Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 4688300" data-attributes="member: 40177">And I fully agree with your reasoning.&nbsp; But, I'll argue Reynard's point, here.He's not saying those things shouldn't happen.&nbsp; What he IS saying that random encounter charts (ie, Wandering Monster charts like we used to roll in the technicolour past) should be internally coherent.&nbsp; If you throw a fire elemental into a desert, there may be a reason it's there... but if it's a random element, odds are it's going to be a brief encounter for the PCs and nothing more.&nbsp; So, even if as a GM you work up this internal reasoning for why the elemental is in the frozen tundra butting heads with frost giants, Polar bears, and a few Canadians who got lost whilst ice fishing, the Players aren't ever going to see it.And then, one of two things will happen.&nbsp; Either the PCs will say &quot;Wtf, we just killed a fire elemental.&nbsp; That makes no sense&quot; and your setting suffers just a little bit (and it should, because you've just shown your group that you used a generic table to throw in an encounter, and reminded them that they're playing a game)... or, they say &quot;Wtf, this makes no sense... but there must be a reason...&quot; and off they go in search for this fire elemental volcano thing which you haven't developed at all, and your lovely little adventure with all those great game elements that you lovingly created over the long weekend will sit and collect dust. I've seen it happen.&nbsp; It isn't pretty.So, if you want encounters that might not make sense, leave them off the random tables.&nbsp; I mean, a little bit of &quot;Wtf&quot; is good on an encounter table (&quot;What is this alligator doing in a forest?&nbsp; There must be some water nearby!&quot;), but if it gets too gonzo, it will actually weaken your setting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 4688300, member: 40177"] And I fully agree with your reasoning. But, I'll argue Reynard's point, here. He's not saying those things shouldn't happen. What he IS saying that random encounter charts (ie, Wandering Monster charts like we used to roll in the technicolour past) should be internally coherent. If you throw a fire elemental into a desert, there may be a reason it's there... but if it's a random element, odds are it's going to be a brief encounter for the PCs and nothing more. So, even if as a GM you work up this internal reasoning for why the elemental is in the frozen tundra butting heads with frost giants, Polar bears, and a few Canadians who got lost whilst ice fishing, the Players aren't ever going to see it. And then, one of two things will happen. Either the PCs will say "Wtf, we just killed a fire elemental. That makes no sense" and your setting suffers just a little bit (and it should, because you've just shown your group that you used a generic table to throw in an encounter, and reminded them that they're playing a game)... or, they say "Wtf, this makes no sense... but there must be a reason..." and off they go in search for this fire elemental volcano thing which you haven't developed at all, and your lovely little adventure with all those great game elements that you lovingly created over the long weekend will sit and collect dust. I've seen it happen. It isn't pretty. So, if you want encounters that might not make sense, leave them off the random tables. I mean, a little bit of "Wtf" is good on an encounter table ("What is this alligator doing in a forest? There must be some water nearby!"), but if it gets too gonzo, it will actually weaken your setting. [/QUOTE]

Verification