Not Random wandering monsters

[gameablecontent]

Many adventures randomize events that ought to be scripted. Those of us who know American football might remember the 49'ers of the Eighties using a series scripted plays on their first possession. The idea being that the offensive preparations would overwhelm any defense. Everyone on the field knew exactly what they were doing during that series, almost like a football kata.

Preparation helps DMs. I know as well as you do that a list of wandering monsters is right there at the beginning of the adventure text. The question is, can it be better?

Scripting the first eight, ten, or twelve scripted wandering encounters, not just the "monster" but also the turn the encounter happens, gives the DM more control and improves play. Master level DMs may not need this, but the novice may benefit. The designer has the ability to add value to the encounters and take the burden off the DM.

In a traditional wandering monster encounter the DM rolls the dice and finds that five orcs are going to show up. If the DM is not overloaded they might think to drop a hint a few rounds before the orcs show up, but the orcs are likely just to be angry orcs. A scripted encounter, on the other hand, will have information embedded in the encounter description. Maybe one of the orcs is wounded and the orc party is just trying to get out of the dungeon. Maybe the orcs are off duty and not wearing armor or carrying weapons. Maybe the orcs have a prisoner who can give the party information if they are freed. The orcs could be doing anything of course, the point is that the designer should be doing this work and not the DM.

If the encounters are scripted there can be interactions between them. Perhaps three turns later an angry ogre shows up and his disposition toward the party will depend on how they handled the orcs. Now the wandering monster interactions have further consequences.

After the script is depleted then the DM can resort to random wandering monsters.

It very well may be the case that somebody has already mined this vein. I've read a lot of blogs and played a lot of adventures. What I've seen is a lot of random wandering monster tables--some with additional information. I'm not saying that no one has done this already or that it is a unique idea. But i do think scripted wandering monster are under utilized.

 

[Beoric]

Hmm.

It's a Brycism, and I think pretty well accepted around here, that all monsters, including wanderers, should be doing something when encountered.

I also think it's fine to have a keyed encounter outside of a dungeon room. A good example is the first major intersection in In Search of the Unknown, where a keyed encounter can occur at the DM's option.

If you are dictating when an encounter happens, as opposed to where, so that the encounter is not occurring because of player choices about where you are going, then what you have done is moved from a site-based module to an event-based module. At which point they aren't actually random encounters, and serve a different purpose than random encounters do.

The main point of random encounters is to place time pressure on player decisions, to create a tension between being thorough and being safe. This is why traditional random encounters don't include much in the way of treasure (and in early editions, less experience), because you want players to consider random (combat) encounters as a negative event that eats up resources without any reward. A secondary point of random encounters is to establish the environment as a dynamic place where other creatures exist and pursue their own goals. You could achieve that secondary goal with an event based system, but not the primary goal.

Also, I expect you will get some pushback around here regarding whether any encounter should be scripted, per se. In my view, too tight a script negates player choices. But I don't actually think "scripted" is the right word for what you are describing. What you describe with the ogre, where his disposition depends on player actions, that isn't following a script, it is creating a situation. Like your football analogy, all teams have playbooks, all playbooks include plays, which are a tactical plan the team intends to follow. Those plans may not be entirely successful, they may have to rely on contingencies, or to improvise on the spot.

I think a lot of "teaching" modules do a disservice to novice DMs, by creating linear plots that teach DMs to "keep the adventure on track", instead of teaching DMs how to handle situations where the players do something unexpected. To the extent that you may be advocated for a series of events that occur in order despite player choices, I think you are doing the same thing. Whereas with a site based adventure that has different paths to the sites, preferably with some hints to distinguish what routes go where, the DM is learning how to run a not-railroad.

With an event based adventure, events tend to be organized in a linear fashion in time, which again teaches DMs how to keep things on track; if you want to avoid this, you need to make events contingent on player actions. I think there are limits on doing this in a planned way for more than a few encounters, because running an adventure as a series of if-then choices also teaches a DM to follow the plot, instead of teaching them how to be adaptive.

