TheRPGSite

Speaking in terms of your typical fantasy RPG... if you include wandering monsters in a setting (Dungeon, ruins, cave or whatever) do you ensure there is some logic in their presence or just let it go?

Is there a food source for such creatures? Can the various monsters co exist peacefully? Is there a rhyme or reason to their even being there?

Now Im not in anyway badgering or picking on anyone's approach to wandering monsters. Ive had my share of games where an Owlbear, a den of Drow, some giant ants and a gelatinous cube all live in the same set of halls as a Neo Otyugh or whatever in a sealed up dungeon where the only entrance was the one the players just made.

Im just wondering how prevalent it is in today's gaming to logically work out such factors or just leave them to magic and mayhem?

Quote from: rgrove0172;916103Speaking in terms of your typical fantasy RPG... if you include wandering monsters in a setting (Dungeon, ruins, cave or whatever) do you ensure there is some logic in their presence or just let it go?

Is there a food source for such creatures? Can the various monsters co exist peacefully? Is there a rhyme or reason to their even being there?

Now Im not in anyway badgering or picking on anyone's approach to wandering monsters. Ive had my share of games where an Owlbear, a den of Drow, some giant ants and a gelatinous cube all live in the same set of halls as a Neo Otyugh or whatever in a sealed up dungeon where the only entrance was the one the players just made.

Im just wondering how prevalent it is in today's gaming to logically work out such factors or just leave them to magic and mayhem?

Had this tread allready. Look it up for insight into how mentally stunted some people get over this.

Short answer. Gronans M'cDonalds stuck in a dungeon. Parties opening a "Rat on a Stick" fast food franchise in the dungeon. Some players going totally fucking insane because they cant wrap their little peanut brain around the concept of "Its there but doesn't need to be stated every damn time."

As for wandering monsters. D&D had both a general table for totally on the fly stuff and instructions to re-roll things that didnt fit. And advice that it was better to make wandering monster tables tailored to the locale. 5e follows the "Tailored to the Locale" ideal.

Note that wandering monsters are not supposed to be in every adventure and more than a few modules drop the idea completely. Yep. As usual. Varies wildly from one to the next.

To me its usefull when you have chances of bumping into someone on paroll or hunting, or on their way to or from other levels even. Sometimes the "Why the heck is a skeleton wandering this mostly orc infested complex?"

I put real effort into the dungeon making sense. If it's a sealed vault, you better believe the dungeon will be based around traps, undead, demons, devils, and elementals--things that generally don't die or have much to keep on existing. Naturally, such dungeons are a little limited on wandering monsters (there are exceptions), so I try to put some sort of time limit, to keep players from going 5', taking a long rest, repeat.

On the other hand, if dungeon is a cave, then I do try to have it make sense (not necessarily geological sense, but ecological). So, yeah, there's almost always a water source, there's some explanation for what the denizens do for food (I explain to players that caloric requirements aren't the same in fantasy land, which is also why the players carry a week's worth of food and water without falling over), and when I have wandering monsters, they come from somewhere, either nearby rooms (investigating noise the players make), or nearby caves (investigating why the usual guards seem to be dead), or, well, wandering up from lower caves.

I'm not saying my dungeon set-ups are viable enough to pass a economics class...but they're at least feasible for a few days, which is all that is necessary for most dungeon expeditions.

Wandering monsters are really a mechanism to encourage focus.  If you talk for ten minutes your characters talk for ten minutes and a wandering monster is apt to appear and sap your precious resources without providing much in the way of rewards.

I tend to make them appropriate to the setting and adventure but they can be a patrol or a ravening beast at need.

Whatever it takes to keep the game moving.

Quote from: David Johansen;916119Wandering monsters are really a mechanism to encourage focus.  If you talk for ten minutes your characters talk for ten minutes and a wandering monster is apt to appear and sap your precious resources without providing much in the way of rewards.

Um... False?

Wandering monsters may be on patrol, may be hunting, any number of reasons other than "sap your resources". And they might not even be hostile.

So, since the last time we had this conversation I had some time to think on this subject and it occurred to me that my 'dungeons' have always had a logical consistency to them.

Ruined undercroft of an old mansion?  90% of the 'monsters' would be undead.  A jungle temple to the Snake Gods?  Well, jungles have a lot of edibles, and growing a garden isn't all that hard, really.  Most of the dungeons I created have always had a thread linking them that, to me, always made sense as to why and what was wandering it's halls and corridors.  Even the trap filled ones had a reason as to why they had traps in the first place.  I remember one of my early designs, had traps that would activate AFTER the PC's, which meant it always happened as a back attack.  Why?  The compound was a prison designed to keep the big bad monster IN, as opposed to keep intruders OUT.

The only Dungeon I have ever run that might be similar to Gronan's silly (and fun) idea of having a McDickles in a Dungeon was Undermountain, which I've been running as a home session, and to which my players have finally left this last session for a sea adventure.  And Undermountain is actually maintained by a mad wizard as a giant rat's maze, experimental complex and garbage disposal, named Halaster Blackcloak AKA The Mad Mage.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916103Speaking in terms of your typical fantasy RPG... if you include wandering monsters in a setting (Dungeon, ruins, cave or whatever) do you ensure there is some logic in their presence or just let it go?

Like anything it depends, but the advantage a human has over a simple computer is the ability to analyze the random outcome, look for a pattern that fits, and adjust or reject the roll if the outcome really doesn't fit. Using customized encounter tables helps avoid some of the crazy gonzo random outcomes. I just created a custom set of encounter charts for some upcoming city adventures in Orleans, France in my H+I game.

When discussing wandering monsters one cannot forget that a "monster" in D&D terms is anything that isn't a PC. A city without wandering monsters is effectively a ghost town. Most living things (and quite many unliving ones) have tendency to move about for various reasons. Looking at a typical bestiary or monster manual would reveal that the vast majority of creatures are quite mobile.

In fact, a creature that stays put and never moves is in the extreme minority so I never got why the concept of wandering monsters was met with such disbelief.

I always have customized wandering monsters for the location (and, in this context, NPCs are "monsters", too, as Exploderwizard said), generally based on a mix of creatures already known to be living in the area and minor vermin (rats, snakes, etc.) appropriate to the terrain.  In a wilderness context, I use an automated system of selecting lairs in nearby hexes and (if occupied), that's the monster you meet, which both makes it tied to the location and has the nice side-effect that, as you clear out monster lairs, an area becomes safer organically.  In a dungeon (or other interior) context, I make encounter tables by hand, but I'd ultimately like to come up with something similar to what I use in the wilderness.

On the implied question about dungeon design, I generally do make at least a token effort to consider things like food and water sources, waste disposal, etc. and to make most of it logical (with a few areas that are deliberately illogical, if appropriate to the setting), but I don't get too worked up about it.  If there's no viable ecology in an area, I'm completely willing to handwave it in favor of just getting on with the game.

My random encounter charts have a good deal of thought put into them. I want them to reflect stuff you may bump into while wandering around a particular place, as well as stuff that may bump into you.

Sometimes this includes tracks or spoor of a monster rather than the monster itself. Many of my monsters have home ranges within which they are more likely to be encountered than other critters.

Back in the day when I ran old school dungeons stocked high with whatever tricks, traps, monsters and treasures my fiendish mind could devise my wandering monster tables were just lists of monsters with no real thought given to why those monsters. When you have a Giant's bowling alley, a Humongous Hall of Fungus filled with all the fungoid monsters, and Rat-on-a-Stick franchises totally random monster encounters are par for the course. We just didn't worry about what the hobgoblins ate when they couldn't get adventurer.

I notice that even when I run the old rules today my aproach has changed. I like things to make more rational sense now. I think this may be down to no longer being a kid, but now a middle aged man. My taste in adventure has changed.

Like many others who've responded here, I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to put wandering monsters into some kind of context. Just because something is 'gonzo' or 'dungeon as mythical underworld' doesn't mean it has to be dumb. One of the keys to making sense of them is to construct your own tables as opposed to just using some generic and terse Dungeon Level XX table from the DMG or something. One good rule of thumb is to have a general idea of the population of say, orcs, in the vicinity. If the party comes across a group of 10 orcs on patrol, and slaughters them all, it goes to reason that there will be 10 fewer orcs in some other area (like the barracks for instance). If you do that, the party will eventually be able to completely cleanse an area or at the very least alert the main body of monsters that an intruder is about. Personally, I also have created a set of tables for repopulating a dungeon over time. If the party leaves and comes back weeks or months later, they may discover the local monster population has started to bounce back or been replaced by an entirely different group or groups. Some things, like carrion crawlers, rats and spiders, may be difficult or impossible to completely eradicate - so it's not as important to think about where they're coming from.

