|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Aug 28, 2018 8:48:54 GMT -5
Do we know any more about Gary's concerns specifically with the random encounter tables in FF? I've generally preferred using those to the MM2 tables, since the MM2 tables were so short and non-comprehensive in approach, in comparison. Allan. The random monster encounter tables in FF weren't constructed to take into account the stated frequency of monsters per monster stay blocks. The MM2 tables were constructed statistically properly, so common frequency monsters come up roughly 2/3 of the time, uncommon frequency monsters come up roughly 1/4 of the time, rare frequency monsters roughly 1/20 of the time, and very rare frequency monsters roughly 1/100 of the time, per the approximate chance of dice roll totals.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Aug 28, 2018 8:58:28 GMT -5
I use the DMG charts at lower levels because the mix of FF and MM2 is too big in scope. It fits for weird shit at higher levels but not good for introductory.
MM2 has flaws like that fucking MM2 polar bear being more powerful than a MM cave bear just pisses me off.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Aug 28, 2018 11:10:26 GMT -5
Its interesting that there wasn't any attempt at fixing the name "githyanki" in any way. What would be a better MM2 take for an alternate name? Astral Lich Mummy? I'm down for the astral lich mummy! Can we also have an ethereal vampire ghast?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Aug 28, 2018 13:09:21 GMT -5
Its weird the imagery of the githyanki that seems it was intended to be something else. The small image next to the entry in FIEND FOLIO (1980) is literally the same as the one that appears in the issue of WHITE DWARF magazine #12 (APR/MAY 1979) under the FIEND FACTORY entry for "Githyanki". Here is the entry text:
So even though the FIEND FOLIO entry is heavily diluted with add-ons (no dancing sword, anti-paladins, "Gith", silver broad sword in image altered to silver two-handed sword, sword ego erased to make room for more powers in sword, pushed into Dungeon Level IV, red dragon, buddies, fighter/M-Us called "gish" , etc) they never address its "inhuman" look. The derivative FF text and add-ons seem to push the idea that they are more "human" than the original WHITE DWARF text. I assume these add-ons are by Schick because Turnbull disavows the line about anti-paladins in WHITE DWARF #41 (MAY 1983) and says that:
So how did they arrive at that image of the vampire-faced mummy the artist saw "lich queen" and got confused. Or are they a subterranean "human" that looks goblin-like to start?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Aug 28, 2018 18:14:04 GMT -5
Another thing that is insane is right next to the githyanki in the same WHITE DWARF magazine Fiend Factory column there is an obvious Arabian dressed individual with a flamberge in his hand and palm trees and the text is literally straight ou of DUNE:
So the art department at WHITE DWARF was a bit off to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Aug 28, 2018 20:04:47 GMT -5
From DRAGON #66 (OCT 1982)FROM THE SORCEROR'S SCROLL: I asked Gary who the hell was he talking about? He said Lawrence Schick. I noticed afterwards he wasn't plainly credited but if you read Turnbull's foreword in FIEND FOLIO (1979): Thanks Gene. As always I appreciate the context your bring to the discussion. Do you have a database of all of your Q&A with Gary and Rob saved somewhere and cross-referenced to their published works?---you always have a good answer at the tip of your fingers, it seems! In that same conversation Gary also said that they had to ratchet it up because it needed more and thats where I assume the non-TSR UK staff came in. Hmmm. I've assumed that it was the TSR UK folks pimping the local players who made the zines thrive over there, but in the end it doesn't matter much. I can certainly see how the FF monsters would sour Gary on the contributions of zines to the game. Do we know any more about Gary's concerns specifically with the random encounter tables in FF? I've generally preferred using those to the MM2 tables, since the MM2 tables were so short and non-comprehensive in approach, in comparison. The random monster encounter tables in FF weren't constructed to take into account the stated frequency of monsters per monster stay blocks. The MM2 tables were constructed statistically properly, so common frequency monsters come up roughly 2/3 of the time, uncommon frequency monsters come up roughly 1/4 of the time, rare frequency monsters roughly 1/20 of the time, and very rare frequency monsters roughly 1/100 of the time, per the approximate chance of dice roll totals. That's in part why I wanted to ask if we had any specifics, Dave, since complaints about the tables do seem somewhat warranted when you look at them with a critical eye, but then the same can easily be said for the MM2 tables too: they don't make any attempt to represent the full scope of MM, FF, and MM2 