Monsters as Player Characters - OD&D vs. AD&D

I don't know - it looks good to me

I'm taking a three-day break from demons to talk about something I rediscovered while looking for demons. I'm sure what I'm about to point out has been mentioned before, though I don't have a reference.

In Men & Magic, after detailing the three character classes and three additional races, Gary Gygax wrote:

Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee (p. 8).

Now I have no idea how many referees back in the day were coming up with stats on the fly for players who confidently announced they wanted to play a non-standard character, but I think it's indisputable that from the very first many were experimenting with creating their own new character classes, races and types to supplement the ones in the text or customary rules. Arneson's Blackmoor campaign had a Balrog player-character, and Gygax's reportedly also allowed such variations in Greyhawk (which is presumably why he wrote the passage above).

The author of the Dungeons & Dragons "Basic" set, John Eric Holmes, apparently also enjoyed running adventuring parties of non-standard classes or creatures. And he implied as much in the text of that game:

At the Dungeon Master's discretion a character can be anything his or her player wants him to be. Characters must always start out inexperienced and relatively weak and build on their experience. Thus, an expedition might include, in addition to the four basic classes and races (human, elven, dwarven, halflingish), a centaur, a lawful werebear, and a Japanese Samurai fighting man (p. 7).

However, now consider this passage (also written by Gygax) from the AD&D Dungeon Master Guide, six years later:

THE MONSTER AS A PLAYER CHARACTER

On occasion one player or another will evidence a strong desire to operate as a monster, conceiving a playable character as a strong demon, a devil, a dragon, or one of the most powerful sort of undead creatures. This is done principally because the player sees the desired monster character as superior to his or her peers and likely to provide a dominant role for him or her in the campaign. A moment of reflection will bring them to the unalterable conclusion that the game is heavily weighted towards mankind...

The considered opinion of this writer is that such characters are not beneficial to the game and should be excluded.

The later Gygax is of course contradicting his earlier self. Playing "monsters" as characters is now no longer recommended. Indeed, someone who pushes for it might even have psychological problems!

In fairness, Gygax does temper things a bit. He's against doing it, but such a decision should ultimately be left up to the referee - "As to other sorts of monsters as player characters, you as DM must decide in light of your aims and the style of your campaign." And it is preferable to find ways to discourage the practice rather than banning it outright:

Note that exclusion is best handled by restriction and not by refusal. Enumeration of the limits and drawbacks which are attendant upon the monster character will always be sufficient to steer the intelligent player away from the monster approach, for in most cases it was only thought of as a likely manner of game domination. The truly experimental-type player might be allowed to play such a monster character for a time so as to satisfy curiosity, and it can then be moved to non-player status and still be an interesting part of the campaign - and the player is most likely to desire to drop the monster character once he or she has examined its potential and played that role for a time. The less intelligent players who demand to play monster characters regardless of obvious consequences will soon remove themselves from play in any event, for their own ineptness will serve to have players or monsters or traps finish them off (p. 21 for all references).

Of course during this quasi-concession Gygax takes the opportunity to further put down players who might have such a desire - unless the goal is purely experimental, then they either have a will to dominate or are relatively stupid and inept. This might be characterized as one manifestation of what has been called High Gygaxian style. Here an air of wisdom is coupled with silly insults. That's not a criticism (of the style). In fact it's quite entertaining.

It sure beats "In creating the story of your character, work with your DM. Talk to them about your ideas, preferences and feelings."

Is it evil to contradict one's earlier self? Of course not. And for all we know, Gygax had learned from the previous six years of play that people playing dragons or demons was simply more trouble than what it was worth. But it's also an example of how, as the universe of Dungeons & Dragons was in most ways expanding (in terms of text or ruleset length if nothing else), there were walls to that universe that were simultaneously being erected or reinforced. All things being equal, I think that's something to regret.

Now I confess that in saying this I feel like a hypocritical politician. When I played D&D back in the day, I never ran or played non-standard player-characters, and since my rediscovery of the game and subsequent determination that I was now firmly in the more open-ended OD&D camp, I still haven't done so. But let's just say I philosophically or aesthetically favor an approach that leaves open the possibility. Or at least I like to think that I do.

If you want to play a dragon, that's fine. Just give me a few minutes to come up with something.

But don't tell me about your feelings.

"The fact that you can just randomly encounter a Longship filled with Vikings is pretty awesome."

Every week I google "zylarthen" to see if anyone has written a new review or whatever of Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, my OD&D neo-clone. After I gave the game it's somewhat distinctive name, I quickly discovered that one of the benefits is that it's pretty easy to google using just the last part. With "zylarthen" you generally find the game and only the game - the small exception being various characters in obscure fantasy or science-fiction stories (I think there might be at least three) named "Zylar" who occasionally then do something.

UPDATE: Actually, the "advantage" might not be so great as all that, I just googled "swords & wizardry" (without the quotation marks) using my Private Browser function for references in the last seven days. The only hits I came up with were to that game. I was somewhat surprised at this.

In any case, it's not like I often find a long review by some luminary. More often than not it's board or chat room traffic. Often it's by "Anonymous." Indeed, for all I know, "Anonymous" is always the same guy. The comment is often enthusiastic - "Hey, have you played Seven Voyages of Zylarthen? It does X better than any system that I know!" - but sadly, the comment is often left hanging as people go back to discussing Molvay Basic or whatever. Such is life, for me and Anonymous, I guess.