Having encounters that truly occur randomly, even if the encounter has an internal plan to it, helps DMs learn how to adapt, because you have to adapt the encounter to whatever the situation is when the encounter is triggered. Consider the classic random encounter in a dungeon, the DM has to adapt the encounter to the configuration of rooms and corridors as they exist when the monsters arrive. The players may be in a room, or in a corridor. The monsters will probably be in a corridor, but the shape of the corridor will be different depending on where the encounter is triggered, and in fact the DM may have to decide which corridor the monsters are coming down. It is a very simple way of getting the DM and players used to adapting to unexpected situations.

It occurs to me that the ideal starter module for a novice DM would include a relatively generic home base with not too much going on at the start (running social encoutners is hard!), and a nearish dungeon to be explored. If the dungeon is non-linear it gets the DM used to the idea of nonlinear play, and it sets players up with the expectation that they are going to be presented with choices, and that their fate is in their own hands. And then you have random encounters in order to teach DM and players to adapt to unexpected situations; and the time/risk component, if explained to the players, gives more meaning to their choices.

I also note that, if the DM is acting as a truly neutral arbiter, a significant amount of control is passed from the DM to the players, because the DM follows the dice, whatever they say, and the players get to manage risk and influence their own destiny. I know that hasn't been the way the game is presented for a long time, and the existence of celebrity DMs really exacerbates the issue. But even if you are eventually going to switch to a Trad/Neotrad/OC style of play later on, I think a traditional site based module is a better way to learn the skills you need to DM.

And after a level or two, when everyone is comfortable with dungeon play, you introduce more dynamic elements into the home base. That's kind of baked in to both Hommlet and Keep on the Borderlands, because both centres are primed to get more dynamic in reaction to events that occur in the dungeon. I note that Hommlet is better than KotB in the sense that players don't have to engage with it, at least at the beginning of the game, whereas in KotB players are immediately challenged by the guards, which is going to be an awkward initial social encounter for inexperienced players. On the other hand, KotB is better at encouraging the DM to actively adapt the situation to player actions, and (IIRC) gives clearer instructions as to how people at the keep may react to events in the dungeon; Hommlet says it is a hub of intrigue, but it doesn't do a good job of encouraging the DM to improvise, and there is little expressed detail regarding how events in the dungeon are going to have an impact in the village.

So rather than meeting at a bar, my ideal start for novice DMs and players is to handwave everyone getting to know each other, and start the module at the entrance to the dungeon. The players know there is a village nearby to retreat to, but they haven't been there yet and don't know any of the people. A dungeon is a constrained site that prevents the characters from leaving the prepared area, everyone learns about making choices and adapting, and the first social interactions are likely with monsters, which tend to have clearly defined objectives and are a lot easier for everyone to manage than trying to make small talk with the bartender.

 

[gameablecontent]

Hmm.

It's a Brycism, and I think pretty well accepted around here, that all monsters, including wanderers, should be doing something when encountered.

I also think it's fine to have a keyed encounter outside of a dungeon room. A good example is the first major intersection in In Search of the Unknown, where a keyed encounter can occur at the DM's option.

If you are dictating when an encounter happens, as opposed to where, so that the encounter is not occurring because of player choices about where you are going, then what you have done is moved from a site-based module to an event-based module. At which point they aren't actually random encounters, and serve a different purpose than random encounters do.

The main point of random encounters is to place time pressure on player decisions, to create a tension between being thorough and being safe. This is why traditional random encounters don't include much in the way of treasure (and in early editions, less experience), because you want players to consider random (combat) encounters as a negative event that eats up resources without any reward. A secondary point of random encounters is to establish the environment as a dynamic place where other creatures exist and pursue their own goals. You could achieve that secondary goal with an event based system, but not the primary goal.