I'd also echo Dave's point about including all manner of possible things that a wandering monster encounter could be - spoor, menacing sounds, even a corpse. In city-based random encounters, I usually interpret results in terms of what the party is able to handle. If they're all a bunch of 1st-level characters, a 'vampire' result can just be rumors of a vampire in the area, rather than the vampire itself suddenly bursting into their room at the inn. Conversely, if a 10th level party encounters a single random 3rd-level thief, I might have the murder of that lowly thief set off a vendetta with the local thieves' guild which could indeed pose a problem for the party.

Just reading off a result on a random table and not putting any more thought into the encounter isn't 'gonzo', it's just really shitty gamemastering.

Oh, yeah...and I really hate the Rat-On-A-Stick approach. That's not funny, just dumb. It might be 'old-school', but only in the sense that it's old juvenilia.

I started off as most kids do I guess, not worrying about anything making logical sense in favor of the perceived "cool factor". Very soon after being introduced to D&D however and GMing for only a few months, I was introduced to a group of College students that invited our little highschool group to a game. Man was it an eye opener. They were a weird, almost scary lot, of academic egg-heads, I mean way out there wearing robes and costumes, using made up languages and stuff that in time I could come to identify as LARP and RPG mesh. We didn't last long with them but they did influence my gaming a great deal. There was none of the Rat on a Stick stuff in their games nor cohabitating monsters with no visible means of support. They took the whole thing very seriously and their GM (a Proff at the school) wove an amazingly detailed and consistent world complete with a rich history, court intrigue, fascinating locations and twists on monsters that somehow made them more realistic and logical.

We went back to our own game but we were never the same after that. We had been schooled and tried very hard to measure up to some of what we had experienced.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916103Speaking in terms of your typical fantasy RPG... if you include wandering monsters in a setting (Dungeon, ruins, cave or whatever) do you ensure there is some logic in their presence or just let it go?

Is there a food source for such creatures? Can the various monsters co exist peacefully? Is there a rhyme or reason to their even being there?

The thing is, your follow-up questions imply an expectation of logic that is quite illogical.

Food source, for instance. Suppose there is none. The player characters are there, aren't they? That would seem to demonstrate that there need be no correlation between food sources and wanderers. Even if the wandering monsters in question are of strictly animal, or animal-like nature and care only about food, the mere fact that they are "wandering" suggests that they haven't found food yet. Until, of course, the scrumptious player characters come along.

And co-existence? The old, finger-wagging school of thought on dungeon ecology was that the dungeon ought to be in some sort of equilibrium state. The precise advice I've seen printed was to try and imagine what would happen in your dungeon left alone for a few months to see if it makes any sense. That's great advice, up until the "to see if it makes any sense" part. Because "equilibrium", I will grant, may be a realistic state of things, it's not a real state of things. Better to see what happens if your dungeon is left alone for a month, make a note of any conflicts that emerge, and then go live. Now NPCs and monsters will have some pretty strong, clear-cut motives.

As for rhyme or reason, I've always felt wandering monsters served a long list of purposes that make a good game. Those who have tossed them out as adolescent then go scrambling for ways to compensate.

1) Wandering Monsters are part of the "character sheet" of the locale. PCs have skills that make them different from the rest of the party. Locales have "wandering monsters" that differentiate them from other locales. In their absence, GMs try to compensate for the lack of atmosphere with long-winded narration full of cliches, frequently involving the word "bustling." It's one thing to describe a rowdy tavern scene. It's another thing for there to be a random table that includes things like, "Patron accidentally bumps into you causing you to spill your drink. Your CHR is at -2 until you get cleaned up."

2) Wandering Monsters are a pacing mechanism. If PCs are spending too much time arguing, or too much time planning, or too much time walking in circles, the periodic appearance of wandering monsters maintains a sense of urgency to move forward. I've heard some use the tool "Whenever the game gets dull, have ninjas attack." Well, wandering monsters fill those shoes quite well.

3) They provide springboards into further adventure. Whether it's the harlot table with their random chance for information, a group of fanatics recruiting for their cause (or for someone to kidnap for ritualistic sacrifice), or even just surviving a random dragon attack in the wilderness and then realizing where there's a dragon, there is treasure. A lot of GMs flat-out ask the players what they want to see in the game. Of course, people are often unhappy getting what they wish for. Seeing how players react to odd, random encounters clues the GM in as to what will in reality engage the players.

4) There's a lot of talk about "optimal" vs "sub-optimal" play. If a player can derive a formula and crunch some numbers about the most efficient way to move forward, that is a problem. Your game has essentially been "solved" and it's all merely academic at that point. A lot of GMs have turned to giving XP, or "Fate points" or some other rewards for players who admirably suffer some sub-optimal play to better role-play the characters. Well, wandering monsters provide a way of shaking up the status-quo so there ain't no such thing as optimal play. There are only choices and trade-offs and different paths you can go down, so you don't have to hand out Scooby snacks to reward players for doing what they should have been doing all along--playing their characters.

5) It's part of a dynamic world. This one may be more specific to how I run campaigns. If you randomly encounter a gang of bandits twice in the same country side, chances are it's going to be the same gang. (Or maybe there are two rival gangs.) This means your actions in one random encounter may influence how the next random encounter goes. This gives the players the feeling that this really is their world, their choices do matter, and the things they do, positive or negative, have further reaching consequences than the current session. Even when it's not part of The Big Story.

I put a lot of thought into my wandering monster tables. Around half are monsters from nearby locations/lairs who have a reason to be out moving around. They will often have a prescribed purpose (hunting, patrolling, looking for an item or person, etc.). The ones that are strictly wandering and don't appear in a keyed location usually fill some kind of ecological niche. And local static encounters take them into account. For example, if I have a wandering basilisk in an area, the nearby inhabitants take special precautions against it. If there are black puddings, then nearby inhabitants have fire at the ready.

I typically use wandering monsters to represent patrols, vermin scuttling about, that kind of thing.
A completely random table would be... well not silly but it'd better still fit the dungeon/area somehow.

Quote from: Lunamancer;916200The thing is, your follow-up questions imply an expectation of logic that is quite illogical.

Food source, for instance. Suppose there is none. The player characters are there, aren't they? That would seem to demonstrate that there need be no correlation between food sources and wanderers. Even if the wandering monsters in question are of strictly animal, or animal-like nature and care only about food, the mere fact that they are "wandering" suggests that they haven't found food yet. Until, of course, the scrumptious player characters come along.

And co-existence? The old, finger-wagging school of thought on dungeon ecology was that the dungeon ought to be in some sort of equilibrium state. The precise advice I've seen printed was to try and imagine what would happen in your dungeon left alone for a few months to see if it makes any sense. That's great advice, up until the "to see if it makes any sense" part. Because "equilibrium", I will grant, may be a realistic state of things, it's not a real state of things. Better to see what happens if your dungeon is left alone for a month, make a note of any conflicts that emerge, and then go live. Now NPCs and monsters will have some pretty strong, clear-cut motives.

As for rhyme or reason, I've always felt wandering monsters served a long list of purposes that make a good game. Those who have tossed them out as adolescent then go scrambling for ways to compensate.

1) Wandering Monsters are part of the "character sheet" of the locale. PCs have skills that make them different from the rest of the party. Locales have "wandering monsters" that differentiate them from other locales. In their absence, GMs try to compensate for the lack of atmosphere with long-winded narration full of cliches, frequently involving the word "bustling." It's one thing to describe a rowdy tavern scene. It's another thing for there to be a random table that includes things like, "Patron accidentally bumps into you causing you to spill your drink. Your CHR is at -2 until you get cleaned up."

2) Wandering Monsters are a pacing mechanism. If PCs are spending too much time arguing, or too much time planning, or too much time walking in circles, the periodic appearance of wandering monsters maintains a sense of urgency to move forward. I've heard some use the tool "Whenever the game gets dull, have ninjas attack." Well, wandering monsters fill those shoes quite well.

3) They provide springboards into further adventure. Whether it's the harlot table with their random chance for information, a group of fanatics recruiting for their cause (or for someone to kidnap for ritualistic sacrifice), or even just surviving a random dragon attack in the wilderness and then realizing where there's a dragon, there is treasure. A lot of GMs flat-out ask the players what they want to see in the game. Of course, people are often unhappy getting what they wish for. Seeing how players react to odd, random encounters clues the GM in as to what will in reality engage the players.

4) There's a lot of talk about "optimal" vs "sub-optimal" play. If a player can derive a formula and crunch some numbers about the most efficient way to move forward, that is a problem. Your game has essentially been "solved" and it's all merely academic at that point. A lot of GMs have turned to giving XP, or "Fate points" or some other rewards for players who admirably suffer some sub-optimal play to better role-play the characters. Well, wandering monsters provide a way of shaking up the status-quo so there ain't no such thing as optimal play. There are only choices and trade-offs and different paths you can go down, so you don't have to hand out Scooby snacks to reward players for doing what they should have been doing all along--playing their characters.

