I hope not. It only needs considering if large numbers of novice DMs really will assume that you keep churning monsters out infinitely just because the book doesn't say "Stop". I've personally never met or even heard of anyone who does that. I'd be happy for the rules to remind the DM that any change in an area's population density also changes the wandering monster frequency.
Legends & Lore: A Few Rules Updates
- Thread starter Plaguescarred
- Start date
I hope not. It only needs considering if large numbers of novice DMs really will assume that you keep churning monsters out infinitely just because the book doesn't say "Stop". I've personally never met or even heard of anyone who does that. I'd be happy for the rules to remind the DM that any change in an area's population density also changes the wandering monster frequency.
am181d
Adventurer
First off, it's a "large numbers of respawning monsters" problem, NOT an "infinite respawning monsters" problem. Also, it's not a problem.
I *never* use wandering monsters, but in common usage, they come up when a party is on the move. That means they're generally not going to stay in one place long enough for this to be an issue.
But if some group's play style is "sit in one place and chain Wandering Monster encounters" why would the rules stand in the way of that? It's already a break from reality, cause what the heck are they doing? But the game is what you make of it. I don't show up at your house and tell you to use more funny accents when you role-play...
AntiStateQuixote
Enemy of the State
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I don't generally have a problem with taking 10 or 'passive' skill checks. I've had players use them to considerable effect in games I've run and they do exactly what they are intended to do - save a lot of time and hassle with unnecessary checks. I do, however, have a problem with rolling a trap's stealth check just because the PC came within range of perceiving it. For most opposed checks, particularly for a situation in which the trap is doing nothing to change its status but just sitting there, I'd prefer to just stick the DC at a static value and have the PCs roll against it. They can be in control of whether or not they roll or rely on their passive score. As long as the DC is reasonably justified by the situation, I don't have a problem with it being fundamentally static whether the PCs will find it easily or never find it with passive perception.
Plus, if you roll the trap's stealth check vs the PCs' passive perception, what if the PCs have split up and each subgroup encounters the trap separately? Does it make any sense for the DC to spot the trap to change? I don't think so. But isn't that what the principle of the DM rolling vs passive perception leads to? Just set the DC and leave it alone. If the PCs spot it easily, they spot it easily. Good for them.
Plus, if you roll the trap's stealth check vs the PCs' passive perception, what if the PCs have split up and each subgroup encounters the trap separately? Does it make any sense for the DC to spot the trap to change? I don't think so. But isn't that what the principle of the DM rolling vs passive perception leads to? Just set the DC and leave it alone. If the PCs spot it easily, they spot it easily. Good for them.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Blue Valkyrie shot the food! Blue Valkyrie is about to die!
Maybe the other group were holding their torches this way rather than this other way, and the torchlight happened to fall upon the trip wire just so . . .
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
You're approaching this from the viewpoint that it doesn't matter who rolls the die - the GM or the player. But I think it does matter for things like this. Sooner or later, an ability or condition will come alone that will give a PC advantage (or disadvantage) on perception checks. Or sooner or later, 3e/Eberron-style action points will appear in the hands of the players to let them push up a d20 roll that seems just short of the desired result. Having the GM roll the hide check for the trap wouldn't work with powers or conditions of that sort so it's better to not even start down that road.
I'm looking at the "Ruins of Adventure" modules for 1E right now (which I'm converting to 4E) and no where does it say to stop churning out random encounter when the party clears an area. There are some areas that say things like "there are twenty 1st level thieves that will randomly attack the party in this mansion", but then there are charts that you just keep rolling on forever. So yes its a common problem of early editions even though it is not 100% universal.
What you've personally observed is countered by what I've personally observed. I've seen many DMs that kept running random encounters long after we cleared a dungeon. I've ran it that way because sometimes a module would say there were X monsters that could be encounter and sometimes it didn't. I assumed that the times it said they didn't that it was meant to be infinite, because some were limited, why would they not limit the rest of them.
No its an infinite problem. Especially if the party wants to grind a bit to level. Then they just keep resting in the dungeon killing whatever comes along. Also random encounters come up anytime the party is in an area for more than 10 minutes (in a dungeon) or 1 hour (in the wilderness) so they aren't just for when the party is on the move.
I don't show up at your house and tell you how to play either, however this game is supposed to satisfy both of us and be easy to use by the new players. So at the very least they need to explain both methods (numbered wandering monsters and infinite random encounters), their advantages, and their pitfalls. Such as the whole 5 minute workday fix that infinite random encounters is, and the unreality it might produce.
Blue Valkyrie got killed by another player!
OK. And the problem is . . . ?
I was going to ask what the players were doing having their PCs hang out in an empty dungeon. This seems to answer it, though. If grinding random encounters is everyone's idea of a good time, what's wrong with that?
But I also think you're looking for rules and guidelines in the wrong place. In AD&D, for instance, the DMG has a discussion of what can be involved in clearing an area of monsters so that no more random encounters will occur. To some extent its common sense advice, but in a game where players are expected, at high level, to have their PCs clear out monsters and build a castle it makes sense to have some details.
I think the designers probably just assumed that these ideas would be applied by GMs to other similar contexts: for instance, if the dungeon has been cleared of orcs, then fewer orcs will turn up as random encounters. Of course, if the dungeon has stairs to lower levels, or multiple entry points to outside, then maybe those wanderers are coming in from somehwere else.
I still think this whole issue is not about a rule for no infinite wanderers but rather about guidelines for different styles of play around world-building, explanation etc and then different ways of using random encounters (and other encounter-design techniques) within those playstyles.
Rhenny
Adventurer
Didn't they include this kind of advice with random encounters in the Blingdenstone adventure in the playtest package. I think I remember them specifically saying that there were X amount of orcs so if they are encountered outside of their camp keep track of it. They also explained that if over y amount of orcs were killed outside the camp, then the entire clan of orcs would fall back and be more defensive, getting ready for attacks. (I think that's what it mentioned).
This type of advice allows for wandering monsters that make sense in a campaign setting. It works great.
