I'm very familiar with the Gygax quotes.
He advocates avoiding random determination of content introduction where that would be bad for the game, and gives two examples (DMG pp 9, 110): (i) where players are playing well, be cautious in having them so beset by wandering monsters that they can't make progress towards their planned goal; (ii) where you have designed an interesting bit of the dungeon that is behind a secret door, don't make access to that area utterly dependent on a random check.
Exactly. A random encounter (the introduction of content) inserted into a game where my PCs are having too hard a time of it would be bad for the game.
I dont care if some rule calls for the insertion of a random monster (roll each 10 minutes, % chance). I'll simply roll the dice (to maintain the perception of fear for the players) and ignore the results.
And his guidelines make no such distinction the other way around - in other words its perfectly fine to introduce content in situations where it would be good for the game. Throwing a 'random' monster at the PCs when play has slowed, and theyre having an easy time of it makes perfect sense to me, and I have a feeling Gary would have agreed.
Its certainly a recomendation taken straight from the 5E DMG anyways.
He never discusses, let alone endorses, "an extra unplanned encounter here or there, or doubling a monsters HP mid fight to keep it interesting or occasionally fudging rolls for or against the players". And that would be completely at odds with the "skilled play" that he advocates: the whole point of Gygaxian skilled play is to avoid wandering monsters (via speed, silence, etc) and to seek out the planned target (monster and/or treasure) and successfully recover the loot at minimum risk and cost. (See the discussion of this in his PHB pp 107, 109).
Youre wrong in your interpretation of Gygax here.
Why is it skilled play to overcome monsters that attack at random (truly random monsters) but it is not skilled play to overcome monsters that are triggered due to environment.
My players know that if they rest too much, or go too slow, they more 'random' monsters appear. I do it in such a way that they mostly presume that the dice are falling as they may of course. But thats part of the skill of DMing - managing player perceptions.
But the key thing is they catch on fast how to reduce that risk. Rest less, and push on. Dont stay in the one place too long. Kick in the door and kill the monsters, before they come looking to kill you.
In my view, the 'not totally at the behest of a random percentage chance' wandering monster encourages skilled play more than simply flipping a coin every 10 minutes or so and seeing if the universe spits one out.
Remember - Gygax advocated ignoring a rule or table to keep the game running. The DM is in control - as a benevolent dictator of sorts, seeking to challenge and entertain the players, while dictating the pace of the adventure and the challenges the players face, all while arbiting the rules.
A 'hands off, let the dice fall where they may' approach can be done by a trained monkey or a computer. Gygax advocated for no such thing.
If the GM introduces unplanned encounters other than via the wandering monster mechanics; or doubles a monster's hit points mid-fight; or fudges rolls; then how are the players expected to reap the benefits of their skill? That would entirely defeat the purpose.
They do reap the benefits of their skill. It takes just as much skill to get a feel for a games meta than it does to figure out mathmatical probabilities.
My Job as a DM (and Gygax says nothing that leads me to think he advocated otherwise) is to adjudicate the rules as a hollistic whole, with the intent of the rules to trump the text, and to not be afraid to make rulings and not rules. He tells me (barring one exception) to not slavishly adhere to bad rolls, and to not be afraid to arbitrate and insert content when so doing would be good for the game as a whole.
If you think that player and character skill doesnt get tested in my games, then thats up to you. I assure you that they are tested more in games like mine than in campaigns that are 'let the dice fall where they may' types. (which are less based on skill under pressure and more based on advanced planning and random chance).
I make rulings (and ignore bad rolls) when they are for the good of the game as a whole (to maintain balance, ensure the players are challenged, enforce pacing and make sure players are engaged and rewarded). And just like Gygax advocates, arbitration and rulings are fair game when done for just such a purpose.
I dont throw an extra encounter/ random monster at my PCs just to troll them, or as part of an arbitrary flip of a coin or roll of a dice. I do so with a bigger purpose in mind (balance, challenge, pacing or to simulate the environment) and when its for the good of the game as a whole.