5) It's part of a dynamic world. This one may be more specific to how I run campaigns. If you randomly encounter a gang of bandits twice in the same country side, chances are it's going to be the same gang. (Or maybe there are two rival gangs.) This means your actions in one random encounter may influence how the next random encounter goes. This gives the players the feeling that this really is their world, their choices do matter, and the things they do, positive or negative, have further reaching consequences than the current session. Even when it's not part of The Big Story.

Sacrificing logic for game mechanic purposes is certainly a much visited and accepted approach. Depends on the priorities of the group as always.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916222Sacrificing logic for game mechanic purposes is certainly a much visited and accepted approach. Depends on the priorities of the group as always.

No. What I think hes saying is that theres more than one possible logic to a dungeon and wandering monsters.

They just moved in or the place is in a constant state of flux.

They were brought there.

They are part of the dungeon ecology.

Something drew them there

They dont have supplies. Hence why they are ranging out and raiding.

Guards and patrolls.

Just normal inhabitants on their way from point A to B.

Couriers and messengers either delivering or leaving after delivery.

Something thats been awakened after an unknown time in stasis.

and so on.

The guys who built the place have placed one-way transporter pads in key places out in the wild... the dungeon has a constant influx of new inhabitants who eat/are eaten by the current ones, but generally everyone is quite hungry when the PCs show up.

One megadungeon in Tunnels & Trolls was built by the Dwarf god Gristlegrim who uses it for entertainment. He stocks with assorted monsters and treasures and sends in adventurers who he watches as they make their way through. The dungeon doesn't really need a "logical" ecology, its background dictates that the ecology as such is pretty random. Several other T&T dungeons have also been similarly created and stocked by powerful, and often mad, wizards.

It is fairly easy to write a themed wandering monster table. An orc mine is likely to have orcs and goblins of course, as well as various slimes, jellies, oozes and puddings, those get every where, giant rats, bats, and other vermin, that and mysterious sounds and lights off in the distance should cover it. Other monsters can be keyed to particular locations.

For the wilderness I just think about what creatures inhabit that region or type of terrain and how rare or common they should be. The mountains near a dragon's lair might have quite a high chance of encountering the dragon, or encountering adventurers bent on stealing the dragon's gold.

Quote from: Omega;916269No. What I think hes saying is that theres more than one possible logic to a dungeon and wandering monsters.

They just moved in or the place is in a constant state of flux.

Yeah, I think I could have been clearer when I said equilibrium may be realistic but it's not real. You are correct, that there are many possibilities that are logical. The equilibrium one is sort of the gravitational center of all the others. But I contend that it itself is actually not among the logical possibilities. This is contrary to the finger-waggers logic who believe the only correct solution is the one I've ruled out.

QuoteThey were brought there.

They are part of the dungeon ecology.

Something drew them there

They dont have supplies. Hence why they are ranging out and raiding.

Guards and patrolls.

Just normal inhabitants on their way from point A to B.

Couriers and messengers either delivering or leaving after delivery.

Something thats been awakened after an unknown time in stasis.

and so on.

Looks like you have the makings of a random table here, sort of a wandering monster companion.

Quote from: Lunamancer;916307Looks like you have the makings of a random table here, sort of a wandering monster companion.

The Wandering Monster Wandering Reason Table. :cool:

If I am designing a dungeon using random tables, I roll up the D6 list of random monsters and then use them and the rest of the random rolls to make sense of WTF has been happening in the dungeon.

Why are 3 skeletons roaming an orc lair?

Hmm...maybe they are not roaming, but following a preset route at preset times and the orcs know to avoid them. Perhaps the skeletons are from the original dungeon creators and the orcs are just recent squatters?

Or maybe they are Orc Skeletons? AKA, there is some weird magic here that necro-rises orcs who die in this place?

FOR ME, its very interesting to imagine the WHY behind the wandering monsters. BUT this is why I have only 6 possible wanderers per area. It's easy to work my brain around 6 unique wanderers in a zone.

Quote from: Omega;916315The Wandering Monster Wandering Reason Table. :cool:

Absolutely.

As a bit of an aside, one thing that gives me perspective on Gygax's D&D is looking at Gygax's later fantasy work. When I see certain themes repeated over and over again, I find it gives me perspective on what he was thinking when it came to a particular aspect of D&D. One such later work (to bring things back to the main point) was the Lejendary Adventure RPG. The wandering monster tables in there, particularly for encounters with humans, does give you some idea of what they're doing there (in some instances multiple reasons that are generated randomly). I feel having that reason included on a table really does add a lot. Here's an example:

Holy man, looking for persons who need to be helped and/or saved and put on the right track; 25% chance for a rogue impersonating this role.

Quote from: Omega;916315The Wandering Monster Wandering Reason Table. :cool:

Oh now, now it is a meta-gaming thread. LOL :eek: :p

Quote from: Spinachcat;916321
FOR ME, its very interesting to imagine the WHY behind the wandering monsters. BUT this is why I have only 6 possible wanderers per area. It's easy to work my brain around 6 unique wanderers in a zone.

One of the modules I have stands out. I wish I could remember which one. I think they use 6 or 8 entries on the table.  But one of the wandering monsters is a captain. When you reach the captain's office, if you killed him as a wandering monster, he isn't there. And if you didn't kill him but did fight him, now you can't try to bluff your way past him, since he knows you.

Quote from: Tod13;916371One of the modules I have stands out. I wish I could remember which one. I think they use 6 or 8 entries on the table.  But one of the wandering monsters is a captain. When you reach the captain's office, if you killed him as a wandering monster, he isn't there. And if you didn't kill him but did fight him, now you can't try to bluff your way past him, since he knows you.

I've seen similar things in a few modules. Several include, I guess you could say, "unique" encounters on the table, which stipulates these results only happen once. Subsequent rolls on the table within that range default to some other entry instead.

Another way of doing it is instead of writing up a custom table, jot down the relevant notes on index cards, shuffle them, and draw. Unique encounters are used up and removed from the deck, common encounters are shuffled back in. There may even be actions players take as part of The Big Story that add new cards to the shuffle.

Quote from: Lunamancer;916372I've seen similar things in a few modules. Several include, I guess you could say, "unique" encounters on the table, which stipulates these results only happen once. Subsequent rolls on the table within that range default to some other entry instead.

Another way of doing it is instead of writing up a custom table, jot down the relevant notes on index cards, shuffle them, and draw. Unique encounters are used up and removed from the deck, common encounters are shuffled back in. There may even be actions players take as part of The Big Story that add new cards to the shuffle.

As I recall, for this module, all the monsters in the table were unique. It made sense for the module. For a small community (less than one or two score total), how many wandering monsters are there going to be?

The more I think, the more I like Omega's Wander Monster Wandering Reasons Table. You could make a generic fits (almost) any module list. You roll, get the reason the monster is there, and then select an appropriate monster from the module to use.

1. Looking for food
2. Looking for lost
3. On patrol
4. Lost
5. Scouting (monster is not from dungeon)
6. Serial killer looking for next victim. Roll again for excuse for being in dungeon.

Have you ever closely read the Orc description from the 1st Ed Monster Manual?

QuoteOrc tribes are fiercely competitive, and when they meet it is 75% likely that they will fight each other unless a strong leader (such as a wizard, evil priest, evil lord) with sufficient force behind him is on hand to control the orcs... If the orcs are not in their lair there is a 20% chance they will be escorting a train of 1-6 carts and 10-60 slave bearers bringing supplies and loot to their chief or to a stronger orc tribe... Orc lairs are underground 75% of the time, in an above ground village 25% of the time... If the lair is underground, there is a 50% chance that there will be from 2-5 ogres living with the orcs. If the lair is above ground it will be a rude village of wooden huts protected by a ditch, rampart, and log palisade. The village will have from 1-4 watch towers and single gate. There will be 1 catapult and 1 ballista for each 100 male orcs (round to the nearest hundred).

If you use this, a random encounter with orcs paints a pretty vivid picture of how they fit into the world logically, what they're doing, and there's got to be at least a half dozen adventure hooks right there.

Wandering monsters are always logical, at some level, depending on the seriousness of the game. They never just "appear"... although I've played with GM's who wrote into their game worlds that monsters actually do teleport into the world randomly. But those are explicit events that then proceed logically after that.

If I have a random encounter table, and I'm playing and even semi-serious/detailed mode, I have the encounter appear at a distance, and figure out what happens, such as whether they actually meet the players, where they are and were and what they were doing, what traces and changes they made to the setting, etc. That way the PCs get a fair chance to detect and take steps to avoid or intercept, prepare, etc., and things in general remain logical. Otherwise the world can have paradoxes and things that make no sense, even in simple terms of time and space.

I like logic well enough, but I figure my dungeons fall more into a game logic state. I don't need a reason for every critter being in each room, planned with access to fresh water, sewage, and the monster ATM. I'm not designing a real city, but a game one. Every game glosses over some things, or it would be pure tedium to play. That said, I'm not likely to have a Sphinx guarding a room in a kobolds' cave system. Unless it was in Australia. All bets are off in Australia. Oh, and in deep oceanic waters where no light reaches and critters develop into crazy monsters of all shapes, sizes and self illuminations. Huh, guess there are cases of crazy ecologies developing in isolation after all. Perhaps even some accepted examples in classic fantasy literature, my precious. But those should be the exception and not the norm, to my thinking.

