Has the Wandering Monster concept died?

[the Jester]

One of the problems with random monster tables was derailment; an unexpected encounter usually has unforeseen, negative consequences - draining party supplies and resources for no (or little) foreseeable gain and therefore making the stock encounters more difficult.

IMHO this is a feature of random encounters, not a bug- and certainly not a "problem". The whole point of random encounters is that they are a derailment (apt choice of phrase- my group doesn't want to ride on a train anyhow) and a drain on the part.

 

[S'mon]

Wandering monsters don't really help with the 5/10/15-minute adventuring day, though, unless you have multiple random encounters per day.

Traditionally you made a 1 in 6 wandering monster check every 1-3 turns, ie every 10-30 minutes. At 1 per 20 minutes that's an encounter every 2 hours on average. This would normally make overnight rest in the dungeon impossible, unless the PCs could hole up in a secret room or similar. Thus the aim would typically be to go in to the dungeon, fight several encounters, achieve a goal (scout an area, rescue prisoners, wipe out monster group X, etc) and get out again, all in 1 play session, aka an 'adventure'.

 

[Festivus]

If I use them, which I do upon occasion, they aren't random types. I plan out what wandering monster is going to appear, it's the when that is random. This helps with prep as well as I don't need to look up monsters on the fly, I can have the stat blocks handy. It also helps to couple a reason for the wandering monster. I always hated when your 1st level party got a level 7 red dragon...

 

[Goblyn]

I always liked to use 'random' encounters to display to the group any effects their activities(or the bad guys') have had on the regular world.

An example is the party trying to stop a BBEG from merging part of the far realm with the prime. Random monsters and people are appropriately 'mutated' (i used the pseudonatural template from lords of madness). Et cetera.

This isn't necessary for all campaigns as some don't involve elements which warp reality, but I've found it useful for developing world details(why is that creature HERE?) as well as extra plot hooks or additional information on existing ones ("Dude ... these giant wasps have the same pulsating blue veins that the cultists did")

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I use them, but I'm running one original D&D campaign and one AD&D (1e) campaign, so that's not unusual.

I see wandering monsters (especially in the dungeon) as a challenge to player skill. In the editions I run, you get around 80% of your XP from successfully attaining your goal (i.e. acquiring treasure); killing monsters is worth comparatively little and uses up valuable resources (hit points, spells, items, et cetera). Killing wandering monsters, which typically carry little or not treasure, is a very poor risk:reward ratio. Players are much better off avoiding wandering monster encounters. Skillful players will do things like:

• Avoid wasting lots of time in the dungeon (more time means more wandering monster checks)
• Avoid actions which might attract wandering monsters (loud hammering, battering, setting fires, etc.)
• Quickly evaluate the odds of an encounter being worth fighting, and possibly take another action rather than charging into battle
• Attempt to parley and negotiate with intelligent wandering monsters; they might not really want a fight, either...
• Flee from monsters, using spells (e.g. hold portal), spiked/wedged doors, dropped food, or dropped treasure to deter pursuit.
• Et cetera

Less experienced or capable players will end up encountering and fighting more wandering monsters, making them less efficient than a more skillful group. (This is *really* apparent when you DM for more than one group. I have one group of "old hands" who've been playing for years and one group of newbies, and I can definitely see the difference, although the newbies are rapidly improving as they learn from mistakes.)

In summary, I don't see wandering monsters as an extra that just gets in the way of the adventure and can thus be excised. I see wandering monsters as a integral part of the challenge to the players.

 

[billd91]

I still use them in areas it's appropriate. I may not always roll them randomly. Sometimes, I have a set of list of likely wanderers in a particular area and I'll choose one. Sometimes, I'll select or roll them. What I almost always do is have them selected ahead of time so that I don't spend time fiddling around at play time. They're just ready to go.

 

[pawsplay]

Back when the only school was old, some folks still ignored the random encounter tables, so skipping them isn't exactly "new".

I always wondered about wandering monsters. Aren't there enough monsters around in the adventure? It isn't like it increases the # monsters per unit time you deal with, or anything. They add one more step between you and the final goal, if there is a final goal.

In my way of looking at things, the "final goal" is an in-game consideration of the PCs. I don't view a session or campaign as having a fixed final goal. "Killed for stupidity by wandering worgs" is not exactly my idea of a great climax, but sometimes its kind of, well, deserved.

 

[Huw]

In some of the better-plotted old-school scenarios, many of the wandering monsters were given their point of origin. So if the wandering monster was "1d3 gargoyles from room 20", that's one, two or three less gargoyles when the characters get to room twenty.

This way, balance is kept, both in terms of party resources and party rewards, while still keeping a sense of dynamism.

 

[pawsplay]

In some of the better-plotted old-school scenarios, many of the wandering monsters were given their point of origin. So if the wandering monster was "1d3 gargoyles from room 20", that's one, two or three less gargoyles when the characters get to room twenty.

This way, balance is kept, both in terms of party resources and party rewards, while still keeping a sense of dynamism.

That's what I usually do, with a few entries designated for creatures that literally wander in and out. In that way, the dungeon becomes steadily depopulated but not desolate.

 

[Alzrius]

Traditionally you made a 1 in 6 wandering monster check every 1-3 turns, ie every 10-30 minutes. At 1 per 20 minutes that's an encounter every 2 hours on average. This would normally make overnight rest in the dungeon impossible, unless the PCs could hole up in a secret room or similar. Thus the aim would typically be to go in to the dungeon, fight several encounters, achieve a goal (scout an area, rescue prisoners, wipe out monster group X, etc) and get out again, all in 1 play session, aka an 'adventure'.

Okay, I just realized that we're talking about different things.

I was referring to wandering monsters in the context of overland travel, e.g. spending several days journeying from town to an adventure location (since I'm running Kingmaker) - the guidelines I read, since I'm running an adventure for 1st-level characters, said don't have the PCs deal with more than one encounter per day.

By contrast, you (and probably most everyone else posting in this thread) are referring to random encounters within the dungeon itself. Hence, it's much more believable - and quite possibly more appropriate - to have multiple random encounters within a short span of time.

My mistake there.