If you're reading this, Anonymous (or group of Anonymities), thanks again. I sincerely mean that.

Today, I found this comment on 4chan:

Anyone else absolutely love the gm sided stuff to 7 Voyages of Zylarthen, the Hex Crawl resources, the great random encounter tables. The fact that you can just randomly encounter a Longship filled with Vikings is pretty awesome.

Probably going to use alot of it's stuff on a project in the near future. It just seems more traditonal and folkloric compared to most other products of it's nature.

Well, even though the comment just hung there (or sank like a lead balloon), I'll take it to the bank. Or perhaps more accurately, I'll take it into my heart.

I'd like to think it gets the vibe of the game, especially as portrayed in Volume 4: The Campaign, precisely right. If you're in Fresh Water or Coastal terrain, a positive Wandering Monster check has a 1 in 20 chance of yielding Vikings (who will probably be in a longship). That's right, actual Vikings. Here's the description from Volume 2: Book of Monsters:

VIKINGS: Hit Dice: 1. Armor Class: 6. Move: 12/15. Alignment: Neutrality. Languages: Type I. Number Appearing: 1-4 longships, manned by 20-80 men each. % In Lair: 15%. Treasure: Class 1, plus 1-6 S.P. ea. Description: These warriors will always be found either on the water or within a few miles of their anchored or beached longships. However, the ships may easily traverse shallow rivers, and thus, Viking raiding parties may be encountered far inland. Each ship will have a Standard Bearer of 2nd-3rd level and a Chieftain of 4th-6th level—the latter usually armored in mail. In turn a squadron of multiple boats will be led by a High-Chieftain of 7th-9th levels. There is a 15% cumulative chance per boat that there will be 3-30 Berserkers, and a 25% cumulative chance that a Priest of Odin will accompany the entire force. Despite their fierce reputation, Vikings are generally intelligent and cultured as well as reasonable and honorable, at least in their fashion. Missiles: die 1-3 = none, die 4 = axe, die 5 = spear, die 6 = bow.

Note my rejection of anti-Viking prejudice - "Despite their fierce reputation, Vikings are generally intelligent and cultured as well as reasonable and honorable, at least in their fashion." - After they kill you, they'll probably write a saga about it.

Or look at it this way: It beats leeches.

Now, of course, many OSR games have this sort of wild side to them. That isn't the right word. I suppose "gonzo" might be better, although it carries sort of a taint, and also doesn't get it quite right either. At least the Vikings aren't wearing clown masks. Then again...

Indeed, Vikings appeared multiple times in the original 1974 edition of Dungeons & Dragons (which is why I chose them for Zylarthen) but then quickly fell out as the system and franchise took a more naturalistic turn.

And it's not all about Vikings. What I tried to do in The Campaign was to create a mechanism or give referees ideas and tables for creating a mechanism to design a vibrant and "real" wilderness, if you will, teeming with whatever the referee thought would be fun and cool, as well as giving the players interesting challenges and problems.

And again, Zylarthen is not unique at all in this. Any OSR or OD&D-like system that has the space to go into detail on this sort or thing does this, or at least should do it. If I did it adequately or even half as well as it was done in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, that would make me happy.

The Wilderness Encounter tables for Zylarthen were designed to be somewhat tippy. In Coastal terrain, the expected suspects - Vikings, Buccaneers, Lizard Men Giant Crabs, Harpies - each have a 1 in 20 chance of occurring. But if you roll a 14-20, you go to some other table - Flyers, Humanoids, Men, Other Monsters, etc. - which in turn might lead you to yet another table. It's possible you'll run into Cyborgs or a lone Druid on a raft or even a god or goddess. There's even a 1 in 5760 chance you'll encounter a Black Pudding in your coastal wanderings. I'd love to see what a good referee might do with that.

As for Zylarthen being "more traditonal and folkloric," I'd like to think that's true to an extent, but again, I simply went back to the sources. As I discussed here, every monster in Zylarthen is taken from, or are expansions on something from the 1974 or 1975 texts. It was all there right from the beginning.

What's old can be new again!

Phantom Stalker, Spectral Hound and Twinling

Phantom Stalker from the original AD&D Fiend Folio

Seven Voyages of Zylarthen Supplement 1: Book of Spells includes three spells that annoyingly refer to Supplement 2: Book of Fiends. I say "annoyingly" because Book of Fiends has not yet been published (It's written, but this time I'm pursuing a different option for the art):

Phantom Stalker: This spell summons a Phantom Stalker. See Supplement 2: Book of Fiends for characteristics and effects. Magic-Users. Level: 5.

Spectral Hound: This spell summons a Spectral Hound to track opponents. See Supplement 2: Book of Fiends. Magic-Users. Level: 4.

Twinling: See Supplement 2: Book of Fiends. Magic-Users. Level: 6.

