
I didn't get all of the rules right on the first try, however. I forgot to do the constructions of the goblins (aka Chaotic monsters) in pencil, but the first group of dwarves (aka Lawful monsters) built over their warrens anyway. Of more influence, however, i forgot that the monster groups could attack the Dragons (Hungry Beasts, but hey, it is called Dungeons & Dragons for a reason!). A young dragon was driven off when he tried to set up shop in the central caverns, but the other two just ate and ate and ate...
(Even if i had followed the rule correctly, it still seems that getting a dragon early on makes for a hugely different dungeon ecology! They're massive population control engines - keystone predators indeed!)
Also, i didn't roll dice - instead i flipped a set of 6 coins to get the chart rolls. So my probabilities are different from the start. Oh, and instead of choosing where to put the "rivers" and natural caves generated after the flood, i used the same method as for the initial gold vein to place them randomly.
Now a few comments:
Order of appearance of the monsters seems really critical! Goblins breed and spread like roaches! Dwarves eat all the treasure! Dragons control populations and destroy dwarven enclaves - plus they are great at concentrating treasure. Wandering Monsters replace treasures lost to the dwarves (and adventures, i suppose!) It is actually a pretty slick set of relationships.
I didn't go on to the Age of Villians, since i'm not much for Undead, and the Liche Lord was the only villian available.
I think i'll try making another semi-random dungeon over the weekend, and break one or the other out next time my D&D group gets togther. I think it really can make a nice framework for a delve!
November 16 2007, 16:07:11 UTC 4 years ago
November 16 2007, 20:29:09 UTC 4 years ago
November 16 2007, 23:05:46 UTC 4 years ago
I played it so that 1) relationships were established by the group expanding its ZOC, 2) were acted on immediately, 3) were acted on each monster turn until one group or the other expired, and 4) prevented a relationship in the opposite direction from being formed.
I think number 4 might be wrong, or if not maybe more interesting without.
But it might also lead to "double elimination", especially with the dwarves.
November 17 2007, 06:54:53 UTC 4 years ago
1. relationships are created by the expanding ground
2. they prevent a relationship in the other direction
3. they are acted on immediately
4. they are acted on again after all groups have had a chance to take a turn expanding
I think you can get mutual annihilation in some situations. I'm working on slightly clearer relationship rules for a new version. I'll be giving them a try soon.