Hi all,
I wanted some input as to the *amount* of randomness in a Dungeon Crawl. Specifically I would want to know if you should *roll a dice* to determine how many enemies you must fight OR should each monster have a default quantity (instances).
Version 1.0: Roll a dice to determine how many monsters you must confront.
Version 2.0: Specified by the *Encounter* value, whatever the value that is how many monsters you must confront.
I like the revised version. It would make it more realistic and you could better control the amount of monsters to combat determined by their type. Some lower level beasts could attack in large numbers, such as a horde of skeletons, orcs, etc.
They would inflict less damage individually, but be quite formidable in mass amounts, whereas more powerful creatures would be more solitary or perhaps only encountered in pairs, such as mountain trolls or dragons. It would eliminate the randomness of the battles, thereby players would not just walk through a few skeletons or be decimated by a herd of dragons. Either of those scenarios could turn players off with either being bored by just skipping through an encounter or being wiped out by it.
I'm a very reasonable man.
You'd have to be a pretty darn high level warrior to take on a dozen minotaurs, but my little old granny can handle a few rats with her broom and a good swift kick!
 | Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (2) by questccg |
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (37) by Jacob |
| I need a 5th category of encounters (7) by larienna |
| Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (2) by Stormyknight1976 |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
They would inflict less damage individually, but be quite formidable in mass amounts, whereas more powerful creatures would be more solitary or perhaps only encountered in pairs, such as mountain trolls or dragons. It would eliminate the randomness of the battles, thereby players would not just walk through a few skeletons or be decimated by a herd of dragons. Either of those scenarios could turn players off with either being bored by just skipping through an encounter or being wiped out by it.
Ya I had not really thought of the extremes like 1 horde of rats (weak) or 12 minotaurs (very strong). But you make a solid argument about balancing out the attacks. I will go with version 2.0 (Encounter stat).