Not a lot to go on there, obviously. So here are those creatures (two days ago I also added them as an addendum to the Electronic Edition PDF):

PHANTOM STALKERS: Hit Dice: 6. Attacks: 2-12. Armor Class: 3. Move: 12/24. Alignment: Neutrality. Languages: Type J plus Simple Common. Number Appearing: 1. Description: These are invoked in a manner similar to Invisible Stalkers but their purpose is to guard and avenge. Only one may be created at one time, and they will never leave the initial area—castle, tower, underground lair—they were initially called to, unless it is to avenge the death of their master. If their master is killed, the Stalker will be implacable in tracking his killer, wishing to fulfill the terms of the summoning and return to its abode as quickly as possible. It may Polymorph Self and Fly but will usually appear as an 8’ tall, reddish humanoid with fiery eyes. A Phantom Stalker is immune to fire-based attacks but saves against cold attacks at a -2 penalty and takes an extra hit of damage per die. If slain, the creature will explode in a six-die Fire Ball. Of course, since the Stalker values its own life as much as any creature, he will attempt to make use of this as a threat, revealing it to his attackers if cornered.

SPECTRAL HOUNDS: Hit Dice: 5. Attacks: 2-12 plus possible extra-powerful bite. Armor Class: 7. Move: 24. Number Appearing: 1. Description: Via a powerful spell, a supernatural canine is created that will inexorably track and close in on its target, as long as something with the victim’s scent is initially presented. The creature will take 3-18 days to reach its victim, and on the final 3-6 days the victim will hear a howling coming progressively nearer. If possible, the Hound will attack while the victim is alone, and it will usually surprise on a 1-4. If, during melee, the “to hit” roll succeeds by +4 or more, double damage will be inflicted due to the Hound sinking its teeth into the throat. In addition, after such a bite the victim will go comatose for 2-8 turns and then die at the end of that period unless surgery, a Cure Light Wounds spell or similar or more powerful magic is administered in the interim.

TWINLINGS: Description: A Twinling is created by the horrible spell of the same name, and thus the victim is allowed a saving throw to immediately dispel it. If this is failed, then a perfect double of the victim—with the same current hit points, spells, magic items, and so on—instantly attacks, though it will be invisible as well as invulnerable to all others, and it will look as if the victim is batting the air. The monster will continue to attack until either it or its victim is dead.

These three monster descriptions actually give a bit if insight into the methodology behind the forthcoming Book of Fiends. The idea was to track and reimagine (not duplicate!) the original Fiend Folio. Essentially that meant four things.

1. Any monsters not in the SRD (the Fiend Folio has many of those) or that weren't to some extent legally "freed" by Necromancer Games' 2011 Tome of Horrors would have to be reworked and renamed, at the least. In many cases this meant keeping some of the stats but inserting the creature into a different ontological space, so to speak. So for example, many planar or just plain bizarro creatures (the Fiend Folio had many) often became extraterrestrials from, say, one of Pluto's moons, or evil faerie creatures. I actually think this worked out perfectly for the Zylarthen/OD&D vibe I wanted to preserve, but I'm sure that a few Fiend Folio fans will miss some of their favorites.
2. Silly (in my opinion), broken or superfluous monsters would be reimagined. Now don't misunderstand. I love the Fiend Folio, and that includes loving some Fiend Folio monsters that most people seem to hate. (I also dislike a few that many people seem to love.) But there were a number, many of them also SRD or present in Tome, that I felt just didn't work, or at least wouldn't work for Zylarthen. One example is the Adherer. There's nothing inherently wrong (and a lot inherently right) about a monster that is, well, sticky. But the way it was initially presented in the Fiend Folio, including that (in my opinion) unfortunate illustration, as a sort of DM "gotcha" monster - you think it's a standard mummy, but think again! - was just (again, in my subjective opinion) annoying. So I reworked them as amphibians.
3. All monster descriptions would be reduced to stripped-down OD&D/Zylarthen style. One of the things I didn't like about the Folio (and to some extent the original AD&D Monster Manual) was how long some of the descriptions were. I always felt I had to reread them five times just to make sure I didn't miss some little extra spell or odd ability. In many cases, this meant replacing a page or half-page length description with a short paragraph. I like that sort of presentation much better. But, again, opinions obviously differ on this. The two conceptions are just different. One is OD&D, and one is AD&D, if you will.
4. But all Fiend Folio monsters would be represented, at least in some form. In many cases this "representation" is extremely tangential. CIFAL's became Wasp Zombies (actual zombies with venomous wasps crawling out of orifices in their bodies), Flinds (relatives of Gnolls) became non-described Gibbelins (relatives of Dunsany's non-described Gnoles), The Hound of Ill Omen became Prophecy Worms, Snyads became Termite Men, Mites became Water Gnomes, Norkers became Aquatic Hobgoblins and the Nonafel (Cat O'Nine Tails) became just a standard panther. And so on. Sorry Nonafels.

So, the Phantom Stalkers is quite similar to its originals, or, rather, to the OGL version presented in Tome of Horrors. But the description is stripped down, and the possible planar origins of the creature are left unmentioned.

The Spectral Hound was originally a Devil Dog. Not much similarity there except for the dog and the throat biting thing, I suppose. But I felt there were too many standard canine variations in Folio (and there already were Hell Hounds and Blink Dogs, etc. in OD&D and AD&D). So I thought a sort of less powerful version of the Invisible Stalker spell would be fun.

I had actually forgotten that the Twinling was a reworking of the Aleax. I kept the evil twin idea (which was a damn good one) but made it into an evil spell, as opposed to a sending of the gods, or whatever it was in Folio. And I thought all the extra detail about regeneration and so on was superfluous. It's bad enough to find yourself up against your evil twin in a duel to the death where no one else can help you!

