Quote from: GreyICE;844725A major metropolitan area in a 1st world country with a strong police force?  That's comparable, maybe to the good parts of town of a nation's shining capital.  Try doing the same in a city in a "third world" country.  Where local "militia groups" run rampant, there's a not-inconsiderable chance of finding a terrorist, and the idea of "law and order" are a sad joke.  The chances of you going a year without incident are fairly low.  Add in the PCs are both obvious outsiders and probably flashing money around and, well... yeah.  They're likely to get attacked.

Also keep in mind that the concept of a metropolitan police force is a Victorian-era invention.

JG

The random encounter tables were examples, not holy writ. They were meant to be adjusted according to setting. Given that young men and boys have not changed all that much in the intervening decades, and if action movies are any indication having been perennial favorites regardless their coherency, I am going to surmise it was the author's nod to the assumed audience.

Adventurous derring-do always potentially on the table to keep the players' attention, some far greater than party survivability. Lower % chance, but still possible, so don't take the place for granted. I get the logic behind the example. And they still also said it's your game and adjust accordingly.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844791The random encounter tables were examples, not holy writ. They were meant to be adjusted according to setting. Given that young men and boys have not changed all that much in the intervening decades, and if action movies are any indication having been perennial favorites regardless their coherency, I am going to surmise it was the author's nod to the assumed audience.

Adventurous derring-do always potentially on the table to keep the players' attention, some far greater than party survivability. Lower % chance, but still possible, so don't take the place for granted. I get the logic behind the example. And they still also said it's your game and adjust accordingly.

What, you mean have a sense of proportion?  That's just crazy talk!

Quote from: Skarg;844689It can be fun to play in a world where there are monsters everywhere, but it's also surreal, and can be nearly impossible to try to actually have make sense overall. One doesn't need to have to try to have it make sense, if everyone agrees the fun of frequent weird monsters outweighs the desire (if any) to have things make sense. Or one can use the "PCs are a weirdness focus" concept, which I like to have explicitly called out in my attempts to make sense of things, personally.

Or maybe it's Ankh-Morpork, where Mr. Ixolite the shy banshee slips a card under the door that says "Oooooeeeeooooeeeeoeooo".

Quote from: jhkim;844730Which goes to show that you live in a world that doesn't have wererats, kobolds, and liches.

It certainly goes to show that I don't live in a world where they're jumping out to kill every resident every couple of hours.

And no fantasy city could survive under such an onslaught either.

As far as death rates go ... give me a break.  You're a smart guy.  You can't possibly expect me or anyone else to believe you're not aware why low-tech urban life expectancies were so low, and it had damn all to do with violence.  Show me an "urban encounter" table dominated by "You drink some bad well water and get cholera," "There are strange swellings under your armpits" and "You're down half your Fatigue because the vermin swarming over your pallet kept you awake most of the night," and I'll buy that.

Quote from: Ravenswing;844841It certainly goes to show that I don't live in a world where they're jumping out to kill every resident every couple of hours.

And no fantasy city could survive under such an onslaught either.

As far as death rates go ... give me a break.  You're a smart guy.  You can't possibly expect me or anyone else to believe you're not aware why low-tech urban life expectancies were so low, and it had damn all to do with violence.  Show me an "urban encounter" table dominated by "You drink some bad well water and get cholera," "There are strange swellings under your armpits" and "You're down half your Fatigue because the vermin swarming over your pallet kept you awake most of the night," and I'll buy that.

I didn't claim that high historical death rate was due to wererat attacks. I agree - they are mostly due to infectious disease, infant mortality, malnutrition, and the like.

And I'd agree that encounter tables (like from the 1st ed DMG) are written more for creating exciting adventures than for sensible world.

However, communities have lived with extremely high death rates compared to modern times - and whether killed by wererats or plague, dead is dead. So there is some justification for suspension of disbelief. Cities could be often like the stereotype of Transylvania - people living in fear, coming home and locking up at night.

Quote from: jhkim;844852I didn't claim that high historical death rate was due to wererat attacks.