Also, I expect you will get some pushback around here regarding whether any encounter should be scripted, per se. In my view, too tight a script negates player choices. But I don't actually think "scripted" is the right word for what you are describing. What you describe with the ogre, where his disposition depends on player actions, that isn't following a script, it is creating a situation. Like your football analogy, all teams have playbooks, all playbooks include plays, which are a tactical plan the team intends to follow. Those plans may not be entirely successful, they may have to rely on contingencies, or to improvise on the spot.

I think a lot of "teaching" modules do a disservice to novice DMs, by creating linear plots that teach DMs to "keep the adventure on track", instead of teaching DMs how to handle situations where the players do something unexpected. To the extent that you may be advocated for a series of events that occur in order despite player choices, I think you are doing the same thing. Whereas with a site based adventure that has different paths to the sites, preferably with some hints to distinguish what routes go where, the DM is learning how to run a not-railroad.

With an event based adventure, events tend to be organized in a linear fashion in time, which again teaches DMs how to keep things on track; if you want to avoid this, you need to make events contingent on player actions. I think there are limits on doing this in a planned way for more than a few encounters, because running an adventure as a series of if-then choices also teaches a DM to follow the plot, instead of teaching them how to be adaptive.

Having encounters that truly occur randomly, even if the encounter has an internal plan to it, helps DMs learn how to adapt, because you have to adapt the encounter to whatever the situation is when the encounter is triggered. Consider the classic random encounter in a dungeon, the DM has to adapt the encounter to the configuration of rooms and corridors as they exist when the monsters arrive. The players may be in a room, or in a corridor. The monsters will probably be in a corridor, but the shape of the corridor will be different depending on where the encounter is triggered, and in fact the DM may have to decide which corridor the monsters are coming down. It is a very simple way of getting the DM and players used to adapting to unexpected situations.

It occurs to me that the ideal starter module for a novice DM would include a relatively generic home base with not too much going on at the start (running social encoutners is hard!), and a nearish dungeon to be explored. If the dungeon is non-linear it gets the DM used to the idea of nonlinear play, and it sets players up with the expectation that they are going to be presented with choices, and that their fate is in their own hands. And then you have random encounters in order to teach DM and players to adapt to unexpected situations; and the time/risk component, if explained to the players, gives more meaning to their choices.

I also note that, if the DM is acting as a truly neutral arbiter, a significant amount of control is passed from the DM to the players, because the DM follows the dice, whatever they say, and the players get to manage risk and influence their own destiny. I know that hasn't been the way the game is presented for a long time, and the existence of celebrity DMs really exacerbates the issue. But even if you are eventually going to switch to a Trad/Neotrad/OC style of play later on, I think a traditional site based module is a better way to learn the skills you need to DM.

And after a level or two, when everyone is comfortable with dungeon play, you introduce more dynamic elements into the home base. That's kind of baked in to both Hommlet and Keep on the Borderlands, because both centres are primed to get more dynamic in reaction to events that occur in the dungeon. I note that Hommlet is better than KotB in the sense that players don't have to engage with it, at least at the beginning of the game, whereas in KotB players are immediately challenged by the guards, which is going to be an awkward initial social encounter for inexperienced players. On the other hand, KotB is better at encouraging the DM to actively adapt the situation to player actions, and (IIRC) gives clearer instructions as to how people at the keep may react to events in the dungeon; Hommlet says it is a hub of intrigue, but it doesn't do a good job of encouraging the DM to improvise, and there is little expressed detail regarding how events in the dungeon are going to have an impact in the village.

So rather than meeting at a bar, my ideal start for novice DMs and players is to handwave everyone getting to know each other, and start the module at the entrance to the dungeon. The players know there is a village nearby to retreat to, but they haven't been there yet and don't know any of the people. A dungeon is a constrained site that prevents the characters from leaving the prepared area, everyone learns about making choices and adapting, and the first social interactions are likely with monsters, which tend to have clearly defined objectives and are a lot easier for everyone to manage than trying to make small talk with the bartender.

wow, thanks for your detailed reply, i will have to read it three times before i can absorb it all.

im hip to the "wanderers must be doing something".