Quote from: Omega;916269No. What I think hes saying is that theres more than one possible logic to a dungeon and wandering monsters.

They just moved in or the place is in a constant state of flux.

They were brought there.

They are part of the dungeon ecology.

Something drew them there

They dont have supplies. Hence why they are ranging out and raiding.

Guards and patrolls.

Just normal inhabitants on their way from point A to B.

Couriers and messengers either delivering or leaving after delivery.

Something thats been awakened after an unknown time in stasis.

and so on.

Stolen!

Quote from: David Johansen;916119Wandering monsters are really a mechanism to encourage focus.  If you talk for ten minutes your characters talk for ten minutes and a wandering monster is apt to appear and sap your precious resources without providing much in the way of rewards.

I tend to make them appropriate to the setting and adventure but they can be a patrol or a ravening beast at need.

Whatever it takes to keep the game moving.

Yep.

Of course, the fact that wandering monsters can be negotiated with ALSO opens up a whole new realm of possibilities.

But if your players are wasting time, just roll that ol' d6.

For some of us, the weird-ass possibilities of the wandering monster table as written is a feature.

As is the fact that in OD&D at least you have a 1/6 chance of getting a 4th level wandering monster on the 1st level, many of which (wight, wraith, gargoyle to name 3) are pretty much guaranteed to kill an entire group of 1st level PCs if they insist on standing and fighting.

Quote from: Harlock;916479I like logic well enough, but I figure my dungeons fall more into a game logic state. I don't need a reason for every critter being in each room, planned with access to fresh water, sewage, and the monster ATM. I'm not designing a real city, but a game one. Every game glosses over some things, or it would be pure tedium to play. That said, I'm not likely to have a Sphinx guarding a room in a kobolds' cave system. Unless it was in Australia. All bets are off in Australia. Oh, and in deep oceanic waters where no light reaches and critters develop into crazy monsters of all shapes, sizes and self illuminations. Huh, guess there are cases of crazy ecologies developing in isolation after all. Perhaps even some accepted examples in classic fantasy literature, my precious. But those should be the exception and not the norm, to my thinking.

You just hit on a very important point Harlock, one that explains a number of our disagreements and a vastly different approach where wandering monsters are concerned to.

Your term "game logic", indicating the existence of something and how it behaves be it a monster, location, NPC or what have you is created by the GM to fit the 'game'. This is very very different from someone creating a setting, say for purposes of a fictional story, screen play etc. What would work just fine as a game element but might not make enough sense to fit smoothly into a work of fiction or what have you. That seems like a given and many GMs would probably responds "Well duh, we are running a game after all."

But the fact is some GMs treat their world as a work of fiction first, and then let players loose in it. Its a subtle difference but it explains so much in the way of priorities concerning how the setting is developed and even more, as the game is played. When you commented "Im not designing a real city, but a game one." I had to stop and blink while my brain processed that. To my mind a city designed for use in a game is no different than designing a real one, conceptually. I cant imagine making a decision while involved in the process based on the 'game', rather the setting is created pretty much independently.

Keeping this difference in mind is key to understanding where the other half is coming from and avoiding misunderstandings and unintentional slights. Im going to try harder to do just that.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;916499For some of us, the weird-ass possibilities of the wandering monster table as written is a feature.

As is the fact that in OD&D at least you have a 1/6 chance of getting a 4th level wandering monster on the 1st level, many of which (wight, wraith, gargoyle to name 3) are pretty much guaranteed to kill an entire group of 1st level PCs if they insist on standing and fighting.

One reason we led a mule. It gave the gargoyle something to eat while we ran away.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916512But the fact is some GMs treat their world as a work of fiction first, and then let players loose in it. Its a subtle difference but it explains so much in the way of priorities concerning how the setting is developed and even more, as the game is played. When you commented "Im not designing a real city, but a game one." I had to stop and blink while my brain processed that. To my mind a city designed for use in a game is no different than designing a real one, conceptually. I cant imagine making a decision while involved in the process based on the 'game', rather the setting is created pretty much independently.

That caused a lot of confusion in the early years of EPT.  Phil had created Tekumel decades before D&D even came out.  Tekumel was a setting with a game put over it, whereas Blackmoor and Greyhawk both came about because somebody wanted to run a game and needed a world for it.

I'm firmly in the latter camp, which is why when Phil started ragging on me for "this dungeon makes no sense, what do the monsters eat?" I put a McDonald's on the 7th level.  "The monsters eat FUCK YOU, Phil, that's what they eat."

I've had dungeons with lizardman bouncers that charged 25gp admissions and a Crazy Jorge's Mercantile waggon parked outside where most things on the price list can be had for only twice the usual price, a bargain this far from town even if they're slightly used.

Want to see your PCs freak?  Add a friendly clown to the wandering monster list.

Rob Kuntz fireballed Ronald McDonald at my McDonald's on the 7th level.  It was long enough ago that Ronald still had his Flying Hamburger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joOZdFQmpn8

I had totally forgotten that damn song.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;916498Of course, the fact that wandering monsters can be negotiated with ALSO opens up a whole new realm of possibilities.

That aspect was overlooked too often, and largely eliminated in later editions. Foolish, really, since it dramatically changes the game. In OD&D and B/X, nothing says goblins (frex) are inherently "chaotic stupid" and attack on sight. Heck, with a good Charisma and lucky roll, they will love the guy talking to them. Smart early-edition players end up talking their way through things that later editions default as having to hack through, because it was built into the game that way.

Quote from: Bren;916513One reason we led a mule. It gave the gargoyle something to eat while we ran away.

That's wisdom. Most of my players seem to rely upon a heroically noble/suicidal fighter to fulfill that role.

Quote from: David Johansen;916516Want to see your PCs freak?  Add a friendly clown to the wandering monster list.

Oh man, consider that idea stolen. Was thinking about starting up our old WFRP 1e campaign. A friendly-creepy clown in the Old World will be all kinds of nightmare-inducing fun.

Quote from: Bren;916528I had totally forgotten that damn song.

:D You're welcome. :D

Forget what iteration of D&D. But at least one pointed out that wandering monsters could also be a good source of backup if youve lost a party member or just want to boost your force. Negotiate with them.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;916530That's wisdom. Most of my players seem to rely upon a heroically noble/suicidal fighter to fulfill that role.

Well...those guys are cheaper than mules.* But we had a shortage of heroically dumb PCs and had to make do with mules.



* In fact with proper planning and shared costs on dungeon supplies, the heroically dumb can be a profitable addition to the party in more than one way.

Quote from: Doom;916115I put real effort into the dungeon making sense. If it's a sealed vault, you better believe the dungeon will be based around traps, undead, demons, devils, and elementals--things that generally don't die or have much to keep on existing. Naturally, such dungeons are a little limited on wandering monsters (there are exceptions), so I try to put some sort of time limit, to keep players from going 5', taking a long rest, repeat.

On the other hand, if dungeon is a cave, then I do try to have it make sense (not necessarily geological sense, but ecological). So, yeah, there's almost always a water source, there's some explanation for what the denizens do for food (I explain to players that caloric requirements aren't the same in fantasy land, which is also why the players carry a week's worth of food and water without falling over), and when I have wandering monsters, they come from somewhere, either nearby rooms (investigating noise the players make), or nearby caves (investigating why the usual guards seem to be dead), or, well, wandering up from lower caves.

I'm not saying my dungeon set-ups are viable enough to pass a economics class...but they're at least feasible for a few days, which is all that is necessary for most dungeon expeditions.

Yep, agree - I think ideally the GM should tailor the random encounter table to the situation, so that a sealed dungeon's inhabitants make sense as you suggest above, and so on. I think it's important to that the wandering monsters make some sense (maybe not a lot, but some!)

Quote from: Omega;916134Um... False?

Wandering monsters may be on patrol, may be hunting, any number of reasons other than "sap your resources". And they might not even be hostile.

As someone who played too much 3.5ed with DMs who thought that wandering monsters were "stupid" in game terms the main purpose of wandering monsters is to make time in a dungeon a precious commodity. Any time you spend time doing ANYTHING you pay a price in terms of wandering monsters so it's important to weigh your options and be a miser with your time. Otherwise you end up with adventurers who always search every inch of every room and always take a nap after each fight.

Of course there are other ways to make time precious in D&D, it's just that wandering monsters are one way of doing that. Without time being precious a lot of the dungeon crawling mechanics start to fall apart.

Quote from: Daztur;916699Without time being precious a lot of the dungeon crawling mechanics start to fall apart.

Noticed that, did you?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;916704Noticed that, did you?

And people were so confused about why the 15 minute adventuring day was such a problem.