By the way, just so no one misunderstands. I don't think Zylarthen's Book of Fiends is better than its semi-parent (such a thought would be insane). Rather, it's simply my imperfect effort to re-imagine it (or re-imagine some of it) in a legally viable and (hopefully) fun way for the Zylarthen/OD&D universe.

Good hunting and happy casting!

Phantom Stalker from Necromancer Games' Tome of Horrors

Monster Summoning for Book of Spells

For the forthcoming Book of Spells, Supplement I for Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, I thought it would be fun to add a little color and detail to the Monster Summoning spells, as well as to add two lower-powered variations for use as 1st and 2nd level spells.

In my experience, people either love or hate the Monster Summoning spells. We love them because summoning monsters to do one's bidding is fun. We hate them because it may seem that the monsters that one gets are not very powerful relative to other spells at that level. I actually think the set is underrated, though some of it obviously depends on the situation and what one gets. But the least I could do was to give them a bit more flavor. What actually appears is, of course, random.

For good measure, I also fleshed out the Divine Aid spell for Zylarthen's Evil High Priests and High Priests (see end). In that case, the Priest gets to choose the monster (if he has a choice).

Monster Summoning I-IX:

Divine Aid:

Zylarthen Test Dungeon: 2nd Level

This is the second and probably last of the Test Dungeon levels, as I've learned a few things I want to incorporate in a larger randomly generated megadungeon. I was partly inspired by Barrowmaze, which was, according to the author, in large part generated randomly.

I think random generation is great. The apparent patterns as well as odd results act as 'imagination engines' to help fill things out. And obviously things would need to be filled out, not only to add tricks and traps but also the architectural and other details that would make the setting really come alive. I hope the Boars make a reappearance in the megadungeon, as well as of course the Sea Horses, but we'll just have to see.

Here are the rooms:

1. Monster: Pixie (1) AC 9, HD 1+2, hp 8, AT 1-6 plus various magical attacks and defenses MV 9/18, AL Neutrality LN Pixie, Common, Kobold (fluent), Hobgoblin, Leprechaun.
2. Empty
3. Empty
4. Empty
5. Empty
6. Treasure: 6,000 cp, Magic Shield, map to 1 unguarded gem (10 sp value), 64 miles away.
7. Treasure: 2000 cp, 2 jewelry (500, 30 sp value), Magic Shield.
8. Empty
9. Monster: Sea Horses, Medium (7) AC 7, HD 2+1, hp 8,8,6,11,10,13,6, AT 1-6, MV 0/18 Treasure: 11,000 cp.
10. Empty
11. Empty
12. Empty
13. Monster & Treasure: Orcs (2) AC 6, HD 1, hp 5,2, AT 1-6, MV 9, AL Chaotic LN Orcish, 400 gp, 3 jewelry (120, 70, 80 sp value).
14. Empty
15. Empty
16. Empty
17. Empty
18. Treasure: 200 gp, 6 jewelry (130, 850, 700, 40, 350, 90 sp value).
19. Empty
20. Empty
21. Empty
22. Empty
23. Monster: Cyborgs (2) AC 9, HD 3, hp 16,10, AT 1-6 plus assimilation, MV 12, AL Neutrality LN simple Common plus long range ESP.
24. Empty
25. Empty
26. Empty
27. Empty
28. Empty
29. Monster: Boars (5) AC 7, HD 3, hp 13,10,14,12,12, AT 1-6, MV 15.
30. Empty
31. Monster & Treasure: Poisonous Snakes (17) AC 9, HD 1 hp, AT 1 hp plus poison, MV 3, 400 gp, 8 gems (10 sp value each), 8 jewelry (5 sp value each).
32. Empty
33. Empty
34. Monster: Giant Ants (4) AC 3, HD 1/2, hp 1,2,3,3 AT 1-6 plus paralyze, MV 18.
35. Empty
36. Treasure: 350 gp, 2 gems (50, 5 sp value).
37. Treasure: 1 gem (10 sp value).
38. Monster: Ogre (1) AC 5, HD 4+1, hp 17, AT 3-8, MV 9, AL Neutrality LN Ogre, Merman.
39. Empty
40. Treasure: Cursed Sword -2, Map to 500 gp and 18 gems (10 sp value each), 3 miles away, unguarded.
41. Empty
42. Empty
43. Monster & Treasure: Giant Ants (8) AC 3, HD 1/2, hp 1,3,3,2,1,1,3,3 AT 1-6 plus paralyze, MV 18, 70 gems (10 sp value each).
44. Monster: Lizard Men (3) AC 5, HD 2+1, hp 9,10,4 AT 1-6, MV 6/12, AL Neutrality LN Lizard Man.
45. Empty
46. Empty
47. Empty
48. Monster: Boars (2) AC 7, HD 3, hp 17,8 AT 1-6, MV 15.
49. Empty
50. Empty

Notes:

