Wandering Monsters - yea or nay?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a patrol as "random".

 

[billd91]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a patrol as "random".

They're probably not. But how long do they take on patrol? Where are they at any particular time the PC encounters the patrol route? Easily handled with a wandering monster check - weighted appropriately to indicate how likely the PCs are to encounter a patrol.

 

[kaomera]

I seem to have misread the title of the thread as "random encounters" instead of "wandering monsters"... and I don't really feel like a well-written encounter table is truly random. True, there's die-rolling involved, and the timing is going to be unpredictable, but those encounters exist for a purpose and where set in (potential) motion with a reason. OTOH I've seen quite a few truly random encounters that didn't involve any die-rolling...

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

I think you're talking about a different kind of "not appropriate".

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.

This type of encounter, for instance, I don't think is inappropriate. The issue is: how much does anybody at the table care? (I'm giving the players credit for caring at least somewhat about "what are these orcs doing here?" or whatever...) When the players have no goal beyond seeing "what's behind that door?", then wandering monsters play right into that. When they have some other goal, wandering monsters can still be useful and appropriate, as a complication to be avoided or overcome.

The issue for me is that it can be difficult to really inspire a strong goal or motivation in the players. I've seen many instances where the players seem to latch onto such an objective, but only because they see the macguffin and want to be "good players" (or for whatever other reasons) and play along with the adventure. The problem then is that they are likely to fixate on whatever shows up before them (as it where) in the game.

 

[pemerton]

One of my main points of interest in wandering monsters are they are one of the few functions in D&D that directly relate (in their main incarnation) to time in a scale that is used during exploration.

<snip>

I really like what they bring to the table and I fear it's something that's lacking in many modern adventure designs.

This is a very clear statement of the gamist (in the Forge sense - ie making the game a challenge for the players) rationale for wandering monsters in traditional D&D. When the point of the game is successful operational play, wandering monsters crank up the challenge by making the operational environment more difficult.

Well, there usually needs to be *some* mechanism to prevent the adventure locale being completely static, if you don't want PCs extended-resting after every fight. Wandering monsters fit the bill.

I see this as combinging the gamist rationale with a verisimilitude-preserving one. I like to achieve verisimilitude but don't want the gamist aspect. So I don't use wandering monsters (and voted No on the poll).

I think wandering monsters are a valuable tool in the DM's toolkit; they can add atmosphere, increase tension, and provide a strategic challenge for a party.

That doesn't mean I think they should be used everywhere, in every adventure, at all times. Especially in 4E, where each fight is a Big Deal, a wandering monster encounter can feel like an arbitrary waste of time if it's used at the wrong time or handled poorly.

As both a player and a DM, I prefer a very story-heavy game (and no, I don't consider that the same thing as railroading), and I prefer that nearly all combat encounters be related to said stories. Either they advance the plot, or they're obvious impediments to the PCs efforts. Random fights that have no bearing on what's going on in the game? No thanks; not to my taste.

These two quotes describe how I feel about wandering monsters in the classic sense. When the aim of the game is not successful operational play but something else (such as a story in which the PCs successfully engage with the Big Deals) then wandering monsters in the classic sense can be an impediment.

I don't roll random wandering monsters, but I do give the party seemingly random wandering monster encounters where appropriate.

<snip>

As a DM I usually prepare ahead of time some NPCs with good equipment drops, and at least one wandering monster encounter for every character in the party to shine against. Then I can insert them whenever needed.

This is closer to what I do to reconcile the dislike of classic wandering monsters with the desire for verisimilitude. Namely, among the encounters that I plan are encounters that are less intimately related to the Big Deal, but still speak to the Big Deal, or to one or more of the PCs, and so play a role in driving the game forward towards the Big Deal.

I'm intrigued by randomness because I'm always keeping an eye out for potential structure that can help me move things along when I don't have an immediately fantastic idea, or an immediately obvious way in which a situation will play out.

<snip>

The extra structure means you're often trying out new things, and adhering to it is good discipline.

I like this too. Increasingly, the way I use randomness in my 4e games as a type of discipline and creative driver is via the skill challenge (especially the overland travel skill challenge). I will locate my prepared "lesser-but-verisimiltude-preserving" encounters either at a certain time of the day, or within a certain area of the map, or even as the consequence of a particular failure or success in a skill challenge, and then bring it into play at the appropriate point in the resolution of the skill challenge.

When it comes to the exploration of a particular adventure location (a demonic temple, a ruined manor, etc), which I tend not to structure via skill challenges, and in which the density of encounters per unit of gametime is likely to be higher, then I will fit these lesser-but-verisimilitude-preserving encounters into the unfolding game as seems best-suited to theme and pacing. When I ran Well of Demons from Thunderspire Labyrinth I did use its random encounter table to help with this, but not on the spot - I pre-rolled and worked out in advance how to fit the encounters into the scenario that was unfolding at my table.

In a recently devoped area, because it is haunted by multiple spirits, there is a chance of a random misfortune occurring in the encounter tables. Buckles just break, bags and shoes just develop holes, straps just wear out....these sorts of things simply happen in that region more often than outside of it.

I like this sort of stuff, but don't use random encounters to do it. I will do it either by fiat, or as the result of (and ingame explanation for) a failed skill check, or as part of the resolution of a skill challenge.

 

[S'mon]

I see this as combinging the gamist rationale with a verisimilitude-preserving one. I like to achieve verisimilitude but don't want the gamist aspect. So I don't use wandering monsters (and voted No on the poll).

I'm primarily concerned with versimilitude - contra Edwards, I prefer the Gamist challenge to be an emergent property of the Simulated setting, much as in real life non-game challenges - like hunting a real deer as opposed to shooting at a target board, say. A lack of wandering monsters in poorly designed adventures can potentially be crushing to my Suspension of Disbelief. Eg I ran the Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics (C&C/3e) modules "Palace of Shadows" and "The Slithering Overlord", both of which should be 'living' environments - a functioning high-level Wizard's lair, and Underdark caverns with various power groups. Neither adventure included wandering monster tables, so I had to do my best to improvise in an effort to maintain versimilitude. It was particularly difficult in Palace as the PCs were pushed to the limit and needed to rest frequently.

By contrast, my GM Mark is currently running the 4e GG DCC "Sellswords of Punjar", which I have and had previously skimmed. I'm pretty sure it has no wandering monsters either, and AIR it has nearly every room with a monster, but rather than just mechanically running the encounters as written (static), as I would probably have done, Mark has had many rooms/areas empty when first encountered with the inhabitants elsewhere, only to be encountered later, perhaps elsewhere in the complex, or returned to their room when we visit it again. He's very effectively created a dynamic, exciting environment out of what is AIR a fairly typical throwaway DCC (a bit better than average maybe), and I'm learning a lot.

I'm thinking that next time I run a DCC or similar WoTC overly monster-stuffed effort I'll roll a d6 and give a 3 in 6 or 4 in 6 chance the monsters in each encounter are actually in-lair; if not they can return later or be encountered elsewhere. It seems like a good way to have wandering monsters without true random encounter tables, have a decent number of empty 'breather' areas too, helping to ramp up tension for the next encounter.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm thinking that next time I run a DCC or similar WoTC overly monster-stuffed effort I'll roll a d6 and give a 3 in 6 or 4 in 6 chance the monsters in each encounter are actually in-lair; if not they can return later or be encountered elsewhere.

I think this is a really good idea. It wouldn't currently work for me, but that's because of my biggest weakness as a GM (I can't seem to keep even half-decent notes), not for any other reason I can see.