Quote from: Daztur;916699As someone who played too much 3.5ed with DMs who thought that wandering monsters were "stupid" in game terms the main purpose of wandering monsters is to make time in a dungeon a precious commodity. Any time you spend time doing ANYTHING you pay a price in terms of wandering monsters so it's important to weigh your options and be a miser with your time. Otherwise you end up with adventurers who always search every inch of every room and always take a nap after each fight.

Of course there are other ways to make time precious in D&D, it's just that wandering monsters are one way of doing that. Without time being precious a lot of the dungeon crawling mechanics start to fall apart.

Just because you had crummy DMs doesnt mean thats all DMs.

Quote from: Omega;916726Just because you had crummy DMs doesnt mean thats all DMs.

Of course, but always making sure people knew they were on the clock seemed something that had been fading away even when I started playing in 1991. I remember reading Dragon Magazine advice columns dismissing wandering monsters are pointless filler digressions from the plot. I'm sure many DMs knew better but the ones I played with in the early 2003's really didn't for the most part and I think it became a bit of a self-reinforcing cycle of people forgetting how to run dungeons well, then having their dungeon adventures suck, then not wanting to run or play dungeons then forgetting even more about how to run dungeons well, then getting to the point where old ideas about how to run dungeons well (like keeping track of time and supplies) were dismissed as stupid when they were really vital. Really took the internet and reading stuff from people old Old Geezer to turn things around for a lot of people, especially with that kind of thinking now being amplified by small subculture (thanks for all the great posts back in 2008 or so OG!).

Quote from: Daztur;916728Of course, but always making sure people knew they were on the clock seemed something that had been fading away even when I started playing in 1991. I remember reading Dragon Magazine advice columns dismissing wandering monsters are pointless filler digressions from the plot. I'm sure many DMs knew better but the ones I played with in the early 2003's really didn't for the most part and I think it became a bit of a self-reinforcing cycle of people forgetting how to run dungeons well, then having their dungeon adventures suck, then not wanting to run or play dungeons then forgetting even more about how to run dungeons well, then getting to the point where old ideas about how to run dungeons well (like keeping track of time and supplies) were dismissed as stupid when they were really vital. Really took the internet and reading stuff from people old Old Geezer to turn things around for a lot of people, especially with that kind of thinking now being amplified by small subculture (thanks for all the great posts back in 2008 or so OG!).

I agree that you need a time clock for D&D, generally speaking, because otherwise the party will camp and reset, then move on. The artificiality (sometimes) of an enforced clock is something I tried to tackle with Low Fantasy Gaming (with a number of variant mechanics designed to encourage pushing on with an adventure, rather than looking for a place to camp).

Quote from: Psikerlord;916743I agree that you need a time clock for D&D, generally speaking, because otherwise the party will camp and reset, then move on. The artificiality (sometimes) of an enforced clock is something I tried to tackle with Low Fantasy Gaming (with a number of variant mechanics designed to encourage pushing on with an adventure, rather than looking for a place to camp).

Before I burned out on 3.5ed the most successful campaigns I ran were the sort where I didn't need any kind of artificial clock since generally whatever goal they were pushing towards was time-limited by its nature. For example, one whole adventure was them rowing around a fjord trying to influence judges in an upcoming trial. They were ambushed by goons working for the other side of the trial but if they rested after that then they'd lose precious time to prepare for the trial, that sort of thing.

But I remember back before 2008 or so that people used to really really think that in situations where the set-up was "go into the hole and get the gold, don't worry the gold will probably still be there next year" that D&D mechanics were borked because there was never any reason not to search every last inch of everything so a lot of "choices" were complete no-brainers. Read through whole discussion threads where NOBODY said "um, dudes if you search everything that uses up a lot of time and you can't just waste your time farting around or you're going to die" not one person. Granted I was posting in some pretty stupid forums but the amount of knowledge about how to run dungeon crawls well that had been lost was amazing. I was as bad as anyone since the only real knowledge I had to go on was my memories of fumbling around back in middle school before going all 2ed pretentious and ditching dungeoncrawls as a teen...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;916704Noticed that, did you?

Out of curiosity, did Gary and the rest of the "old" GMs use different types of "ticking bombs" apart from random encounters? Stuff like e.g. "this whole thing can crumble any minute now", "the evil army is coming your way", any other event which made time of essence?

That's also why food, light sources, etc. are limited resources - they contribute toward making both time and carrying capacity relevant. Higher level spells providing unlimited light or magical food/water extended the operational radius of the group, but the logistical requirements were still in place.

Folks leaving out encumberance from OD&D or B/X (for example) as "boring" are gutting the system that drives how the game was intended to function.

Wandering monsters are a drain on all your resources for little gain, especially when you realize your XP is coming from loot in lairs, and that monster-killing XP (and treasure carried by wandering monsters) is negligible.

Quote from: Luca;916751Out of curiosity, did Gary and the rest of the "old" GMs use different types of "ticking bombs" apart from random encounters? Stuff like e.g. "this whole thing can crumble any minute now", "the evil army is coming your way", any other event which made time of essence?

Some clocks would arise naturally from campaign settings that included multiple groups of players. So if your group sits about resting for a game week, by the time you get to the Deep Hole of Gold, my group may have waltzed on in and taken away most of the gold.

And of course there might be larger scale activities going on in the setting of the "evil army is coming your way" variety. But I don't get the impression that GMs often intentionally created a ticking clock. They just might get one arising organically from the outcome of lots of PCs running about messing with stuff, getting more powerful, founding keeps, and the like.

Quote from: Luca;916751Out of curiosity, did Gary and the rest of the "old" GMs use different types of "ticking bombs" apart from random encounters? Stuff like e.g. "this whole thing can crumble any minute now", "the evil army is coming your way", any other event which made time of essence?

In the dungeon, no.  Outside, maybe... it was a big world.

Dave Arneson tried it with the attack on Blackmoor, which the players promptly failed to repel.

Quote from: David Johansen;916516Want to see your PCs freak?  Add a friendly clown to the wandering monster list.

I'v got a homeless commune of proto-mimes (metier implanter mise en scene) fawning at the edge of a fairy woods. The fairies are going crazy from sugar addiction and it's attracted something new to the world: avant garde clowns seeking to elevate their profession into the pretentious higher heavens. Cracked out fairies with illusions and artistic weirdos collaborate to "entertain" unsuspecting passing travellers.

No PC group has gone near that region recently, so that encounter has been lying dormant on that table for a good long while. It's scribbled in, though, like a time bomb...

Quote from: darthfozzywig;916777That's also why food, light sources, etc. are limited resources - they contribute toward making both time and carrying capacity relevant. Higher level spells providing unlimited light or magical food/water extended the operational radius of the group, but the logistical requirements were still in place.

Folks leaving out encumberance from OD&D or B/X (for example) as "boring" are gutting the system that drives how the game was intended to function.

Wandering monsters are a drain on all your resources for little gain, especially when you realize your XP is coming from loot in lairs, and that monster-killing XP (and treasure carried by wandering monsters) is negligible.

Yes. It's a similar issue with whether to invoke dice rolling. Unless there are meaningful limits or pressures, what's to prevent success?

Empty room with hidden treasure guarded by no traps, and a party that has no time pressure, resource pressure, or encounter pressure... If the party say they search every last inch, why bother rolling? Just say they succeed, deduct an amount of time you deem relevant (or roll out a value if you care), and move on.

If you keep removing challenging restrictions from most other facets of the game except combat, you will find the gameplay narrowing to keep pace. Similarly you might end up loading rewards in the same space to keep pace. And then your table might end up with today's modern rpg paradigm by default. It's up to you, the GM, to make a setting dial judgment to resist that narrowing arms race.

Quote from: Kellri;916185Like many others who've responded here, I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to put wandering monsters into some kind of context. Just because something is 'gonzo' or 'dungeon as mythical underworld' doesn't mean it has to be dumb. One of the keys to making sense of them is to construct your own tables as opposed to just using some generic and terse Dungeon Level XX table from the DMG or something. One good rule of thumb is to have a general idea of the population of say, orcs, in the vicinity. If the party comes across a group of 10 orcs on patrol, and slaughters them all, it goes to reason that there will be 10 fewer orcs in some other area (like the barracks for instance). If you do that, the party will eventually be able to completely cleanse an area or at the very least alert the main body of monsters that an intruder is about. Personally, I also have created a set of tables for repopulating a dungeon over time. If the party leaves and comes back weeks or months later, they may discover the local monster population has started to bounce back or been replaced by an entirely different group or groups. Some things, like carrion crawlers, rats and spiders, may be difficult or impossible to completely eradicate - so it's not as important to think about where they're coming from.

I have always noted how many of each monster type can be encountered. If there are only X number of orcs in the area, and the PCs kill a bunch of them in random encounters, I deduct these casualties from the strength of the group. Depending on the type of monster, a steady stream of losses might provoke them to cut and run if they've taken too many losses (i.e. a morale check). Or the PCs might just wipe them out entirely.