i'm suggesting that by scheduling the wanderers arrival, the designer controls the "when", "who", and "what" (but not the "where"), rather than leaving it to chance. the b/x rules, the ones i use, make wanderers rare, and potentially an entire adventure could pass with no wanderers, or so few that there is no perceived pressure. in one hour a party could have from zero to three "extra" encounters, and each of those encounters usually has a random range for number appearing. if it were as simple as say d6 orcs, that means the party will face from 0 to 18 "extra" orcs (i understand the probability distribution amongst the possibilities uneven and skews toward the low end. i dont want to start a mathletes competition). it's too swingy for my taste. we all know how dice can be. maybe im trying to control too much, but i like to save random for hit rolls and damage as often as possible. i realize i didn't say this in the post.

thanks again for your time and input, truly. i look forward to further discussions!

 

[The1True]

the b/x rules, the ones i use, make wanderers rare

Really? I ran B5 recently with BECMI and got so many randos, I had to start toning it down. I've also run Barrowmaze for a while now, which is ostensibly Labyrinth Lord (but secretly AD&D, I suspect) and also get a shit-ton of randos there.

I think you're hitting on something that Bryce has commented on in the past in various reviews, where he enjoys random encounters that have a little bit more than just raw stats, but he's also commented that if you've put real effort into crafting your random encounters, it's a huge waste because the players are never going to see more than one or two of them, so why not make them all keyed encounters. Bit of a pickle.

Flavourful random encounters are cool, as long as you're willing to accept that the majority of them are never going to see the light of day. You can put them on a chart, but perhaps a better way to present them is to categorize them with a couple of highlighted Tags so when a random event is rolled, the DM can pick something appropriate to the terrain, or his campaign, or current events in the adventure, etc. I suspect a lot of DM's do this anyway...

This is getting out of hand, but imagine a lists for: "The PC's are fleeing blindly when:" or "The PC's are pixel bitching endlessly when:" or "The PC's are making a lot of noise or started a running battle when:". I guess one list with Tags could cover this.

 

[Beoric]

... in one hour a party could have from zero to three "extra" encounters...

So that would be one check every 20 minutes, presumably a d6 (too tired to look it up)? That might get bumped up depending on the actions of the party, for example, if picking a lock takes 10 minutes. I can't remember how long those sorts of actions are supposed to take in b/x, I really know 1e a lot better. You might also want to look at movement rates, I know that the 1e dungeon movement rate is likely to be 60-90 feet per 10 minute turn, so you would be making a check every 120-180 feet.

If my above assumptions apply, I prefer making checks every 10 minute turn, and making significant actions like picking locks, looking for secret doors* or searching an area also take a turn, so instead of checking with a d6 every two turns I would check with a d12 every turn. That means every significant action results in a check, which I think brings it home better to the players the risks they take in pixel bitching.

*I think the rule is actually that finding the door doesn't take long, but figuring out how to open it does.

 

[Beoric]

This is getting out of hand, but imagine a lists for: "The PC's are fleeing blindly when:" or "The PC's are pixel bitching endlessly when:" or "The PC's are making a lot of noise or started a running battle when:". I guess one list with Tags could cover this.

Ok, this is getting too much prep even for me.

 

[Ineffective Voulging]

I can see the point in encounters randomly happening, but i see no need for a big table to randomly find what it is.

An orc lair? Then the random encounter is a subchief and 4 orcs doing a security audit.

 

[gameablecontent]

Really? I ran B5 recently with BECMI and got so many randos, I had to start toning it down. I've also run Barrowmaze for a while now, which is ostensibly Labyrinth Lord (but secretly AD&D, I suspect) and also get a shit-ton of randos there.

I think you're hitting on something that Bryce has commented on in the past in various reviews, where he enjoys random encounters that have a little bit more than just raw stats, but he's also commented that if you've put real effort into crafting your random encounters, it's a huge waste because the players are never going to see more than one or two of them, so why not make them all keyed encounters. Bit of a pickle.