1. I used the random generation guidelines from the four Seven Voyages of Zylarthen booklets as summarized in this post, covering the 1st level of Zylarthen's First Dungeon.
2. I wanted to create a random number of rooms--41-60--but I rolled a 10, giving me exactly 50 again.
3. This time I included the monster stats, using the format of B1: In Search of the Unknown. For the intelligent monsters, I randomly generated languages for them (LN), using the procedure described in Zylarthen, Vol. 4, pp. 32-36. If I rolled the same language twice, I assumed that meant fluency.
4. For monsters, on any roll of 1-2 out of 6, I randomly picked a previously generated monster. Presumably monster types would cluster.
5. Of course I rolled Boars again. Twice.
6. We now also have Sea Horses.
7. Does that have anything to do with the fact that the Ogre speaks Merman?
8. Treasure hordes were adjusted to reflect the guidelines in Vol. 4, p. 4. Basically I multiplied all results except those for cp's and magic items by 20%. There's still almost certainly too much.
9. This level makes it clear that if you use the treasure assignment scheme as given or close to as given--1 in 4 rooms have monsters, 50% of monsters have treasure and 1 in 6 unoccupied rooms have treasure (which roughly tracks the OD&D recommendations), then you may very well end up with more treasure not guarded by monsters than guarded by them. Even though much if not most of the unguarded treasure will be by assumption trapped or hidden, this still may not be a desirable ration for some.
10. I love the map to that one 10 sp value gem, 64 miles away (unguarded of course).
11. Also, getting a magic shield twice was interesting. I initially thought the number and power of magic items would have to be adjusted downward if using the random generation scheme previously outlined. Now I'm wondering whether they might need to be adjusted upward.
12. Overall, the 2nd level perhaps looks easy. But I think this is deceptive. Remember, the world of Zylarthen can be quite harsh. If you go down to zero hit points you're probably dead, maimed or very hurt.
13. I made the Snakes poisonous (you don't have to), but that turns these C level creatures into potentially the most deadly encounter on the level.
14. It is true that the 2nd level is lonely compared with the 1st. Instead of the teaming low-level humanoid melting pot of Bandits, Vikings, Martians, Half-Elves and all the rest, you get only 1 Pixie, 2 Orcs and 3 Lizard Men. Presumably however the Wandering Monster Table for the 2nd Level would feature many of the 1st Level humanoids.
15. And yes, all of them are wearing clothes. Don't even start with that.
16. Okay, maybe not the Lizard Men.

Randomly Generated Dungeon for Seven Voyages of Zylarthen

Or rather, the 1st level of one. There are 50 rooms:

1. Empty
2. Empty
3. Empty
4. Empty
5. Monster: 4 Bats
6. Empty
7. Monster: 2 Black Knights
8. Empty
9. Empty
10. Empty
11. Monster: 4 Skeletons
12. Empty
13. Empty
14. Empty
15. Empty
16. Empty
17. Empty
18. Empty
19. Empty
20. Monster & Treasure: 3 Elves, 4000 SP, 100 GP, 1 Gem (10 SP value)
21. Monster & Treasure: 2 Snatchers, Dagger +1, +2 vs. Goblins and Kobolds, Scroll of 1 Spell: Pass-Wall, Mail +4 (carried)
22. Treasure: 9000 CP, 1 Gem (10 SP value)
23. Monster: 3 Crocodiles
24. Empty
25. Empty
26. Empty
27. Empty
28. Empty
29. Empty
30. Monster: 6 Bandits, 60 CP (carried)
31. Empty
32. Empty
33. Treasure: 1 Jewelry (600 SP value)
34. Empty
35. Empty
36. Empty
37. Empty
38. Empty
39. Monster: 2 Giant Dragonflies
40. Monster & Treasure: 6 Vikings, 36 SP (carried), 1100 SP
41. Monster: 2 Gargoyles
42. Monster: 9 Red Martians, 90 pi coins (carried)
43. Treasure: 500 SP
44. Treasure: Scroll of 7 Spells: Animate Objects, Contact Higher Plane, Magic Jar, Telekinesis, Wall of Stone (2), Animate Dead, 1 Map to treasure horde of 1300 GP (97 miles away)
45. Empty
46. Empty
47. Monster & Treasure: 1 Boar, 800 CP
48. Monster: 2 Berserkers, 8 SP (carried)
49. Empty
50. Monster: 3 Half-Elves

Notes:
1. I used the guidelines on p. 4 of Vol. 4, The Campaign, figuring that 1 in 4 rooms would contain monsters, 50% of monsters would have treasure and 1 in 6 unoccupied rooms would have treasure.
2. Monsters were generated from the tables on pp. 9-10.
3. Magic Items and spells were generated from the tables in Vol. 3, Book of Magic.
4. For treasure hordes, I used the treasure class tables on p. 38 of Vol. 4. But I multiplied the results by 10% (11000 SP became 1100 SP, and so on) on any roll of 1-5 out of 6. Perhaps I should have let the CP numbers stand just to give the player-characters more to carry. 
5. For unguarded treasure or monsters without a treasure class, I randomly chose from treasure classes 1-3.
6. Amazingly, the total treasure value (if you include the horde referenced by that map) comes out to approximately 15,000 SP--well within the guidelines on p. 4.
7. I didn't cheat (not once). I suppose the scroll of 7 5th level spells in Room 44 might be adjusted, as well as (maybe) the Mail +4. Then again, the party might need some of those spells for a few of the monsters (1 magic dagger against 2 Gargoyles is tough).
8. Many of the monsters seem easy for 1st level characters, but obviously a few of the monsters are very powerful with serious TPK potential. This is a good dungeon level to teach players how to pick their battles (if they can) and when to hide or run away. Similarly, making friends (there are obviously a number of potential allies) or at the least not making enemies will also be paramount. You don't want those 9 Red Martians (all presumably armed with Radium Pistols) to have a problem with you.
9. I have no idea how the Boar got in there.

