NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9639884" data-attributes="member: 6795602">On the camp roll from TB and wandering monster checks in D&D. In a D&D wandering monster check the roll determines 1 thing, which if any monsters the PCs encounter. (This can also be more generalized to a random event table.)Before the fiction of exactly which monster at the PCs location is generated the GM has pre generated a list of possible monsters that could be present at this location.  Then after the random monster check the GM then extrapolates further details about the monsters from the setting, the genre, his notes, etc. This appears different than the TB camp roll (someone correct me if I’m wrong). The TB camp roll doesn’t determine what specific monster comes to camp, this is dm decision. Instead the camp roll determines whether something threatens the PCs in camp and how dangerous it is.  Then based on those constraints and possibly the fictional plausibility the GM in TB decides what actual monster is present and its behavior/motivations etc.  In terms of fiat, it looks to me like the d&d dm has a clear process established before play. That process can answer the questions of which monsters and their particular behaviors so that how they would interact with the alarm spell is then extrapolated (or if any aspect is uncertain a roll can be employed to lock that down).  In TB, the specific monster is left for the dm to decide.  Because of that TB could not have a spell that worked just like the d&d alarm spell without it relying completely on DM fiat in TB.  But just because it would rely on dm fiat to employ such a spell in TB doesn’t mean it relies on DM fiat in d&d to do so.</blockquote>

Verification