but there's some bosses up to 4 HD in there.

Then again, I've never been in a really long dungeon crawl.

 

[Celebrim]

Monster level and HD don't always correspond perfectly. I don't remember how BD&D did it, but AD&D had much the same advice but the monster entries also included their monster level as a separate row from their HD. Marids for instance had 13 HD, but were 'only' monster level VIII. Vargouille have but a single HD, but are monster level III. I imagine in BD&D you added HD to the number of '*'s indicating special abilities to determine level.

I've never done this exactly, but I did run an open dungeon crawl for a local gaming store for a while and after a time adopted the classical Gygaxian megadungeon as the most practical for a weekly format not involving a narrative of any sort. Even at a young age though, my sensibilities weren't very gamist.

Still, the megadungeon is an interesting exercise in creativity in its own right and easy to run.

 

[frogimus]

We followed it pretty closely. Sometimes the PCs discovered a secret passage that let them bypass a few upper levels.

 

[frogimus]

Monster level and HD don't always correspond perfectly. I don't remember how BD&D did it, but AD&D had much the same advice but the monster entries also included their monster level as a separate row from their HD. Marids for instance had 13 HD, but were 'only' monster level VIII. Vargouille have but a single HD, but are monster level III. I imagine in BD&D you added HD to the number of '*'s indicating special abilities to determine level.

No "monster level" in B/X. An example stat is
"Shrieker"
Armor Class:7.....................No Appearing: 1-8(0)
Hit Dice:3.............................Save As: Fighter 1

Then move, morale, attack, damage, treasure type, alignment

 

[Celebrim]

No "monster level" in B/X. An example stat is
"Shrieker"
Armor Class:7.....................No Appearing: 1-8(0)
Hit Dice:3.............................Save As: Fighter 1

Then move, morale, attack, damage, treasure type, alignment

If I recall my B/X correctly, somewhere in the description of the monster there will be for certain creatures, one more more '*'s appended to the HD or some where else (it's been ages since I looked at a BECMI book). Those indicate special abilities that make the monster unusually dangerous and they mean you also get more XP for slaying one. The Shrieker wouldn't have any.

 

[frogimus]

Yeah, the Shrieker may have been a poor example. In B/X the asterisk is a special abilities bonus for XP, but the book doesn't give any directive to change the monster level based on that. It does say they can be found 2 levels higher or lower than their HD, but the DM should adjust the quantity.

This may have changed a bit between B/X and BECMI.

 

[Lhorgrim]

Page B29 of my Moldvay book says "Hit Dice are also the level of the monster and the dungeon level on which it is most commonly found. In general a monster's level equals its number of hit dice, ignoring any pluses or minuses."

It goes on to say that "if a monster has several special powers, the DM may consider it one level greater than its hit dice."

Also that Monster level is only a guide and they may be found anywhere in a dungeon. It then lists suggestions about keeping them within two levels of their hit dice and adjusting number appearing.

 

[GMMichael]

I re-discovered the advice that dungeon level and monster level(hit dice) should usually correspond.

I wouldn't call this "advice" so much as "playstyle." Because, well, advice is for taking a better course of action, right? I'm not sure that meaner monsters, as you get further below ground level, is a better course for dungeon design.

Come to think of it, though, I still own a copy of the encounter tables for dungeon levels 1-20. AND up to ten levels of water encounters...

 

[saskganesh]

Back then? 1978? Pretty much.

Play styles evolve. My current game only has short dungeons, so dungeon "levels" don't figure. And I use a greater range of monster levels, no matter the player level.