Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gus L" data-source="post: 9383782" data-attributes="member: 7045072">So OD&D's monster and treasure distribution scheme is part of the confusion - it presents seemingly multiple options (I like every other OD&D fan have a "100% CORRECT WAY!") ... but I also think OD&D giant rats have 2-13HD...so ummm...It's OD&D!What's interesting here, and part of the point I make in the post, is that the "Sample Dungeon" doesn't have monster encounters - two potential set piece monsters are vaguely mentioned (ogres and a basilisk), while treasure is likewise not examined. I think this presents a few interesting things.A) The locus of play and the focus of design is very much on the map.B) OD&D may envision purely randomized encounter and treasure - both placement and actual "random encounters"C) OD&D's "Sample Dungeon" and dungeon design advice may be for a fundamentally distinct sort of game - the 1/2 written version of D&D as a commando raid supplement for fantasy wargames that I've mentioned before... that then transformed into an RPG midway through writing. Some parts feel less updated then others.So to answer your questions....how does OD&D handle monster & treasure distribution... It depends.A) we have the sample dungeon which treats monsters as an afterthought. B) Then, next page, we have a brief table that is the along the typical early D&D 1/3 empty rooms 1/3 treasure 1/3 monster and some overlap (less unguarded treasure etc)C) A few pages later we have random encounter advice - which is coupled with quite a nice set of nested tables and the nesting aspect (you can meet small numbers of level 4 monsters on level 1 for example) deserves more attention - it's too often used as 8 monster types per dungeon level.There are a few more tidbits tossed around that generally rationalize monster placement, power levels and numbers. These seem to have been ignored in some important communities - specifically some of the West Coast tables that ultimately led to more heroic play styles and who tried to follow the Number Appearing stat on the monster tables... so 200 orcs and such was possible.  It's a fascinating thing that helps evolve modern D&D because it's part of that scene (not being wargamers) wanting more heroic games. From this blossoms feats, Ravenloft, CoC, and narrative design etc etc. Also Pendragon - we should all give a moment of respect for Pendragon.Anyways...Basically monster and treasure placement in OD&D is a mess, but at the least I can say the following about how I approach it.A) It's "Level Based" Balance.  I.E. the challenges you face on the first level of the dungeon is for first level PCs etc.  This uses the singular dungeon approach of OD&D - quite interesting how this evolved with referees having their unique signature dungeons. It's less useful in published adventures for campaign use.B) It may focus on random stocking ... but I don't think it really needs to or random stocking works.  It wouldn't work well with the traps and tricks really - like you want a treasure reward for figuring out the stupid spinning room etc. Some early dungeons follow the random stocking idea seemingly - Palace of the Vampire Queen feels this way. Again I don't think it works well with the size of the levels though.OD&D monster design and placement deserves its own post... someday.The thing I like about the OD&D sample is that one can see how it evolves into some of the new and amazing design choices for Caverns of Thracia</blockquote>

Verification