Not Random wandering monsters

[gameablecontent]

I have another iron for the fire. Perhaps if one does not enjoy the Scripted Wandering Monster, the Whendering Monster will do the trick. Whendering Monsters occur every 1d12 or 2d6 turns since the last Whendering Monster or since entering the dungeon. That Wanderers should make the party and players feel stressed and hurry along doesn't ring true for me, mostly because of the unintended variability in arrival and composition of the encounter. Rerolls, smaller die, or reduction in arrival turn count can be used to penalize loud parties. Smaller die can simulate a higher pressure dungeon or section of a dungeon. Boons can increase time between encounters with larger dice or increases in arrival turn count.

 

[gameablecontent]

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.

Designers ought not be surprising DMs. And i think we are all down with a DM changing anything in an adventure to suit, but there should be something there to change. The designer should be delighting the DM with terse, interactive, evocative, and specific content (TIES: maybe i can't do it, but i try), which in turn delights the players. i get the sharpening of skills and joy of revelation for which you are advocating and appreciate your taking the time to comment.

 

[gameablecontent]

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.

I hear you, but I think dms have to keep track of turns anyway not just for scripted wanderers, but for regular wanderers and other stuff, too. i refuse to haul out "the quote". i know you know it.
i do not favor any system that abstracts the concrete with die rolls: hazard, ammo, wealth, what have you. tracking these bits is part of the game. its a preference, and I fault you not. i prefer to minimize randomization.
thank you for the comment!

 

[gameablecontent]

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.

Yes, but they can be just monsters. And the key is a table, too. And yes you are right experienced DMs don't need a lot of anything. Really i just wanted to say that the line about the steel and whetstone, posted later, was well said, great metaphor. Thank you for your time.

 

[Beoric]

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.

The ability to do this may be easier in some editions than others. In early editions, you had a couple hundred monsters, they are relatively simple, even if you are going full Appendix C your list per terrain type is a couple dozen, the rare ones come up rarely, and most of them have pretty simple stat blocks.

At the other extreme, my 4e token database has 5000+ monsters and variants before I start adding my custom creatures. Statblocks are relatively complex, and you can have up to 7 different sets of mechanics even if you are just sticking to orcs. 3e's statblocks are worse. 5e's are easier but I'm not sure if there is anything like Appendix C for any of them, except the odd table in setting splatbooks. So you have to make your own tables, which means you know what are on them.

I actually do use Appendix C, but I make sure I know where all the relevant tokens are, and I have quite a few gaps where the difference between a 1e and a 4e version of the same monster are not statted for equivalent level parties (like, I have a minion and I need an elite), so I'm slowly building up my library. But like I said, with Appendix C you are only likely to have a couple of dozen monsters that are truly in play in any given environment/dungeon level, so how surprised can you be?

 

[Beoric]

I hear you, but I think dms have to keep track of turns anyway not just for scripted wanderers, but for regular wanderers and other stuff, too. i refuse to haul out "the quote". i know you know it.
i do not favor any system that abstracts the concrete with die rolls: hazard, ammo, wealth, what have you. tracking these bits is part of the game. its a preference, and I fault you not. i prefer to minimize randomization.
thank you for the comment!

Ok, but a lot of things you track already have built in uncertainty. Potions last a random number of rounds, conditions like paralyzation last a random number of turns. Does every torch last exactly one hour? No, IRL there is always randomness to the life of disposable items. And whatever "the quote" may say, time and distance are greatly abstracted in the game. Like, if you are moving 9" per turn, that assumes you are mapping, pacing out distances, maybe assigning a person to check for secret doors while you are at it, sending a shout ahead with a 10' pole, etc.* The actual length of time to do those things would be variable.

Treating those things as fixed when they are not is a simplification to make the game easier to play. Checking those things by rolling a die on a fixed schedule is just a different simplification that reduces the bookkeeping even further.

*This is how I justify the slow pace in my 4e game. Yes, you character can walk 120' in about 12 seconds according to your character sheet. You can do that, but you don't get a map, and you have a much greater chance of walking into a pit. I have hall traps in my game that are automatically discovered if you are going at mapping pace, but pretty tough to notice if you are walking at an ordinary pace. Between getting lost and triggering traps, it is generally a lesson that only needs to be taught once.