QuoteI'd also echo Dave's point about including all manner of possible things that a wandering monster encounter could be - spoor, menacing sounds, even a corpse. In city-based random encounters, I usually interpret results in terms of what the party is able to handle. If they're all a bunch of 1st-level characters, a 'vampire' result can just be rumors of a vampire in the area, rather than the vampire itself suddenly bursting into their room at the inn. Conversely, if a 10th level party encounters a single random 3rd-level thief, I might have the murder of that lowly thief set off a vendetta with the local thieves' guild which could indeed pose a problem for the party.

When I designed my flexible encounter tables (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?21302-Flexible-Random-Encounter-Charts-AD-amp-D-1E), I made sure that an "encounter" isn't necessarily with monsters, and not all monsters are "monsters". Sights, scents and sounds are also included, as is weather.

As far as the relative strengths of the monsters are concerned, I normally let the chips fall where they may. If you don't want your 1st-level PC eaten by a werewolf, don't walk alone on the moors by the light of the full moon...

QuoteJust reading off a result on a random table and not putting any more thought into the encounter isn't 'gonzo', it's just really shitty gamemastering.

Amen!

Quote from: Elfdart;917147Amen!

And yet, despite the fact that is exactly what I do, I've never had an empty chair in 44 years.

I guess people only thought they were having fun.

Also I can't repeat my love for the "Roles, Rules, and Rolls" format of random encounters often enough. It has a SUBJECT, VERB and OBJECT that you roll on separately. So you won't get "goblins" you get "goblins, worshiping a giant." Gives you more to chew on that way. Also nothing stopping you from just rolling on the SUBJECT like in you don't need additional info.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;917155And yet, despite the fact that is exactly what I do, I've never had an empty chair in 44 years.

I guess people only thought they were having fun.

As a small dig, there are people who see bad movies because they're bad and enjoy doing it.

HOWEVER, just because you do it, and you and yours have fun with it...

I wouldn't call it shitty, or bad, I'd call it (AT THE VERY WORST) 'lazy', and even then, if it works, who the fuck cares why?  Game on, cucumber!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;917155And yet, despite the fact that is exactly what I do, I've never had an empty chair in 44 years.

I guess people only thought they were having fun.

Next on 60 Minutes: D&D Causes Mass Hysteria!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;917164I wouldn't call it shitty, or bad, I'd call it (AT THE VERY WORST) 'lazy', and even then, if it works, who the fuck cares why?  Game on, cucumber!

Or you are just cleverly leaving it up to the players' imaginations. They will probably fill in the "why" more creatively than you anyway. Humans are wonderful pattern-finders, even when there is no pattern.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;917170Humans are wonderful pattern-finders, even when there is no pattern.

...and other things D&D taught me.

One method I like to do with dungeons and other complexes is to have one good description of the style at the start and then just gloss over unless something dictates otherwise.

EG: "The dungeon walls are lined with morterless bricks all exactly the same dimensions in the standard herringbone layout. The bricks themselves have a slight greenish tinge to the stone. The floor tiles are hexagons with a reddish tinge while the ceiling is flat carved natural rock. There are no fixtures for torches or other light sources. There are plain wooden doors to your left and right made of pale oak with odd T-shaped silver handles."

And after that it would be

"And this room is 30 by 30 feet. No other exits. Theres a table against the back wall made of the same wood as the door. Beside the table are two sealed clay jars about three foot tall each and made from some sort of yellow clay. The seal is fitted silver."

And after that "And this room is 20 by 20. No other exits. There are two tables here and between them another sealed clay jar. This one is green."

Nice discussion on the Time Clock in the dungeon. I would make DM's copies of the character sheets and make inventory tracker sheets for consumables. How many torches, oil flasks, etc. Then I would mark them off as time ticked by. Inevitably the players would brush off the first couple of "You're getting low on torches" comments from the DM. But oh, what fun they finally realized that they might be fumbling around the dungeon in the dark... Especially the poor humans who didn't have infravision, and "no, you can't read the map with infravision".

Time spent dealing with wandering monsters was time with torches burning down. And camping in the dungeon so spell casters can recharge is far from certain when there is the threat of even a lowly goblin popping in to disrupt your study.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;917155And yet, despite the fact that is exactly what I do, I've never had an empty chair in 44 years.

I guess people only thought they were having fun.

Given your vivid posting style, I rather doubt you've ever just read off the charts, as Kellri described.

He just has really well written charts to read off... He is the Most Interesting DM in the World.

Quote from: Elfdart;917209Given your vivid posting style, I rather doubt you've ever just read off the charts, as Kellri described.

"You have been surprised by, and have not surprised, three wights.  They attack."

MY PALADIN DOUSES HIMSELF IN HOLY WATER AND GRAPPLES ONE!

(Actually happened in play this one time.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;917155And yet, despite the fact that is exactly what I do, I've never had an empty chair in 44 years.

I guess people only thought they were having fun.

Nah, they were just after your pee hole Gronan.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;917224"You have been surprised by, and have not surprised, three wights.  They attack."

Or as this would be said at my table "Here, start rolling."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;917224"You have been surprised by, and have not surprised, three wights.  They attack."

You are getting soft in your old age there.

"Three wights surprise the party. They are 30 feet away. Round one. The wights close distance to attack. The first one reaches for Markus and misses. The Second reaches for Edicus and hits, draining him for one life level. The third one hits Edicus as well, draining him for another life level. Ed is now level 3. Round two. You may now respond. Roll initiative please."

Because surprise is a real bitch and it hates the PCs guts. Especially when undead are involved.

I just hadn't gotten to the actual combat round yet.

Yes, if the wights have surprise they'll get 2 attacks before the PCs can respond.  If the PCs are first level, the wights get three attacks each, per round.

This situation is a probable TPK of a first level party.

I think monsters need to have "immediate logic".  That is to say, living creatures inside locked rooms with no exits, or monsters too big to fit through any of the exits, are stuff that I find really bothersome.  But at the same time, I think the need to build up and explain some kind of "dungeon ecology" to justify everything is kind of stupid. It's more something that I think is there for book-readers than for players. It adds very little to the game on the ground.

Quote from: RPGPundit;918952I think monsters need to have "immediate logic".  That is to say, living creatures inside locked rooms with no exits, or monsters too big to fit through any of the exits, are stuff that I find really bothersome.  But at the same time, I think the need to build up and explain some kind of "dungeon ecology" to justify everything is kind of stupid. It's more something that I think is there for book-readers than for players. It adds very little to the game on the ground.

I like the term 'Immediate logic' and it's perfect for what I like to do in dungeons.  I don't need to know the long term reasons, just that it makes plausible sense to have six orcs in a room guarding a pie.

Same here. Especially if it is not "A wizards stronghold/dungeon" where pretty much anything goes.

Like an orcs lair. Encounters with Orcs, Goblins, animals like giant rats, giant bugs perhaps, other adventurers, and so on. But if it was a rennovated necromancers former lair then undead might be encountered too.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;917332I just hadn't gotten to the actual combat round yet.

Yes, if the wights have surprise they'll get 2 attacks before the PCs can respond.  If the PCs are first level, the wights get three attacks each, per round.

This situation is a probable TPK of a first level party.

Except for the fighting men!!  1+1 HD those wights can have ONE attack and suck it!  :p

Quote from: RPGPundit;918952I think monsters need to have "immediate logic".  That is to say, living creatures inside locked rooms with no exits, or monsters too big to fit through any of the exits, are stuff that I find really bothersome.  But at the same time, I think the need to build up and explain some kind of "dungeon ecology" to justify everything is kind of stupid. It's more something that I think is there for book-readers than for players. It adds very little to the game on the ground.

I'm sorry but why should such details, logic and sound story elements only be present in a book? We are creating our own work of fiction in an rpg. Why should we accept such a drop in quality?
Some of you make it sound very abstract, like encounters and plot elements in the game are just abstract challenges,  tactical puzzles and reasons to roll the dice instead of a practice in creativity.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919002I'm sorry but why should such details, logic and sound story elements only be present in a book? We are creating our own work of fiction in an rpg. Why should we accept such a drop in quality?
Some of you make it sound very abstract, like encounters and plot elements in the game are just abstract challenges,  tactical puzzles and reasons to roll the dice instead of a practice in creativity.

If nobody in the game ever sees it, did it exist?

Quote from: rgrove0172;919002I'm sorry but why should such details, logic and sound story elements only be present in a book? We are creating our own work of fiction in an rpg. Why should we accept such a drop in quality?
Some of you make it sound very abstract, like encounters and plot elements in the game are just abstract challenges,  tactical puzzles and reasons to roll the dice instead of a practice in creativity.

Pundit didn't say anything about logic and story elements in RPGs, he said I think the need to build up and explain some kind of "dungeon ecology" to justify everything is kind of stupid because It adds very little to the game on the ground. Unless your dungeon party is a bunch of ecologists trying to get a paper in Nature, Cell, or Science, a fully worked out ecology does not really effect the game or the players. It might be neat to the designer/GM to know there is a reason for both Boojums and Snarks to be in that dungeon, but unless that reason has an effect on the game, it is just fluff that the players will never know or care about.

