Wandering Monsters - yea or nay?

[OnlineDM]

I'm surprised to see what a lopsided minority I was in when I voted nay. I'm really only familiar with running D&D4e, and as Wik said above, 4e combat takes too long to have it be random.

That said, not every battle has to be an epic set piece, either. If I want a battle with a "wandering monster" feel, I'll write one up. But I don't have them happen randomly (which is how I interpreted the poll).

 

[Beginning of the End]

I mostly run Paizo APs which do have WM tables. I will generate random encounters ahead of time so I can toss out ones that make no sense. "What is a Tyrannosaurus doing here?".

(...)

I think wandering monsters/random encounters can really flesh out a game if handled properly. Just rolling on tables and getting a bunch of completely unconnected and illogical critters to whack the party with sounds like it would get old fast.

The trick to grokking wandering encounters is specifically understanding the leap of creativity required to explain the result.

If your response to any wandering monster is "that monster walks around the corner and attacks", the results will be poor.

A few things to keep in mind:

- How far away are they? Can they even be seen? (Drums beating in Moria. Watching a band of orcs cut across country a quarter mile away.)

- What are they doing? (There was a random table for this posted on an OSR blog somewhere, but I can't seem to dredge it up off of Google.)

- If they become aware of the PCs is "fight" the automatic response? (OD&D features creature reaction tables to specifically prevent that being the default reaction of any monster you encounter.)

It's possible to look at this as a "chore" or "unnecessary". But what I've found is that working with improv structures like this forces you to flex creative muscles that would otherwise leave dormant. You'll find yourself creating interesting, imaginative, and memorable stuff that you otherwise never would have considered.

So... what is that tyrannosaurus doing here?

 

[Umbran]

It's possible to look at this as a "chore" or "unnecessary". But what I've found is that working with improv structures like this forces you to flex creative muscles that would otherwise leave dormant.

I think the issue is less working out what's up with the tyrannosaur, and more working out what's up with it split second at runtime.

The archetypal random encounter is generated while the game is running, and the GM has to whip out the encounter right there, on the spot, without much time to think through the implications. That's a good way to generate continuity errors and problems.

You can use random tables to generate encounters during game prep, when your players aren't sitting there staring at you and waiting for something to do, and avoid much of the problem.

 

[kaomera]

I think that, ideally, you would never actually have a random encounter, but the players would always act like it was a real possibility.

 

[Stormrazor2000]

It's possible to look at this as a "chore" or "unnecessary". But what I've found is that working with improv structures like this forces you to flex creative muscles that would otherwise leave dormant. You'll find yourself creating interesting, imaginative, and memorable stuff that you otherwise never would have considered.

So... what is that tyrannosaurus doing here?

I agree that improv is good, and there is a time for it. But I think much has to do with the feeling of the game world you are trying to portray, and the story you are trying to tell. Some encounters, like the aforementioned T-Rex could seriously end up changing the feel of the environment and the tension you are trying to build up in the story.

If I was running a full out sandbox campaign, then yes I would be all over having T-Rex out taking a stroll along the savanna buffet. But in my current game which is more story driven, I could see it being nothing more than window dressing, or at worst the players getting very side tracked with the novelty of dino hunting. Plus I'll admit to not wanting a wandering monster to overshadow the set pieces that do move the story along.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm mostly yes, but with some reserve. Wandering monsters help to keep a sense of urgency/purpose in getting through an area quickly, as well help curb the use of the 15-minute day (you generally don't nova if the number of encounters and their timing is out of your control).

On the other hand, wandering encounters, used improperly, can derail an adventure - not only in presenting possible red herrings, but in accidentally weakening a party that was otherwise being careful and on task.

As an aside, I think for the most part the purpose of wandering monsters has been greatly nullified in 4E due to the at-will/encounter/daily power structure.

 

[Marx420]

I also subscribe to the idea of "random" encounters.

Before a session I generally write up 5-6 interesting "encounters" (could be anything, drunk hunters, comedic relief, 3 way battles, a burning orphanage, etc.) which I then spring on players as the result of daily percentile rolling and choose from as deem fit for the general mood of the group at that time.

Seems to work a bit better than capriciously difficult random monster attacks with crappy geography I pull right out my a$$.

 

[Beginning of the End]

But what I've found is that working with improv structures like this forces you to flex creative muscles that would otherwise leave dormant.

I think the issue is less working out what's up with the tyrannosaur, and more working out what's up with it split second at runtime.

improv n.
1. an act of improvising.
2. something improvised.

 

[Haltherrion]

It's been a long time since I've used the old classic-style wandering monsters where there are tables of many things that might cross the paths of a party so perhaps I should have answered 'no' but I like the spirit of wandering monsters, which to me are encounters that represent the random things someone might come across in a region.

I like to have some planning done on my encounters (stats understood, some idea of tactics and creature strengths) and I also only have so many encounters per session. For both reasons, I've dispensed with making large tables; after all, why not "randomize" the creature selection beforehand than have a big slate and randomize during the session? Either way, I generally only need a couple random encounters per session.

Instead I prepare a smaller number of encounters that I can select as needed. While I don't entirely pick from this pool at random, it is sometimes random and usually casually selected. I usually create about 3x the number of encounters than I will really need for a session. Some I may carry forward to a future game but in the end, its the equivalent of a small, fleshed out random critter table.

 

[S'mon]

Yes. You don't want them just sitting there waiting to be killed by PCs!