I really wish you had, because that would be an interesting conversation to watch unfold.

QuoteAnd I'd agree that encounter tables (like from the 1st ed DMG) are written more for creating exciting adventures than for sensible world.

For me, I use encounter tables for a few basic reasons. The first is excitement. Obviously the players get a bit more action than most of the general populace probably does. I am fine with this, as it is a generally more interesting than if had lives like ordinary inhabitance of the setting, which probably involve few significant encounters a year. The second reason is to give the setting a sense of realness and consistency. Again the players do see more action than most folks,  but even within that I still want the world to feel vaguely plausible and like things are not just happening because the GM wants them to. So it is important to me that encounter tables reflect setting and create a rhythm of interactions that feels right from the players point of view. The third reason is they get me to think outside my comfort zone on the fly. If I am picking encounters all the time, I will gravitate toward the same kind of threats and interactions I'm most comfortable running. Encounter Tables force me to think about monsters, NPCs and situations I might not otherwise feel like addressing in the middle of a session.

Quote from: jhkim;844852I didn't claim that high historical death rate was due to wererat attacks. I agree - they are mostly due to infectious disease, infant mortality, malnutrition, and the like.

And I'd agree that encounter tables (like from the 1st ed DMG) are written more for creating exciting adventures than for sensible world.

However, communities have lived with extremely high death rates compared to modern times - and whether killed by wererats or plague, dead is dead. So there is some justification for suspension of disbelief. Cities could be often like the stereotype of Transylvania - people living in fear, coming home and locking up at night.

Yes it is very odd that monsters could be so common in a small city.

"You encounter a group of 3 were-rats..."

Hold on if we say there are these three Wererats. Each night they rove abroad and kill a guy.
This is a medieval city with say ... 5,000 inhabitants. If these rats kill 1 person a day that is an anual death rate of c 7.5 % of the population. But as they are lycanthropes it's possible that they might also injure some folks who become were-rats, lets take a stab at a 10% injury rate. Just on those numbers we are adding say 3 new were rats in month 2.

On a expontential growth curve 3 were-rats would become 6 become 12, become 24, become 48, become 96, become 192 .. so after 6 months there may well be close to 200 were rats and they need to kill 2000 people a month ....

So what natural predation controls the were rats? given a close system the were rats will become so dominant that after about 3 months all the people would flee or hire adventurers (possibly armed with magical pipes) to come and sort out the weere rat issue.

This assumes that the only monsters in town are 3 were-rats.

Quote from: Bren;844720That's a good analogy.

Honestly I can't recall whether they were ever wearing armor when ambushed, but I assumed the ambushers wore armor some of the time. (Though probably not in an opportunistic ambush where you are out and about, your enemy is out and about, and you realize - "Hey there are more of us than there are of Skallagrim. Let's ambush the bastard." I'm pretty sure the attackers wore armor when they surrounded a guy's house and set it on fire though.

This was my impression, but I'm happily waiting.
And of course, I said "when you expect trouble". You're obviously expecting trouble if you're planning to be the trouble:)!

QuoteI'm still shocked that the authorities never figured out that Jessica Fletcher was a serial killer. Surely that is the simplest explanation for her proximity over the years to so many murders. Kindly old mystery writer my ass!

Yes, it undermines what trust I had in the authorities, as well...

QuoteThat is nice. I like the way you have included a varety of encounters including some that would qualify as tracks or evidence of other encounters, e.g. "Strange note" and "Bodies of large animal"

Seconded, the table is nice!

Quote from: jhkim;844730Which goes to show that you live in a world that doesn't have wererats, kobolds, and liches.

Historically, many places have had death rates that are hundreds of times higher than a modern-day first-world city, and the cities as a whole survived. The people were not that comfortable - and they would appreciate what help they could get - but those that survived could get by.

They tend to have a different outlook, though, than modern-day first-world citizens.

Well, it depends. Murder rates, for example, vary just wildly among societies with low level of technology (from 0,3% of the men among !Kung to well in the double digits among such tribes as Jivaros, Yanomami and their like).
So the question is, what kind of place are you picturing? In some places, classical PC paranoia is almost justified. In others, not so much.

