Wandering Monsters - yea or nay?

[the Jester]

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

Different strokes and all that. I totally disagree with you. Random encounter charts are meaningless if you don't actually use them (IMHO).

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.

Which brings up an interesting point- do sandbox campaigns tend to use random encounters/wandering monsters more than story-driven ones? I suspect the answer is yes.

 

[Mark CMG]

Different strokes and all that. I totally disagree with you. Random encounter charts are meaningless if you don't actually use them (IMHO).

I think just making the charts, even if not used as explicitly intended, garners some use insofar as it prompts the maker to more concretely consider the environment and its inhabitants, it fleshes out the setting more fully in the creators mind, moreso than merely ruminating will do.

Which brings up an interesting point- do sandbox campaigns tend to use random encounters/wandering monsters more than story-driven ones? I suspect the answer is yes.

I would further suspect that in games where set combats take more time, there is less use for random encounter charts as, meta-wise, time becomes too scarce for such design/GMing options.

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]

Cool stuff! How often do you plan to check for encounters, and what are the chances of an encounter taking place when you check?

Depending on the environment, 1 in 6 chance per 6 hours (or 4/day) usually feels about right.

Thanks for the praise, Stoat & Mark. One point about the tables is that they're designed to be full of mostly foes like goblinoids where I don't need to do much thinking about how they react, or why they might be attacking the PCs - a problem with many eg predator animals when encountering a group of 6 heavily armed & armoured humanoid PCs. Some of them have roleplay potential though, and a wise low-level group might wish to avoid the ogres, the troll, and especially the hill giant.

 

[the Jester]

I think just making the charts, even if not used as explicitly intended, garners some use insofar as it prompts the maker to more concretely consider the environment and its inhabitants, it fleshes out the setting more fully in the creators mind, moreso than merely ruminating will do.

...

I would further suspect that in games where set combats take more time, there is less use for random encounter charts as, meta-wise, time becomes too scarce for such design/GMing options.

Both good points.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I voted nay.

Wandering unintelligent monsters are fine, but I draw the line at "wandering orcs".

 

[kaomera]

Different strokes and all that. I totally disagree with you. Random encounter charts are meaningless if you don't actually use them (IMHO).

I wasn't talking about charts, though. I meant that under ideal circumstances (the kind that, IME, don't actually occur) players would react to the game world as if they might encounter whatever is appropriate / logical for the situation they find themselves in, without the need to resort to a truly random encounter. I think that encounter charts are equally useless if you start to use them and then discard the results, and the results aren't always going to be appropriate. (And I guess that I feel that if you need extra chances to practice your improv skills, you've got some pretty boring players...) In fact I find that fairly often random encounters end up little more than an annoyance, eating up time that the group would rather spend on other stuff.

I'd still use random encounters, though - the results might not always be ideal, but it's the only real way to encourage / create the feeling that they bring to play. They put a pressure on the players and PCs that just doesn't otherwise exist.

 

[The Shaman]

Which brings up an interesting point- do sandbox campaigns tend to use random encounters/wandering monsters more than story-driven ones? I suspect the answer is yes.

Plus I'll admit to not wanting a wandering monster to overshadow the set pieces that do move the story along.

Quoted without comment.

I think that encounter charts are equally useless if you start to use them and then discard the results . . .

I agree.

. . . and the results aren't always going to be appropriate.

That will depend on the encounter tables you're using, of course.

Some encounter tables are quite good at setting the scene, both in terms of setting and genre; the tables for Sanctuary in the Thieves' World box set and the tables for the Boot Hill adventures Mad Mesa and Burned Bush Wells come to mind.

(And I guess that I feel that if you need extra chances to practice your improv skills, you've got some pretty boring players...)

In fact I find that fairly often random encounters end up little more than an annoyance, eating up time that the group would rather spend on other stuff.

For me, random encounters are the 'living setting,' the events with the potential to disrupt the adventurers' best laid plans and which test their ability and resolve; my favorite encounters present both a complication and an opportunity.

They put a pressure on the players and PCs that just doesn't otherwise exist.

Satori.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Wandering unintelligent monsters are fine, but I draw the line at "wandering orcs".

I don't understand ... the orcs in your game don't duck out of the guard room occasionally to amble down the hall to drain the dragon?

Oh, great. Now I have a mini-movie in my head of a big Uruk-Hai doing the peepee dance. Thanks a lot.

 

[The Shaman]

I don't understand ... the orcs in your game don't duck out of the guard room occasionally to amble down the hall to drain the dragon?

Oh, great. Now I have a mini-movie in my head of a big Uruk-Hai doing the peepee dance. Thanks a lot.

Well, it explains why so many monsters live in sewers, now doesn't it?


But yeah, the idea that reasonably intelligent, organized monsters don't mount patrols or even explore a bit seems odd to me as well.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't understand ... the orcs in your game don't duck out of the guard room occasionally to amble down the hall to drain the dragon?

. . . Depends.