 

[gameablecontent]

A designer or DM can opt to declare that this potion lasts four rounds. The question i pose is "why randomize things that can be defined?". some things like to hit, damage, and paralyzation-type effects (which are just a kind of damage) should be random: potions, torches, ammo, and gp ought not be. Handwaving tracking ammunition is randomization gone wrong. I really don't think rolling a die on a fixed schedule simplifies simple counting. i'm not saying a system that use dice to track ammo or torch duration is unequivocally wrong. But it is wrong for me. i'm interested in examining the systems we use, as designers, dms, and players, for defects and break-downs. A robust system consistently produces sensible results; a frail system can produce nonsensical results. when i started this thread the question behind the question was: are players pressured in a dungeon where random wandering monsters never occur? are they pressured becuase they "know the rule"? if randomization can reduce or eliminate the intended effect of the design of the wandering monster, why leave it to chance?" I think the question has been asked and answered, but again i do thank you for your reply.

 

[gameablecontent]

The ability to do this may be easier in some editions than others. In early editions, you had a couple hundred monsters, they are relatively simple, even if you are going full Appendix C your list per terrain type is a couple dozen, the rare ones come up rarely, and most of them have pretty simple stat blocks.

At the other extreme, my 4e token database has 5000+ monsters and variants before I start adding my custom creatures. Statblocks are relatively complex, and you can have up to 7 different sets of mechanics even if you are just sticking to orcs. 3e's statblocks are worse. 5e's are easier but I'm not sure if there is anything like Appendix C for any of them, except the odd table in setting splatbooks. So you have to make your own tables, which means you know what are on them.

I actually do use Appendix C, but I make sure I know where all the relevant tokens are, and I have quite a few gaps where the difference between a 1e and a 4e version of the same monster are not statted for equivalent level parties (like, I have a minion and I need an elite), so I'm slowly building up my library. But like I said, with Appendix C you are only likely to have a couple of dozen monsters that are truly in play in any given environment/dungeon level, so how surprised can you be?

ambitious and grand. please explain to me why you need that 5000+ monster database? that may sound snide, but its earnest. i truly want to understand. thank you

 

[Beoric]

ambitious and grand. please explain to me why you need that 5000+ monster database? that may sound snide, but its earnest. i truly want to understand. thank you

The same reason people climb Everest?

Someone wrote a macro for the Maptools framework I use, that automated the conversion of 4e statblocks to fully statted tokens complete with power macros. There was some time investment on my part, but mostly it was just dumping statblocks into the tool, and I may even have been able to do it in batches. It was simple enough that I could do it while working on something else.

 

[Beoric]

Handwaving tracking ammunition is randomization gone wrong. I really don't think rolling a die on a fixed schedule simplifies simple counting. i'm not saying a system that use dice to track ammo or torch duration is unequivocally wrong.

I don't randomize ammo tracking, I let the VTT track ammo for me. I've actually never heard of anyone randomizing ammo, although lots of people waive it.

i'm interested in examining the systems we use, as designers, dms, and players, for defects and break-downs. A robust system consistently produces sensible results; a frail system can produce nonsensical results. when i started this thread the question behind the question was: are players pressured in a dungeon where random wandering monsters never occur? are they pressured becuase they "know the rule"? if randomization can reduce or eliminate the intended effect of the design of the wandering monster, why leave it to chance?" I think the question has been asked and answered, but again i do thank you for your reply.

It is very late for me, and I have to get up in 3 hours, but I'm going to come back to this.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I don't randomize ammo tracking, I let the VTT track ammo for me. I've actually never heard of anyone randomizing ammo, although lots of people waive it.

I've heard of it in other niche systems - generally the concept seems to work the same way that most custom die-dependent torch rules work. I've also seen some variants of 5e where rolling a Nat 1 on ranged attacks means you've run out of ammo. Personally, I get pretty loosey-goosey with ammunition tracking - some sessions I make it matter, but mostly I ignore it. Once in a while I just remind the party that they're low on ammunition, so they spend a couple gold pieces in the next town and that carries them a few more sessions. There isn't a soul at my table who finds logistics tracking to be an enjoyable part of the game, so they never gripe if I neglect it.

 

[Beoric]

I've heard of it in other niche systems - generally the concept seems to work the same way that most custom die-dependent torch rules work. I've also seen some variants of 5e where rolling a Nat 1 on ranged attacks means you've run out of ammo. Personally, I get pretty loosey-goosey with ammunition tracking - some sessions I make it matter, but mostly I ignore it. Once in a while I just remind the party that they're low on ammunition, so they spend a couple gold pieces in the next town and that carries them a few more sessions. There isn't a soul at my table who finds logistics tracking to be an enjoyable part of the game, so they never gripe if I neglect it.

