When "fun" just isn't enough.

[Mallus]

Huh? It's more plausible that each monster only stays in its designated encounter area?

No, it's more plausible if dungeons aren't full-fledged, self-contained ecosystems teaming with dangerous predators, most of whom are are inexplicable wealthy in human terms.

 

[Lanefan]

No, it's more plausible if dungeons aren't full-fledged, self-contained ecosystems teaming with dangerous predators, most of whom are are inexplicable wealthy in human terms.

Quite right. Which explains why wandering monsters rarely if ever have any treasure at all.

There's situations where wandering monsters make sense (patrols, invaders, occupants of the place just going about their (un)lives, etc.) and situations where they don't.

Lane-"if you really want to streamline play, just call them wandering damage"-fan

 

[Hussar]

When it comes to wandering monsters, I always remember the OOTS strip about how there will be one and ONLY one random encounter on a given trip because the DM doesn't want to futz about wasting everyone's time with meaningless crap.

And, if the wandering monster is part of a patrol of the dungeon, it's not meaningless crap. There's all sorts of things you can do with that. However, randomly chucking an encounter in, with no links to the actual adventure, is just wasting everyone's time at the table. This isn't a new observation.

 

[Reynard]

However, randomly chucking an encounter in, with no links to the actual adventure, is just wasting everyone's time at the table. This isn't a new observation.

That's only true if "adventure"="story", which it sometimes does but not always. Remember, we're not talking simply about adventures with dungeons in them here, we are talking specifically about a certain mode of play that we've identified as "dungeon survival". There doesn't even have to be an "adventure" for that, at least in the sense of a plot or a villain or a BBEG. All that's need is a deep, dark, twisting monster and treasure filled hole in the ground into which PCs go to uncover long lost riches while dodging poison dart traps and otyughs.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's only true if "adventure"="story", which it sometimes does but not always. Remember, we're not talking simply about adventures with dungeons in them here, we are talking specifically about a certain mode of play that we've identified as "dungeon survival". There doesn't even have to be an "adventure" for that, at least in the sense of a plot or a villain or a BBEG. All that's need is a deep, dark, twisting monster and treasure filled hole in the ground into which PCs go to uncover long lost riches while dodging poison dart traps and otyughs.

On Wandering Monsters:
In one blog post Mike (?) describes an encounter setup where an encounter is spanned over multiple rooms. The interesting point here is that it seems to span multiple rooms because nearby "wandering monsters" (guards) are alerted and enter the fray.

I don't know how you feel about that, but it makes a little more sense to me then wandering monsters that didn't become alerted during a loud combat, but just stumble on the PCs by accident. (Though I can see some Golems, bound spirits/elemental or undeads to act this way - but a Dragon, Mind Flayer or an Ogre?). You need a really big dungeon to really make sense of wandering monsters... And when you do have a justification for their existence, 4E certainly won't make it impossible (or even hard) to use them.

 

[Mallus]

Quite right. Which explains why wandering monsters rarely if ever have any treasure at all.

Heh, you're right. I forgot that. It was the permanent residents of the "monster hotels" that had all the goodies.

There's situations where wandering monsters make sense (patrols, invaders, occupants of the place just going about their (un)lives, etc.) and situations where they don't.

Agreed. Mainly I just dislike the term. And the old D&D-ism of semi-abandoned underground ruins that function like the world's deadliest (loot-filled) niche ecologies.

There are plenty of backdrops for high sword&sorcery-type adventures. Why keep choosing the silliest? YMMV, of course...

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't understand the hatred for wandering monsters, or the idea that it is strange that old ruins have things in them.

Think of it, if you would, in terms of the original Gamma World game. Go around your house some time and look at all the nifty things you have. Now, imagine civilization collapses back to the bronze age. One hundred years later, the descendents of escaped zoo animals and other creatures (including humans) roam the deserted & overgrown cities. Some of those buildings are at the point of collapse. Rotting and stressed floors make natural traps. But that flashlight in your kitchen drawer, if the batteries still work, is worth an incredible amount of money.

It is mind-boggling that "creatures move about in their habitat" is unrealistic.

It is also mind-boggling that "increasing uncertainty, and making already explored areas potentially the site of danger" is somehow "unfun".

What wandering monsters do, though, is prevent PCs from easily resting whereever they like, and from easily knowing how much "oomph" they need to hold on to before retreating. From my point of view (as player or DM) these things increase the fun. But they are not consistent with a "15-minute adventuring day" playstyle.


RC

 

[Reynard]

What wandering monsters do, though, is prevent PCs from easily resting whereever they like, and from easily knowing how much "oomph" they need to hold on to before retreating. From my point of view (as player or DM) these things increase the fun. But they are not consistent with a "15-minute adventuring day" playstyle.

I <3 RC.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But "dungeon survival" isn't just about how many/tough the traps and monsters are. it is about managing limited resources, dealing with save-or-die dangers, exploring avenues that don't necessarily lead directly to the BBEG, scrounging for treasure, fighting off wandering monsters and all those other things. "Wandering monsters" are apparently out. "Traps" as we've known them are out. "Save or die" is out. The Dungeons Des&Dev article goes a long way toward redefining the dungeon as an arean and/or gauntlet.

I'm going to go ahead and back this up.

"Dungeon Survival," as I've been using the term, is about survival (that is, staying alive for an extended period of time) in a dungeon (that is, a twisty passageway filled with unpleasant things).

The individual toughness isn't a concern. It's the slow attrition and sudden shock that kind of define what is fun in a Dungeon Survival game. Watching your hp's slowly dwindle away over the course of days and weeks as your food and water supply dwindles just as rapidly, always on the look out for something that can and will kill you with but a thought, if you step uncautiously into it's path, dealing with your rotting equipment, dealing with town being miles away toward the surface, dealing with an alien environment that is directly hostile to you and that does not want you alive anymore....

That's fun. Think of it in terms of "survival horror," where living to see tomorrow is an accomplishment, and your prizes consist of sturdy shovels and rusty hob-nails. Making due with the bare minimum, and using (usually player) cleverness to endure where you should not is entertaining.

But that isn't what most people are expecting out of D&D, for better or worse. And it isn't what 4e wants to support, from all available information. Slow attrition and instant calamity are both off the table, and these are some of the defining traits of dungeon survival. You do have resources you can spend, but you can't spend THEM ALL, FOREVER, which is important to a game where death is always waiting around the next turn in the rough-hewn stone walls.

From my point of view (as player or DM) these things increase the fun. But they are not consistent with a "15-minute adventuring day" playstyle.

The major problem with wandering monsters in a heroic adventure game is that they serve no purpose other than as an XP speedbump. They aren't important to the arc of the storyline, they don't matter in terms of pacing, and they distract you from what is REALLY important in a heroic adventure game (finding the bad guy and beating the cheese out of them, or exploring your character's history, or discovering the site of an ancient battle that can be re-told by a wizened old sage, etc.). They don't get at what people are looking for when they're looking for heroic adventure. They aren't very heroic, they aren't very adventurous, they're just there as background noise, which heroic adventure isn't particularly concerned with. It would be like forcing characters to RP buying torches or encountering a squirrel.

This is exactly why they're good in a Dungeon Survival game, though. More chances to damage characters, weaken their resolve, show them that they are not welcome here, to sap their critically limited resources and to force them to consider whether they really can dig one level deeper tonight, or whether they better proceed with caution.

Just two different goals. 4e seems expressly to be catering to the former, while earlier editions definitely had a strong mechanical bent toward the latter.

 

[Doug McCrae]

And it isn't what 4e wants to support

What you've described isn't what any edition of D&D wants to support.