D&D 5E How do you think Wandering Monsters fit into modern 5E styles?

[Doug McCrae]

Are wandering monster tables the same for all inhabitants of a region or do they only apply to PCs? For example in the 1e DMG, the table for temperate and sub-tropical inhabited and/or patrolled areas (plains) gives a roughly 30% chance of encountering monsters such as goblins, orcs, ogres, hill giants, ankhegs, or manticores. The nighttime city/town encounter table gives about a 25% chance of encountering monsters. If these apply to ordinary peasants, labourers and artisans then everyday life in D&D worlds seems rather perilous.

 

[Helldritch]

Are wandering monster tables the same for all inhabitants of a region or do they only apply to PCs? For example in the 1e DMG, the table for temperate and sub-tropical inhabited and/or patrolled areas (plains) gives a roughly 30% chance of encountering monsters such as goblins, orcs, ogres, hill giants, ankhegs, or manticores. The nighttime city/town encounter table gives about a 25% chance of encountering a monster. If these apply to ordinary peasants, labourers and artisans then everyday life in D&D worlds seems rather perilous.

Yes to your assumption. That is why the king, baron, duke, marquis, mayor or whatever is hiring PCs to deal with the problems his guards can't.

 

[FrozenNorth]

In 5ed, I use the random encounters as a filler for the 6-8 encounters per day. Sometimes, this lead to a fight. Some other time it leads to a helpful encounter for the players. Whatever the outcome, it counts as one of the 6-8 encounters.

This help a lot in avoiding the 5MWD and the Nova style of play that comes with it. It also help classes that work with powers that reset with a short rest. No one feel left out in the mud this way.

This is how I use random encounters as well, with the addenda that it also allows me to do some world-building at the same time.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Are wandering monster tables the same for all inhabitants of a region or do they only apply to PCs? For example in the 1e DMG, the table for temperate and sub-tropical inhabited and/or patrolled areas (plains) gives a roughly 30% chance of encountering monsters such as goblins, orcs, ogres, hill giants, ankhegs, or manticores. The nighttime city/town encounter table gives about a 25% chance of encountering monsters. If these apply to ordinary peasants, labourers and artisans then everyday life in D&D worlds seems rather perilous.

Yes. In my games, people do not travel much precisely because leaving the confines of the town is so dangerous. This also gives adventurers a reason to exist.

 

[billd91]

Are wandering monster tables the same for all inhabitants of a region or do they only apply to PCs? For example in the 1e DMG, the table for temperate and sub-tropical inhabited and/or patrolled areas (plains) gives a roughly 30% chance of encountering monsters such as goblins, orcs, ogres, hill giants, ankhegs, or manticores. The nighttime city/town encounter table gives about a 25% chance of encountering monsters. If these apply to ordinary peasants, labourers and artisans then everyday life in D&D worlds seems rather perilous.

Generally, I would say, yes, they are the same. This is one of the reasons mundanes travel in groups or caravans when they can. It's a lot safer. Keep in mind that a rolled encounter doesn't mean it's right there in your face and hostile - it might be at some distance, concealed in some bushes, or just going about its own business and not interested in being the one to force the encounter. A predator might be less inclined to interfere with a caravan of merchants or a largish body of farmers trudging to town to sell some produce. A manticore might be spotted flying overhead, thousands of feet away. Maybe it will do something threatening, maybe not. Maybe an ankheg in the field flees underground when spotted by a bunch of woodcutters.

 

[billd91]

IMO they could work if the DM was good at improvisation and making things up on the fly. I later pre-roll, or even personally pick on the encounter table and give it more thought on why they are there, what are their motives and also their tactics and loot. Also, i didnt like that random encounter could roll out really unthreatening encounters like a small band of 4 orcs or something. Seems like a waste of time. I would spice it up by adding mounted orc raiders on Aurochs, orc spell casters and some grunts.

I do a lot of pre-rolling too. It allows me the time to prep the stats so the session runs smoother and figure out how a creature rolled up might behave.
I don't necessarily up-gun things though. If I rolled up 4 orcs and they're FAR outclassed by the PCs, they're probably just scouts. Maybe they'll try to shadow the PCs for a while and assess them, maybe they'll try to break contact when they realize they'd be dead meat if they attacked, maybe they'll try to steal something while the party camps at night. And maybe, they'll go get friends for a bigger encounter a couple of days later if the PCs don't do anything about them...

 

[billd91]

I'm not entirely keen on a DM trying to judge the 'meaningfulness' of a encounter if they are just thinking of what they think is interesting. A lot of the meaning of an encounter is going to come from the players and how they approach the encounter.

I'm particularly questioning looking at the goblin guards outside as a meaningless encounter. That seems to be a real misread to me. It most definitely involves consequential choices - if the PCs approach openly (even brazenly), the guards can put the caves on alert. If the PCs approach carefully and scout things out, they can take out the guards. I just don't see it being a meaningless encounter.

 

[Don Durito]

I'm not entirely keen on a DM trying to judge the 'meaningfulness' of a encounter if they are just thinking of what they think is interesting. A lot of the meaning of an encounter is going to come from the players and how they approach the encounter.

I'm particularly questioning looking at the goblin guards outside as a meaningless encounter. That seems to be a real misread to me. It most definitely involves consequential choices - if the PCs approach openly (even brazenly), the guards can put the caves on alert. If the PCs approach carefully and scout things out, they can take out the guards. I just don't see it being a meaningless encounter.

Yes. As long as choices are being offered it's meaningful.

It's the ones where a "A random encounter. Roll. Ok 17. 3 Ogres attack." That can feel meaningless. (Of course that's a terrible way of presenting a random encounter - but I have seen it done that way, and in any case sometimes they're so not so much a choice as a consquence anyway.)

Of course. There's the weird way where sometimes an encounter can feel meaningless to the GM, but the players don't really see it that. (Especially in modern games D&D editions with a lot of chargen focus on choosing combat abilities).