On reflection, I have played with DMs who randomly determined how much fired ammunition was still useable/findable after it had been fired.

 

[The1True]

Definitely if you're in survival mode, and that's The Game for the next few sessions, you're counting every arrow and x% break after using.

In the past, magic ammunition was one-use in our group, but I suspect that has fallen by the wayside in recent campaigns.

Generally, at the start of every campaign, for the first session or two, the missile player will announce to me that they are combing the battlefield for their spent ammunition while the other characters are looting, and I go "yeah, yeah, you find all your arrows." and after that they stop mentioning it. It's like marching order, once it's set, I'll assume that's always how things will be.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

On reflection, I have played with DMs who randomly determined how much fired ammunition was still useable/findable after it had been fired.

I have absolutely done that many times. Players are always ok with it. From a utilitarian point of view, in terms of "how many arrows can I salvage?", there's not much of a difference between "you salvage four intact arrows" and "you salvage..." *rolls dice* "...four intact arrows".

Definitely if you're in survival mode, and that's The Game for the next few sessions, you're counting every arrow and x% break after using.

I think the golden question nobody is asking in these discussions is: how many people are actually playing the game this way? Are we discussing something that affects 1% of tables, 10% of tables, or 99% of tables here? I ask because super-rare edge-case table issues are not worth even debating - it just sows more confusion and confliction into the void of the internet. If it's a case of "well in Five Torches Deep they do it like this" or "Shadowdark has these rules", then there's probably a more specific community better served to address those issues than this one.

 

[Beoric]

I think the golden question nobody is asking in these discussions is: how many people are actually playing the game this way? Are we discussing something that affects 1% of tables, 10% of tables, or 99% of tables here? I ask because super-rare edge-case table issues are not worth even debating - it just sows more confusion and confliction into the void of the internet. If it's a case of "well in Five Torches Deep they do it like this" or "Shadowdark has these rules", then there's probably a more specific community better served to address those issues than this one.

I can only talk about the tables I play in. My DM tracks nothing, and requires me to track nothing. When I'm DM, it depends on the situation and the difficulty. I always track ammo because it's easy, the computer does it for me automatically. OTOH I don't have a counter for torches, so I don't automatically track them. Torches are dirt cheap, even at low level, and you can bring a lot, and just dump them if you need room for loot. If you are near a safe haven, tracking torches is pointless because they are so easily and inexpensively replaced, there is no danger of running out or not being able to afford them. If you aren't near a safe haven, that changes the game, and torches become a vital part of the resource game. At least until you gain access to Continual Light.

 

[The1True]

We're back to the resource question. I think we all agree that sometimes you're playing A3, counting every drop of water, every lick of torchlight, and 100% Survival Mode. The rest of the time, most of us are handwaving it.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

We're back to the resource question.

So what's the question?

 

[Beoric]

So what's the question?

The question is whether/how to track resources.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The question is whether/how to track resources.

The "whether" has been established - there's no right or wrong answer, you ether track things because you want to or you don't.

The "how" is straightforward - numbers, tally marks, dots on a page, all guided by a general rule of thumb (roll every ten minutes or whatever)... it's just checking and counting, there are no secret tips to doing it.

So what's left unclear?

 

[Beoric]

The "whether" has been established - there's no right or wrong answer, you ether track things because you want to or you don't.

The "how" is straightforward - numbers, tally marks, dots on a page, all guided by a general rule of thumb (roll every ten minutes or whatever)... it's just checking and counting, there are no secret tips to doing it.

So what's left unclear?

T1T said we were back at the resource question, and then pretty much said use it if the situation requires it, and don't if it doesn't. Then you asked what the question was and I told you what the question was. Advising you of the question didn't nullify T1T's answer, at least on the "what".

On the "how" topic, @gameablecontent and I were discussing what I'm going to call "incremental" resource depletion, for lack of a better term ("linear" being more accurate but carrying a lot of baggage), vs random resource depletion. I don't think the pros and cons have been discussed much yet, so I'm game to kick around what the effect of using one instead of the other until we come up with a reasonable picture of how each affects the game. Provided anyone else cares to discuss it, which it appears you do not.