The Monsters of Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, Part II

Author’s note: I’m writing a series of posts on Zylarthen not so much to plug it, nor merely because I like talking about my work. Rather, I think of Zylarthen as sort of a love letter to early OD&D. Thus, I hope that the design issues I grappled with and the eventual choices I made might be of interest to those who enjoy “thinking about Original Dungeons & Dragons”, whether or not they have read, played, or have any intention of reading or playing my attempted “re-imagining” of it.

In this post I break down the precise sources for the various Zylarthen monsters.

In a previous post I wrote that I decided to include all and only those monsters appearing (in whatever form) in “official” D&D sources through the fall of 1975—those three sources being the original 1974 edition of the game (henceforth the three little brown books or 3 LBB’s), the first supplement—Greyhawk—and the first four issues of The Strategic Review. Interestingly, this cut-off point yielded roughly two hundred distinct creatures, even excluding most of the various “man-types”—leveled non-player characters, hirelings, soldiers and the rest—almost triple the initial number of monsters described and “statted” in the first part of Monsters & Treasure. The place to begin, though, is with those monsters:

Note: in the following lists, re-imagined creatures, my own extrapolations and extrapolations based on later sources will generally be denoted by italics.

THE MONSTERS from Monsters & Treasure, pp. 3-20

Bandits, Basilisks, Berserkers, Black Pudding, Buccaneers, Cavemen, Centaurs, Chimerae, Cockatrices, Dervishes, Djinn, Black Dragons, Blue Dragons, Golden Dragons, Green Dragons, Red Dragons, White Dragons, Dryads, Dwarves, Efreet, Air Elementals, Earth Elementals, Fire Elementals, Water Elementals, Elves, Gargoyles, Ghouls, Cloud Giants, Fire Giants, Frost Giants, Hill Giants, Stone Giants, Goblins, Gnoles, Gnomes, Gorgons, Gray Ooze, Green Slime, Griffins, Hippogriffs, Horses, Mules, Camels, Hydras, Fire Breathing Hydras, Kobolds, Werebears, Wereboars, Weretigers, Werewolves, Manticoras, Medusae, Mermen, Minotaurs, Mummies, Nixies, Nomads, Ochre Jelly, Ogres, Orcs, Pegasi, Pixies, Purple Worms, Rocs, Sea Monsters, Skeletons, Spectres, Treants, Trolls, Unicorns, Vampires, Lesser Vampires, Wights, Wraiths, Wyverns, Yellow Mold, Zombies

Number of Monsters: 77.

Notes: These should obviously make up the core of any OD&D monster list. As it happens, none of them are non-SRD. A few are extrapolations. So, for example, I felt that Camels should be added to Horses and Mules, and that Lesser Vampires (the victims of the Stokeresque Vampires) should be added to Vampires. I fiddled with Gnomes to make them genuinely strange (as opposed to being merely more whimsical Dwarves). And I preserved the spelling of “Gnole” from the original Dunsany story as well as ignoring both the initial description of these monsters—“A cross between Gnomes and Trolls…otherwise they are similar to Hobgoblins”—and the description that would come a few years later in the Monster Manual—“There is a great resemblance between Gnolls and Hyenas”—in favor of leaving them explicitly undescribed, as they are in the story.

OTHER MONSTERS from Monsters & Treasure, pp. 20-22

Androids, Cyclopes, Gelatinous Cubes, Flesh Golems, Iron Golems, Stone Golems, Juggernauts, Living Statues, Robots, Salamanders, Titans

Number of Monsters: 11.

Notes: Some of these—Gelatinous Cubes, Golems, Salamanders and Titans—would later be more fully described in Greyhawk. For the fun of it I named all twelve of the Titans.

MONSTER LEVEL TABLES and WILDERNESS WANDERING MONSTERS from The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, pp. 10-11 and 18-19

Apes, Boars, Lions, Snakes, Spiders, Giant Ants, Giant Beetles, Fire Beetles, Centipedes, Giant Hogs, Giant Lizards, Giant Rats, Giant Scorpions, Giant Poisonous Snakes, Giant Spitting Snakes, Huge Spiders, Large Spiders, Water Spiders, Giant Toads, Giant Weasels, Cave Bears, Dire Wolves, Mammoths, Mastodons, Saber-Toothed Cats, Spotted Lions, Titanotheres, Wooly Rhinoceroses, Brontosaurus, Pterodactyls, Stegosaurs, Triceratopses, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Cyborgs, Doppelgangers, Invisible Stalkers, Shadows, Thoblins, Apts, Banths, Calots, Darseen, Black Martians, Green Martians, Red Martians, Ancients, Therns, Holy Therns, Lotharians, Yellow Martians, Orluks, Sith, Tharks, Thoats, White Apes

Number of Monsters: 55.

Notes: So, counting the Zylarthen extrapolations, the number of these “missing monsters” almost equals the fully described monsters in Monsters & Treasure. The attentive reader will notice the cases where I consulted Blackmoor or even the Monster Manual. But some monsters such as Giant Ants were intentionally re-imagined. (For the Ants, think those creepy bugs from that great Outer Limits episode, “The Zanti Misfits”.) Of course the four varieties of White Martians are extrapolations based on the actual Burroughs stories. For all Martians, I learned much from David Bruce Bozarth’s A Barsoom Glossary as well as from the original Warriors of Mars and the OD&D version by “Doc”.