Quote from: Tod13;919025Pundit didn't say anything about logic and story elements in RPGs, he said I think the need to build up and explain some kind of "dungeon ecology" to justify everything is kind of stupid because It adds very little to the game on the ground. Unless your dungeon party is a bunch of ecologists trying to get a paper in Nature, Cell, or Science, a fully worked out ecology does not really effect the game or the players. It might be neat to the designer/GM to know there is a reason for both Boojums and Snarks to be in that dungeon, but unless that reason has an effect on the game, it is just fluff that the players will never know or care about.

Frankly Ive met few players that approached the game from that shallow a position, and those that I have were either not well thought of by most others or they were twelve years old. You don't have to be an ecologist to notice that the Undead wandering the halls don't seem to bother the Goblins that appear to be permanently encamped in the ruins of the old barracks or that the giant spiders infesting an entire section of the dungeon don't seem to be bother the orcs occupying several rooms.

It doesn't take a research paper to just make sure your stocking makes a certain sense. That's what I hear several saying here, it doesn't have to be a perfect lesson in intraspecies cohabitation - only don't place creature without food sources or obvious enemies together and that sort of thing. These kind of goofs add a great deal to the game on the ground, and what they add aint good. The whole game takes on the feeling of some weird game show (whats behind door number 3 Bob? Well here we have a Bugbear, 3 giant ants and a Howling Spirit!) instead of a working, breathing fantasy world.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919033Frankly Ive met few players that approached the game from that shallow a position, and those that I have were either not well thought of by most others or they were twelve years old. You don't have to be an ecologist to notice that the Undead wandering the halls don't seem to bother the Goblins that appear to be permanently encamped in the ruins of the old barracks or that the giant spiders infesting an entire section of the dungeon don't seem to be bother the orcs occupying several rooms.

It doesn't take a research paper to just make sure your stocking makes a certain sense. That's what I hear several saying here, it doesn't have to be a perfect lesson in intraspecies cohabitation - only don't place creature without food sources or obvious enemies together and that sort of thing. These kind of goofs add a great deal to the game on the ground, and what they add aint good. The whole game takes on the feeling of some weird game show (whats behind door number 3 Bob? Well here we have a Bugbear, 3 giant ants and a Howling Spirit!) instead of a working, breathing fantasy world.

Neither of us said dungeons don't have to make sense.

We said: dungeon ecology does not need to be worked out in excruciating detail, particularly in details that will not effect the game for the players.

Honest question: Do you really not understand the above sentence? You keep misrepresenting what is being said.

Quote from: Tod13;919040Neither of us said dungeons don't have to make sense.

We said: dungeon ecology does not need to be worked out in excruciating detail, particularly in details that will not effect the game for the players.

Honest question: Do you really not understand the above sentence? You keep misrepresenting what is being said.

I do and you keep inserting that last condition about such detail having to actually effect the players for it to be relevant. In my opinion the players are irrelevant in this case. The setting either makes sense or it doesn't. The laws of nature and logic don't simply cease to exist because one group of individuals living in the setting aren't witness to them.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919041I do and you keep inserting that last condition about such detail having to actually effect the players for it to be relevant. In my opinion the players are irrelevant in this case. The setting either makes sense or it doesn't. The laws of nature and logic don't simply cease to exist because one group of individuals living in the setting aren't witness to them.

Right. But theres a point where its bogging down in useless details.

This came up in an older thread here with people bitching and loosing their marbles because every dungeon "didnt make sense" because it didnt explicitly say how it was ventilated. Or that if it was stated then somehow this too invalidated the dungeon. And so on ad nausium ad stupidium.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919041In my opinion the players are irrelevant in this case.

All RIGHTY then!

In MY opinion anything that doesn't concern the players is masturbation.  You are entirely welcome to jerk off as much as you like, but don't expect me or anybody else to be interested in it.

"What do these monsters eat?"  "There's a McDonald's on the seventh level.  They eat FUCK YOU, that's what they eat."

And even in my short time here I cant say Im surprised at all by that.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919131All RIGHTY then!

In MY opinion anything that doesn't concern the players is masturbation.

True. But theres prep  for contingencies and sometimes you dont know which direction the party will hie off to. You need some prep that might concern the players, if they delve into it. Or might not.

Do I really need to work out a history for why the gnoll queen has a grudge against the hogoblins? A player might research it or ask around out of curiosity or to gain tactical data they can use in their quest to end the hobgoblin threat to the land. Or they might never ask.

The grand history of Blackmoor is totally irrelevant if the party never asks and instead toddles off to some swamp to pester amphibians of unusual size.

Quote from: Omega;919212True. But theres prep  for contingencies and sometimes you dont know which direction the party will hie off to. You need some prep that might concern the players, if they delve into it. Or might not.

Do I really need to work out a history for why the gnoll queen has a grudge against the hogoblins? A player might research it or ask around out of curiosity or to gain tactical data they can use in their quest to end the hobgoblin threat to the land. Or they might never ask.

The grand history of Blackmoor is totally irrelevant if the party never asks and instead toddles off to some swamp to pester amphibians of unusual size.

I think that's why so many people buy, sell, create, and share random tables. I don't need to decide why they have a grudge until needed. I can roll on a table. Or just make up four and roll a quick d4. Or just make one up. (Based on my group's characters: Each thinks the other stole a sacred necklace relic they shared. Turns out it was a third party and the sprite's pet wolf is now wearing the necklace as an improvised armored collar. Nobody has noticed yet...)

I actually am putting a Wandering Monster Wandering Reasons table in my RPG. My wife is contributing to the list of reasons ("looking for the toilet") and I suspect the other members of my group will enjoy helping. I may need to add "are members of a research group writing a paper for Nature, Cell, or Science on the dungeon's ecology".

"AOUSes? I don't think they exist... ARrrrgh!"

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919131All RIGHTY then!

In MY opinion anything that doesn't concern the players is masturbation.  You are entirely welcome to jerk off as much as you like, but don't expect me or anybody else to be interested in it.

"What do these monsters eat?"  "There's a McDonald's on the seventh level.  They eat FUCK YOU, that's what they eat."

You're taking this a little personally, neighbour.  No one is saying that your way is wrong.  Some players -I know, I know, we're not playing the RIGHT way, but we were not blessed to be at either Gygax's or Arneson's tables- want a tiny bit more reasons.  What's wrong with indulging them a little bit?

Maybe finding out the ecology is a whole new adventure to keep us busy on weekends doing a hobby we enjoy.

Nah, I'm probably doing moon-talk, again.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919131"What do these monsters eat?"  "There's a McDonald's on the seventh level.  They eat FUCK YOU, that's what they eat."

Maybe one had to be there, but I've heard you tell that story a number of times and the McDonald's joke rationale never struck me as at all funny or useful. But I have a low tolerance for puerile humor and parody of sword and sorcery in my sword and sorcery nor do I want the setting or the session to turn into one giant series of bad Monty Python imitations and guys sitting around a campfire farting and telling fart jokes. As usual, YMMV.

Also the middle called and she says she really misses you. But not your McDonald's. She said, 'Fuck your McDonald's!'

All goblins, especially their children, keep personal diaries written in secret Goblinese, a script based on knots, scratches, stains, and chew marks upon their animal hide clothes. I reread their contents at night and weep for what might have been after they get slaughtered in a session. My players never ask, thus they never know... and I secretly lord it over them as the brash insensitives they are!
:(;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;919381All goblins, especially their children, keep personal diaries written in secret Goblinese, a script based on knots, scratches, stains, and chew marks upon their animal hide clothes. I reread their contents at night and weep for what might have been after they get slaughtered in a session. My players never ask, thus they never know... and I secretly lord it over them as the brash insensitives they are!
:(;)

Can we have a moment of silence for Beedo and Vark, who only wanted to loot a church and play with the steeple bell?

Quote from: rgrove0172;919167And even in my short time here I cant say Im surprised at all by that.

"Frankly Ive met few players that approached the game from that shallow a position, and those that I have were either not well thought of by most others or they were twelve years old."

In the words of Master Yoda, "Dish it out you can, but take it you cannot, hmm?"

Call people with different tastes from you "shallow" and "not well thought of," and don't be surprised when you get a singing "Pack It Up Your Ass" -o-gram.

Quote from: Bren;919367Maybe one had to be there, but I've heard you tell that story a number of times and the McDonald's joke rationale never struck me as at all funny or useful. But I have a low tolerance for puerile humor and parody of sword and sorcery in my sword and sorcery nor do I want the setting or the session to turn into one giant series of bad Monty Python imitations and guys sitting around a campfire farting and telling fart jokes. As usual, YMMV.