Quote from: jhkim;844852And I'd agree that encounter tables (like from the 1st ed DMG) are written more for creating exciting adventures than for sensible world.

And that was the point. If you apply those rules, however, the sensible reaction to an world that's not trying to make sense, can seem weird.

QuoteHowever, communities have lived with extremely high death rates compared to modern times - and whether killed by wererats or plague, dead is dead. So there is some justification for suspension of disbelief.

What? How are you getting from "many people died from the plague last year" to "I need to wear armour" in order not to die like them?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844867I really wish you had, because that would be an interesting conversation to watch unfold.



For me, I use encounter tables for a few basic reasons. The first is excitement. Obviously the players get a bit more action than most of the general populace probably does. I am fine with this, as it is a generally more interesting than if had lives like ordinary inhabitance of the setting, which probably involve few significant encounters a year. The second reason is to give the setting a sense of realness and consistency. Again the players do see more action than most folks,  but even within that I still want the world to feel vaguely plausible and like things are not just happening because the GM wants them to. So it is important to me that encounter tables reflect setting and create a rhythm of interactions that feels right from the players point of view. The third reason is they get me to think outside my comfort zone on the fly. If I am picking encounters all the time, I will gravitate toward the same kind of threats and interactions I'm most comfortable running. Encounter Tables force me to think about monsters, NPCs and situations I might not otherwise feel like addressing in the middle of a session.

Hold on you use a tough random city encounter table to add excitement.
You care about internal consistency,
You don't trust yourself to pick consistent interesting encounters so you deliberately use a random table - one I assume you wrote yourself for yout city...

In short. You want more excitement than you would realisitcally get but you want ralism and you don't trust yourself to choose but you do trust yourself to roll on a table you wrote ?

It it just me or are we seeing some internal consisty here.

If cities are plausible they are relatively monster free and safe.
Where monsters do exist they must be controlled by a governing mechanic be that location, haunting, organisational, contolled by the were rat guild, or whatever. Monsters still need to eat so undead haunting an old temple that no one goes near - logical. Spectres wandering the streets ... unlikely or the city won't last long.
If you are generating random encounters from a table then you may as well just pick the encounter based on the rest of the world in motion. More internally logical and should hook into major NPC activities.

Quote from: jibbajibba;844874Hold on you use a tough random city encounter table to add excitement.
You care about internal consistency,
You don't trust yourself to pick consistent interesting encounters so you deliberately use a random table - one I assume you wrote yourself for yout city...

In short. You want more excitement than you would realisitcally get but you want ralism and you don't trust yourself to choose but you do trust yourself to roll on a table you wrote ?

.

That possibly the least charitable interpretation of what I said. I was speaking generally about random tables. I never said it had to be realistic or a simulation or reality, just that I wanted the feel of realness. You can have "vaguely plausible" and exciting. Random Tables are tool like anything else. It isn't about not trusting my own judgment, I will simply decide something occurs when that feels appropriate. But I like random tables because they keep me on my toes as a GM and I like being surprised from time to time. What the table does is it forces me to use a monster or encounter I might avoid in the course of a regular game. I like that. Makes the game more fun for me.

Regarding cities. It definitely depends the campaign and setting. In my current campaign, except for certain times of year, most city encounter tables are pretty mundane (guards, crime, etc). But I have no issue with there being monsters on the table if that adds to the game and is vaguely plausible. Again, my concern isn't realism, it is more about whether issues stick out like a sore thumb or not. I am not too worried about questions of whether it is realistic for players to be encounter monsters in a city unless the players themselves are bothered by it.

I get that you have your way of doing things and that's what works for you. That is fine. But I think we run very different games and have very different attitudes about what is enjoyable. For me random encounters add a lot to my enjoyment as a GM. They also seem to create more entertainment for my players. I do throw in on the fly encounters too, when they feel right. But I've noticed over the years that if I pick every encounter, they start to take on a certain shape and pattern. The randomness jogs my creativity a bit by forcing me to use things or situations I otherwise might be inclined to ignore. Yes, I make the tables, so they are still a product of my preferences and tastes, but it is easier for me to break free from patterns if I am plodding out charts in advance.