NAVAL COMBAT in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, pp. 28-35

Giant Crabs, Crocodiles, Giant Crocodiles, Dragon Turtles, Giant Fish, Giant Leeches, Giant Octopi, Giant Sea Snakes, Giant Squids

Number of Monsters: 9.

Notes: Some of these appeared in the earlier encounter tables, and all them (I think) reappeared in the aquatic-fixated Blackmoor.

Other Monsters from “The Three Little Brown Books”

Amazons, Assassins, Barbarians, Bats, Huge Bats, Bears, Elephants, Halflings, Prisoners, Rats, Tigers, Vikings, Witches, Wolves

Number of Monsters: 14.

Notes: This is perhaps the most interesting group. There are illustrations of Amazons, Barbarians and Witches in Men & Magic, yet these beings were never described in that source or in any other early source (1974-75) nor have they been included in any of the retro-clones, as far as I am aware. Witches would seem to be almost paradigmatic in terms of being staples of fantasy stories as well as being featured in the classic explanation of the charisma ability score in Men & Magic. Vikings (or “Viking” things) are actually mentioned four times in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures but they fell out in later editions I assume because they were too “historical”. Ditto for Amazons. For Amazons I jettisoned the sexist (though intriguing!) interpretation that they fought without clothing (I kept that for Barbarians, and there is historical justification for that) but kept the fun (for me at least) assumptions concerning body modification and the rumor that Amazons would temporarily take captured males as lovers. I took some of the inspiration for Barbarians from the description of them in that great Avalon Hill wargame Caesar at Alesia, though inexplicably I forgot to cite it in my otherwise relatively long Sources section. There’s a fair amount of reference to “prisoners” in the Treasure Tables of Monsters & Treasure so I decided to expand on that.

Gods and Goddesses

Apollo, Artemis, Athena, Balder the Beautiful, Girra the Fire God, Ishtar, Isis, Kali, Lakshmi, Manannan the Sea God, Math the Great Wizard, Odin the One-Eyed, Pan, Set Lord of Shadows, Silvanus, The Spider God, Thor, Thoth the Terrible, Tsathoggus, Untamo God of Sleep and Dreams

Number of Monsters: 20.

Notes: As I wrote in the first post, it seemed a no-brainer to include gods and goddesses alongside the “regular” monsters. But I also thought the wide-open spirit of the original game dictated including beings from a diversity of sources—Classical, Egyptian, Norse, Middle-Eastern, Celtic, Finnish and of course Hyborian. Though most appeared in the 1976 Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes or its later 1980 incarnation, Deities  & Demigods, the descriptive content was almost entirely taken from original sources. Unlike for the other monsters, I did not give statistics to these immortals, believing that that would be a waste of space as well as sending the wrong message. Any god or goddess could easily defeat a character of any level if he or she had a mind to, so what’s the point of saying so and so has 300 hit points? But for each god or goddess, I did try to provide meaningful and useful information on how to actually include him or her (or his or her followers) in a campaign or adventure, if and when the occasion arose.

Giant Flyers

Bumblebees, Butterflies, Dragonflies, Eagles, Flies, Hornets, Locusts, Moths

Number of Monsters: 8.

Notes: Giant Eagles are mentioned in Chainmail, but the others are extrapolations based on the mention of “Large Insects” or “Giant Insects” in the rules on Aerial Combat in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. It was another way to be “original” without completely departing from the sources. I thought these winged critters rounded out the list of standard giant creatures in a way that was both fun and added to the diversity of things.

Evil Men

Brawlers, Ruffians, Duellists, Black Knights, Rakehells, Villains, Bravos, Interfectors, Evil Lords, Malefics, Praecantors, Diabolists, Demonurgists, Black Magicians, Hecatontarchs, Haruspices, Evocators, Incantators, Necromants, Wizards, Lifters, Snatchers, Fingerers, Harpaces, Sicarians, Phansigars, Thugs, Evil Thieves, Evil Master Thieves, Evil High Priests or Priestesses, Evil Priests

Number of Monsters: 31.

Lawful Men

Fighters, Pavisers, Thanes, Knights, Guardians, Defenders, Protectors, Vindicators, Lords, Famuli, Chirosophists, Tregetours, Pellars, Theurges, Thaumaturges, Talismanists, Solonists, Mirabilists, Magi, Archimagi, Borrowers, Mousers, Gilters, Dodgers, Coursers, Rescuers, Targeteers, Swordmen, Thieves, Master Thieves, High Priests or Priestesses, Priests

Number of Monsters: 31.

Notes: I loved the evocative level titles of the early version of the original game—another thing that would gradually fall out over the editions. One thing that virtually everyone has noticed about Zylarthen is the (mostly) new level titles for both the Lawful and Evil members of the three main classes. This was done for legal reasons but also for the sheer fun of it. It’s true that Gygax chose some silly titles, but he also laid claim to some of the better and more obvious ones, so I can’t say the enterprise was quick or easy. A number of specialized dictionaries as well as the OED came in handy here. Zylarthen assumes that player-characters (even Thieves) are basically good-guys, so titles with sinister, dark or particularly violent connotations were reserved for the Evil list. Particular effort was taken to clearly distinguish practitioners of “white magic” from, say, the “Wizards” of the Old Testament and other historical sources. I think most people appreciated the new titles, but everyone (including me, secretly) has their choice for one or two they don’t like. Note that Priests and Evil Priests only have one level. Since in Zylarthen, priests and evil priests become non-player characters, I didn’t see a need fuss things up with a full list of levels. Evil High Priests and High Priests have many of the most powerful Cleric spells that were not collapsed into the list for Magic-Users (including Finger of Death for Evil High Priests) but Evil Priests and Priests simply have a sort of aura, or whatever, around them that helps their friends and harms their enemies.