Flavourful random encounters are cool, as long as you're willing to accept that the majority of them are never going to see the light of day. You can put them on a chart, but perhaps a better way to present them is to categorize them with a couple of highlighted Tags so when a random event is rolled, the DM can pick something appropriate to the terrain, or his campaign, or current events in the adventure, etc. I suspect a lot of DM's do this anyway...

This is getting out of hand, but imagine a lists for: "The PC's are fleeing blindly when:" or "The PC's are pixel bitching endlessly when:" or "The PC's are making a lot of noise or started a running battle when:". I guess one list with Tags could cover this.

i hear you, thats why im saying go scripted with monster and turn, effectively just pre-rolling the first 12 encounters or so. I don't think it's a very revolutionary idea I'm just trying to codify it.

I realize that I didn't say what I wanted to say very well. The short version of what I really wanted to say is scripting encounters reduces the cognitive load on the DM, reduces extreme variability in wandering content (i.e. the raw numbers), and improves the quality of the encounters that the designer is trying to create. this is closer to what I want to say but it is still missing a certain something.

"Working...."

 

[gameablecontent]

I can see the point in encounters randomly happening, but i see no need for a big table to randomly find what it is.

An orc lair? Then the random encounter is a subchief and 4 orcs doing a security audit.

my idea is that the wandering monster scripted roster would have 12 encounters or so pre-rolled and ready to go with some interactions between them. once the scripted encounters are exhausted they are recycled into a regular wandering monster chart. So for example if after the 12 scripted encounters have been used you could use a D12 to roll them randomly afterward, and then deleting any extra or uneeded content. It's doesn't add much text to the "existing" chart

I think we all have been playing D&D for a long time and coming up with ideas about what monsters are doing is pretty darn easy. I'm exploring what the designer can do better for the DM .

I may have misunderstood your comment about the "need for a big table".

 

[gameablecontent]

Ok, this is getting too much prep even for me.

I agree I wouldn't want separate tables for those different situation's it's just one wandering monster roster that scripted for the adventure in hand. 12 encounters that can be recycled, by omitting specifics, into a "standard" wanderer table.

 

[gameablecontent]

I should not have said that B/X checks make wanderers relatively rare. that is vague. I also miscalculated in my original post I apologize. in B/X it's one out of six every two turns. so if there are 120 turns, there will be 60 checks resulting in ten encounters. (there are lots of systems out there for wandering monster checks and how often they occur I understand that) if we estimate one turn to get to a room and one turn to explore a room, that's 60 rooms, so ten wanderers over 60 rooms. Those numbers make me think the scripted wanderer idea is feasible. a designer can script meaningful encounters which are then recycled into a standard wandering monster chart.

I am new posting here but I have been lurking here for a couple years or so. I have found the vast majority of content posted here to be productive and constructive. Thanks beoric, ineffective and one true for engaging with me.

 

[gameablecontent]

 

[gameablecontent]

I realize that the does not have the interactivity between the wandering monsters, and that the monsters themselves need more interactivity. I failed to realize the vision fully, but this is the idea.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Sounds like what you're advocating is for wandering *encounters*, not wandering *monsters*, which is not a particularly radical position to take. The difference? "Encounters" are fleshed-out scenarios prepared ahead of time; "monsters" are just opponents, usually ripped straight from the MM. For the record, I agree with you that a prepped encounter is preferable over an unprepped wandering monster (which I've never found especially useful, since making a deliberate choice of what to deploy against the characters and when adds to the experience rather than detracts from it).

I can see the value of a wandering monster table to someone truly lost in the weeds (who needs to be told that maybe the players should be actually encountering goblins in this goblin lair); I suspect seasoned DMs really have no need for one. Prepped encounters definitely have more value; in fact, the real debate here I think is "static prepped encounters (i.e. keys) vs. dynamic prepped encounters (i.e. tables)", as both sides have their merits.