creatures within their measley 19-entry tables full of lame. The scope and breadth is why I like the FF tables better. As for the frequencies, adjusting the % ranges for each monster to mathematically match their equivalent BTB frequency rating as a % range in the encounter table seems like an excellent standard to hold TSR (and anyone else) to, but doing so within a simple d% table that spans 20-40 monster entries is also quite difficult, if not impossible, especially as the volume of monsters grew with the additions from FF and MM2 to the mix. Doing so using a d1000 table would make that much more feasible, but also likely make each table much longer. Perhaps something for your next Companion update, foster1941 ? As for the specific percentages, they're laid out in the MM2 as: - Common 65% - Uncommon 20% - Rare 7% - Very Rare 3% but that still only totals 95%, and the remaining 5% can't be Uniques, so we must therefore assume that a) no one at TSR ever bothered to add the Frequency numbers up, b) the 5% represents DM fiat placement (which is definitely too low if that's the case), or c) that no one at TSR bothered to check the MM1 or FF to see that the numbers were wrong in the MM2---the former two both break Frequency down as - Common 65% - Uncommon 20% - Rare 11% - Very Rare 4% or d) all of the above except b I use the DMG charts at lower levels because the mix of FF and MM2 is too big in scope. It fits for weird shit at higher levels but not good for introductory. MM2 has flaws like that fucking MM2 polar bear being more powerful than a MM cave bear just pisses me off. I don't generally like the MM2 tables because they're overrun with S3 creatures that should have remained unique to that environ (and to Gamma World and the Warden, perhaps), and totally get what you're saying about the DMG monsters covering the basics so well (Melan's "good vanilla fantasy" in action!). Allan.
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Aug 28, 2018 20:18:48 GMT -5
the long list of alternate names for FF creatures in the MM2 index also looks like Gary trying to shift that book's contents closer to the AD&D aesthetic baseline I'd forgotten about those (and there are some in the FF index too, although those look more like alt names mentioned in the descriptions vs. trying to rename the monster completely). Not at all sure that the MM2 entries are improvements to the originals, either: stun jelly --> wall, paralyzing; lava children --> volcano men; adherer --> sticking mummy; etc. Allan.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Aug 28, 2018 20:38:18 GMT -5
Thanks Gene. As always I appreciate the context your bring to the discussion. Do you have a database of all of your Q&A with Gary and Rob saved somewhere and cross-referenced to their published works?---you always have a good answer at the tip of your fingers, it seems! I have a slow photographic memory its not very good at the table because I sometimes have an all day delay. Specifically, Greyhawk and AD&D, I did lot of notes and its a nightmare of repetition and gibberish in pencil. Almost like I was memorizing spells. When I'm out I have material on my phone and I make notes to make replies in forum format. I use the DMG charts at lower levels because the mix of FF and MM2 is too big in scope. It fits for weird shit at higher levels but not good for introductory. MM2 has flaws like that fucking MM2 polar bear being more powerful than a MM cave bear just pisses me off. I don't generally like the MM2 tables because they're overrun with S3 creatures that should have remained unique to that environ (and to Gamma World and the Warden, perhaps), and totally get what you're saying about the DMG monsters covering the basics so well (Melan's "good vanilla fantasy" in action!). Allan. He's spot on. It's like one of those chef shows when there is a million different things you can do with lesser ingredients. I think that formula works based on its coming off sword and sorcery fiction where the legwork was done and post-D&D a lot of the grunts are no "Audie Murphy"s so there is a lot of blood on the battlefield but no winners.
|
|
|
Post by spacemonkeydm on Jan 27, 2019 21:03:41 GMT -5
I got the three core books and the FF all together in the late 80s at goodwill. I remember distinctly even as a pre teen thinking the monsters seemed goofy and just things I would not want to use. Later as I understand the game more a lot of the creatures seemed over powered.
The monster manual on contrast seems thought out and balanced. Nothing in it I would not use.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jan 27, 2019 23:14:09 GMT -5
A lot of the creatures are user end seeming like the death knight and the githyanki. Gary wanted to make FF work by forcing them into WOG boxed set and WG4 THE FORGOTTEN TEMPLE OF THARIZDUN.
My brother bought it at the miniatures shop that I used to practically live in from frquent visits back in 1981 but I kept picking it up and putting it down to buy other shit usually miniatures.
|
|