Monsters from Greyhawk

Aerial Servants, Blink Dogs, Bugbears, Cave Creepers, Brass Dragons, Bronze Dragons, Copper Dragons, Silver Dragons, The Dragon Queen, The Dragon King, Druids, Storm Giants, False Gnomes, Half-Elves, Harpies, Hell Hounds, Hobgoblins, Homunculi, Lammasu, Liches, Lizard Men, Wererats, Ogre Magi, Owl Bears, Paladins, Phase Spiders, Phaetonians, Rust Monsters, Sea Horses, Shift Panthers, Giant Slugs, Stirges, Giant Ticks, Tritons, Will O’Wisps

Number of Monsters: 35.

Notes: Even though these are relatively few in number, there are many canonical ones—so many that some don’t realize they didn’t exist in the original edition. This is why including Greyhawk was a must. A few of these as well some from the next two categories were non-SRD creations that I decided to modify into “science-fictional” or alien creatures. While I initially thought the issue annoying, I ended up with something I actually preferred, as the Androids, Cyborgs, Robots and Martians of the 3 LBB’s were now joined by entities hailing from Jupiter and the surface of the Sun.

Monsters from The Strategic Review

Clay Golems, Ghosts, Leprechauns, Lurkers Above, Guardian Nagas, Spirit Nagas, Water Nagas, Piercers, Rangers, Ropers, Shambling Mounds, Shriekers, Tentacle Men, Wind Walkers, Yeti

Number of Monsters: 14.

Notes: More canonical monsters. I liked what I did with Ghosts. Note that Zylarthen does include Rangers and Paladins (see Greyhawk, above), but only as non-player characters. I’m sure this was disappointing to many.

Monsters from Chainmail

Faeries, Solians, True Wraiths

Number of Monsters: 3.

Notes: Well, the last two fell out of the original for obvious copyright reasons (though the middle one would reappear in an inferior form). I decided to resurrect them.

Soldiers

From Men & Magic: Archers, Armored Foot, Barbarians, Crossbowmen, Heavy Foot, Heavy Horse, Horse Archers, Horsed Crossbowmen, Light Foot, Light Horse Bowmen, Light Horse Lancers, Mailed Bowmen (Medium Horse Bowmen), Mailed Crossbowmen (Heavy Crossbowmen), Medium Horse, Turcopoles

From Chainmail: Knights (Oddly, the term “Knight” appears nowhere in the 3 LBB’s), Javelineers

Extrapolations: Cataphracts, Cheirosiphoneers, Dwarf Guards, Elf Legionnaires, Halfling Slingers, Hoplites, Irregulars, Koursors, Peltasts, Pikemen, Mobs, Savages, Slingers, Varangians

Number of Monsters: 31.

Notes: I thought the original edition was simply begging for a clear and comprehensive list of soldier variations. And I thought it would be fun to include a table for the place of origin (native or foreign) and disposition of the soldiers upon encountering them. You probably don’t want to run into “friendlies” directly after they just got trounced in battle.

The AD&D Monster Manual

Troglodytes

Number of Monsters: 1.

Notes: My one concession to post-1975 modernity. Can you fault me?

So that’s the full list, 340 “monsters” if you count them broadly. Virtually all of them also appear in both the “Monster Encounter Tables” and “Wilderness Encounter Tables” of Zylarthen’s fourth and final volume—The Campaign. As with the encounter tables of the first version of the original game, a large proportion—one-third—are “man-types” of one form or another.

All in all, I’d like to think there’s enough “new” material to peak even the most veteran OD&D player’s interest.

Notes on Illustrations:

1. This drawing doesn't appear in the Book of Monsters but rather in the Book of Magic, p. 21.  What is it? Perhaps a Homunculus small enough to conceal itself in its master's mouth. I suppose you need an additional spell for that. Cropped from an illustration from “The Vision Of Macconglinney,” in Jacobs, Joseph, More Celtic Fairy Tales, illustrated by John Dickson Batten, New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1895, orig. 1894, p. 73.
2. A Pixie from Book of Monsters, p. 47. From “My Own Self,” in Jacobs, More English Fairy Tales, illustrated by John Dickson Batten, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894, orig. 1893, p. 18.
3. A Witch from Book of Monsters, p. 62. From ”Morraha,” in More Celtic Fairy Tales, p. 87.
4. An Evil Man from Book of Monsters, p. 22. Cropped from The Magic Purse, from “The Three Soldiers,” in Jacobs, Europa’s Fairy Book, illustrated by John Dickson Batten, New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1916, p. 73.
5. A Ghost, one of the nastiest monsters in any category, from Book of Monsters, p. 25. Taken from the chapter illustration for “The Golden Arm,” in Jacobs, English Fairy Tales, illustrated by John Dickson Batten, New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892, orig. 1890, p. 143.