 

[Beoric]

The encounters are good, but I wouldn't want to have to keep a running total of the number of turns (up to 39!). I think that increases the cognitive load. Probably my biggest challenge as a DM is taking legible notes during play, so this might be a "me" thing.* But for me, it would be easier to use a more traditional method, where you only have to count turns up to the number 2, and just have the encounters come up in order as random encounters are triggered.

*This, BTW, is why I use Necropraxis' hazard die system. It's easier for me to have a consistent, frequently occurring procedure and improvise the results, than to track/make sure players are accurately tracking light source depletion, rests and the duration of any conditions.

 

[The1True]

I am new posting here

Yeah, you got stuck-right-in here, so no one really had a chance to welcome you, so Welcome Gameable of Cloud Cuckooland!

thats why im saying go scripted with monster

I think I came close to this with advice I've added to two of the hex crawls in my mini-campaign. I'm a big believer in agency and the quantum ogre. I think random encounters and events have a way of reshaping the narrative and often even dislodging the DM from the comfy little railroad they may have unwittingly set everyone on. I did two different kinds of crawls, one already had hexes and features with random events and encounters, and the other was a blank sub-hex map where the DM and players could generate the terrain as they went, as well as the features, events, and encounters. The goal being dynamic, emergent play.

In practice, when I wrote the random tables, I was coming up with about 50% pure monster stat blocks (1d6 moonjelly swarms) and about 50% semi-detailed encounters that I obviously had thought a bit more about (4 Bloodrock Mercs investigating a disappearance. The next time you see them, they're fleeing a pack of Leucrotta.) In playtest, the players had a good time tooling about both crawls for a little while, but eventually they got lost/bored, not seeing the point to wandering the wilderness (a fair reaction). That's where the more-scripted encounters came in. They're a little more structured, and tend to lead to actual keyed features in the adventure. When the PC's got fed up clearing the map in the Rot, it was time to show them the rails, which they chose to follow to the ruins of Phaestus Keep.
That's not to say everything they had done in the Rot up to that point had been pointless. A couple of random events gave them clues to mysteries they'd left behind in the wider world, or changed players in interesting ways (one died in an encounter with a giant angler fish and came back in fungal form). Stuff I couldn't have planned for. That's what I'm looking for from a random encounter.

 

[Beoric]

That's where the more-scripted encounters came in. They're a little more structured, and tend to lead to actual keyed features in the adventure. When the PC's got fed up clearing the map in the Rot, it was time to show them the rails, which they chose to follow to the ruins of Phaestus Keep.

Yeah, I don't think aimless wandering is the way to go, I think they should have a purpose in mind, which is most cases is probably a thing they are trying to find - a destination, object(s), or monster(s).

Also, I totally support set piece encounters as hooks. Finding a path/road also works.

 

[Two orcs]

I find that truly random encounters - sometimes baffling encounters - makes DMing better for two reasons:

1) The DM is surprised by the encounter, maintaining interest in the game.
2) The DM is surprised by the encounter, requiring on the fly adjudication which non-intuitively might make it more coherent with the situation.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I find that truly random encounters - sometimes baffling encounters - makes DMing better for two reasons:

1) The DM is surprised by the encounter, maintaining interest in the game.
2) The DM is surprised by the encounter, requiring on the fly adjudication which non-intuitively might make it more coherent with the situation.

Either of those scenarios seem... non-standard? Atypical? I figure the most common outcome is:

3) The DM is surprised by the encounter, requiring a pause for absorption and on the fly adjustment, which drags the encounter longer and causes the game to come to a jarring halt while shit is figured out.

Yeah a DM is supposed to have improvisational skills and be able to pivot on a dime; doesn't mean it should be hard-coded into the rules, though. A DM's steel is sharpened on the whetstone of adaptation, but steel is not meant to be kept at the whetstone forever.

 

[Two orcs]

Another use of random wandering monsters is adjudicating what other monster do off-screen, if they escape an encounter do they run into allies to reinforce them or enemies that mop them up? Or with traces left by the players, loot left unguarded, traps or wounded comrades left etc. who stumbles on it is going to have repercussions.