Quote from: Ravenswing;844841It certainly goes to show that I don't live in a world where they're jumping out to kill every resident every couple of hours.

And no fantasy city could survive under such an onslaught either.

As far as death rates go ... give me a break.  You're a smart guy.  You can't possibly expect me or anyone else to believe you're not aware why low-tech urban life expectancies were so low, and it had damn all to do with violence.  Show me an "urban encounter" table dominated by "You drink some bad well water and get cholera," "There are strange swellings under your armpits" and "You're down half your Fatigue because the vermin swarming over your pallet kept you awake most of the night," and I'll buy that.

Sounds like a fun game.

Not.

Though those things are actually in the 'event' side of my in town encounter charts, but then we get to have the whole , "Frequency distribution of magical healing vs disease probability in fantasy world" conversation.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844885That possibly the least charitable interpretation of what I said. I was speaking generally about random tables. I never said it had to be realistic or a simulation or reality, just that I wanted the feel of realness. You can have "vaguely plausible" and exciting. Random Tables are tool like anything else. It isn't about not trusting my own judgment, I will simply decide something occurs when that feels appropriate. But I like random tables because they keep me on my toes as a GM and I like being surprised from time to time. What the table does is it forces me to use a monster or encounter I might avoid in the course of a regular game. I like that. Makes the game more fun for me.

Regarding cities. It definitely depends the campaign and setting. In my current campaign, except for certain times of year, most city encounter tables are pretty mundane (guards, crime, etc). But I have no issue with there being monsters on the table if that adds to the game and is vaguely plausible. Again, my concern isn't realism, it is more about whether issues stick out like a sore thumb or not. I am not too worried about questions of whether it is realistic for players to be encounter monsters in a city unless the players themselves are bothered by it.

I get that you have your way of doing things and that's what works for you. That is fine. But I think we run very different games and have very different attitudes about what is enjoyable. For me random encounters add a lot to my enjoyment as a GM. They also seem to create more entertainment for my players. I do throw in on the fly encounters too, when they feel right. But I've noticed over the years that if I pick every encounter, they start to take on a certain shape and pattern. The randomness jogs my creativity a bit by forcing me to use things or situations I otherwise might be inclined to ignore. Yes, I make the tables, so they are still a product of my preferences and tastes, but it is easier for me to break free from patterns if I am plodding out charts in advance.

Some games are better played with the PCs being magnets for trouble. There is nothing wrong with stating that the random encounter table for PCs is nothing like what normal inhabitants would deal with.  Since they are PCs.
The Wererat example from earlier is a good example.  If PCs run into them, they could be part of a secret assassin guild, and tries to remain unnoticed, or traveling through town, and just happens to hit the PCs.

My in town stuff actually includes encounters with "guild connection from enemy group"..."Someone from group with enemy in common"  etc, which allows me to mix in group history with a random element.

But depending on where the PCs are, I keep my encounters 90% social/event in town, very little chance of something crazy.  But that is me, your mileage may vary.

Quote from: LordVreeg;844895Some games are better played with the PCs being magnets for trouble. There is nothing wrong with stating that the random encounter table for PCs is nothing like what normal inhabitants would deal with.  Since they are PCs.

And this is an area where I probably fluctuate a bit depending on the group and the game we're interested in playing. I don't run every campaign the same way. Sometimes I give more primacy to realism or to grit. Other times I want to inject a little more drama or excitement into the mix. I could see myself going either way on the were rats depending on whether I was playing something like Ravenloft versus a more realistic and political setting.

Quote from: Bren;844720...
I'm still shocked that the authorities never figured out that Jessica Fletcher was a serial killer. Surely that is the simplest explanation for her proximity over the years to so many murders. Kindly old mystery writer my ass!...

You too? I've been saying that for decades! Having since learned more about what government agencies get up to, my guess is she's a CIA assassin (q.v. urban encounter table ;-) ).