And I know I've said this before but it bears repeating:

Phil Barker didn't have some sort of ingenious plan or cunning scheme dependent upon interdicting some monster's food supply.  He was purely busting my nuts because he thought my dungeon was 'unrealisitic.'

And when somebody busts your nuts, the only possible answer that contains even a tiny shred of self respect is to tell them to bite your ass.  Which is exactly what I did.

I just try to have as wandering monsters things which are either inhabitants of the dungeon or the area immediately nearby. But if some other crazy shit comes up that doesn't bother me, we'll figure it out.

If it's too big for the room it's in, that's cool, maybe it got brought in as a cub, or teleported in by a mad wizard, or maybe it was subjected to a reversed enlarge spell, or a Box of Diminuition - I think there's a troll in the temple of elemental stupidity who pops up out of a box after being 6" tall. Who knows? If the players ask, I'll say, "interesting question, how will your characters go about finding the answer?" and then they can go on a quest to find out how the 8' tall man-eating ape got into the 5' high tunnels, once it's finished eating their face. And this buys me some time to just make shit up.

Recently I created a whole new dungeon level this way. A Mind Flayer came up as a wandering monster in a goblin dungeon, "what's he doing here, how the fuck does he coexist with goblins?" they wondered, so I decided he was on a lower level and occasionally emerged to eat some goblin brains. In the end they found his lair and he had black silk sheets and robes of red and white silk like a barber's pole, and brains in jars on shelves.
"I take the silk sheets, that's smooth."
"No way man I'll bet he just lay around on his bed slurping on brains making a huge mess and those sheets are soaked with brain juices, that's disgusting."

Roll the dice, and roll with it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;919645Recently I created a whole new dungeon level this way. A Mind Flayer came up as a wandering monster in a goblin dungeon, "what's he doing here, how the fuck does he coexist with goblins?" they wondered, so I decided he was on a lower level and occasionally emerged to eat some goblin brains.

THIS is the most fun part I have in random dungeon design. I absolutely love trying to makes sense of the WTF results.

Quote from: Spinachcat;919647THIS is the most fun part I have in random dungeon design. I absolutely love trying to makes sense of the WTF results.

I suggest that random tables aren't (just) there to make a lazy GM's life easier, they also give the GM moments of surprise.

That sort of thing is anathema to the "frustrated director/author" style of GM, but some of us like to be discovering the world along with the rest of the people at the table sometimes.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;919420Can we have a moment of silence for Beedo and Vark, who only wanted to loot a church and play with the steeple bell?

*wipes a tear from his eye*

The good die young.

And if my players are involved, so do the old and everyone else within range.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;919665*wipes a tear from his eye*

The good die young.

And if my players are involved, so do the old and everyone else within range.

:D

And welcome to the site.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;919327Maybe finding out the ecology is a whole new adventure to keep us busy on weekends doing a hobby we enjoy.

Honestly I think this is the sort of thing that worries only DMs and BNGs. I've had plenty of players joke about this stuff, but nobody had a serious concern about dungeon ecology, not with god knows how many players I've had since 1983. Nobody cares, really, except for DMs and BNGs.

It's like those detailed 3,400 year histories of the game world and intricate descriptions of language development and royal family histories. Would the characters know? Will the players care? Fuck no!

In our last session the players had been captured by a hobgoblin warrior after they slew his cleric lord, and he wanted to sacrifice them to his barbaric man-eating ape god. One player's character ended up naked but for a loincloth, wrestling the hobgoblin on the edge of a firepit, each trying to fling each-other into the hot coals heating the bronze statue of the ape god where the victims were to be sacrificed by being roasted alive.

Does any of it make sense? Probably not. Does anyone care? No, because wrestling a hobgoblin into a fire pit and sacrificing him to his own man-eating ape god is good fun. The players finished the session very very happy, and they didn't ask any stupid fucking questions.

Roll the dice, and roll with it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919463"Frankly Ive met few players that approached the game from that shallow a position, and those that I have were either not well thought of by most others or they were twelve years old."

In the words of Master Yoda, "Dish it out you can, but take it you cannot, hmm?"

Call people with different tastes from you "shallow" and "not well thought of," and don't be surprised when you get a singing "Pack It Up Your Ass" -o-gram.

Read it again, I didn't call anyone anything... I said they were not well thought of.. not necessarily by me but as stated by anyone. Their age certainly wasn't an accusation. You are making an inference that what was thought about those people I encountered would be thought about those mentioned in the thread. You made it, I didn't. I was just drawing a similarity in how they seemed to approach the game.

OK. I've been resisting this for days.

RGrove, please step back and think about the feedback you are getting here. I am trying to help because I like some of your questions, like Wandering Monsters. But your miscomprehensions and passive-aggressive attacks are tiresome.

Basically, the feedback I'm seeing you get is: you post as if you misunderstand what people are saying (especially when they agree with you in part and disagree in part) and you tend towards not-so-subtle insults, and seem surprised when called on it.

Note the change from Justin's first post to his latest post.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;912209You have critically failed your Reading Comprehension roll.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919613And that he's only posting these threads so that he can passive aggressively attack other people while hypocritically pretending (a) not to and (b) to be the real victim.

And then there is:

Quote from: Bren;919132Thus I am left with the conclusion that (a) you don't want to understand what I wrote and (b) you are behaving like a condescending ass.

Quote from: Tod13;919040Honest question: Do you really not understand the above sentence? You keep misrepresenting what is being said.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919463Call people with different tastes from you "shallow" and "not well thought of," and don't be surprised when you get a singing "Pack It Up Your Ass" -o-gram.

Quote from: tenbones;919302I'll speak for myself - but others have said it many times in this thread, I find it odd you keep ignoring this pertinent part

Quote from: Omega;919571You keep mixing up people saying "Thats not what I like at my table" with "What you are doing is WRONG!" after everyone finally sorted out what the heck you were on about because your initial posts were both antagonistic and lacking in key data shifted to mainly just punting the ball whenever you make a pronouncement that just isnt so.

More here, if needed.

Spoiler

Quote from: Bren;919177You have yet to display any indication that you comprehend what I have expressed since you keep responding to things that I didn’t say. Why is that?

Quote from: Manzanaro;919341Sure. And then you keep coming back and saying stuff like, "People who don't like my style must have some weird cultural bias that I didn't even know existed!" Which is probably not the case, and just makes it seem like you think the actual reasoning people have given you is just a load of malarky.

Quote from: Manzanaro;919335Seems kind of like you are pulling a bit of a bait and switch here.
What is it you want exactly at this point? Approval? For everyone to admit you are right and they are wrong? Or what?

Quote from: Bren;919106What I said does not imply that. And no you don’t seem to get what I am saying. You may have incorrectly inferred that, though I think that to make that inference you must be reading what I said very uncharitably. Try reading it again please.

Then you are not understanding what I wrote.

Quote from: Bren;919316I did not argue for “not doing it at all.” You keep characterizing the choice as your type of description or “none at all.” Those are not the only choices.

Quote from: Bren;919486You know, you may not realize it, but you are coming across as patronizing and rather thick

Quote from: AsenRG;912249When you rethink this thread, you might want to notice that at least my condescending attitude only manifested when you began to answer condescendingly;).

Quote from: Bren;912343People would probably be less condescending or insulting if you didn't start out by claiming that people who don't do what you do when you GM are either dicks or lying.

Quote from: nDervish;912383Point of order:  The earlier references to dishonesty were specifically talking about your statement that you sometimes roll dice to make your players think something is random, then completely ignore the dice and make up a result from whole cloth.  This specific act is dishonest, as it deceives the players regarding the origin of the outcome presented to them.  I don't recall anyone saying that you're more broadly dishonest.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912895Like many of those who are concerned with Story, you're completely missing the point and thought processes of those who are not.

​
I guess the point to all this is to double check what you think people have said and what you've said. People aren't going to always agree with you 100%. There comes a time where you go "ah, there is where we disagree. That's interesting" and move on to other things.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;919684Honestly I think this is the sort of thing that worries only DMs and BNGs. I've had plenty of players joke about this stuff, but nobody had a serious concern about dungeon ecology, not with god knows how many players I've had since 1983. Nobody cares, really, except for DMs and BNGs.

Same here. In all the years of DMing I've never had anyone flip out because "this dungeon doesnt make any sense! aaaagh!!!" Sometimes the players will try to find out why theres a lone goblin in this necromancers lair full of undead. Others just shrug and move on.

Quote from: Omega;919799Same here. In all the years of DMing I've never had anyone flip out because "this dungeon doesnt make any sense! aaaagh!!!" Sometimes the players will try to find out why theres a lone goblin in this necromancers lair full of undead. Others just shrug and move on.

My players may go home and return next session with a novella giving the backstory for the goblin. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Tod13;919800My players may go home and return next session with a novella giving the backstory for the goblin. :rolleyes:

And if it's any good, run with it!

Quote from: Omega;919799Same here. In all the years of DMing I've never had anyone flip out because "this dungeon doesnt make any sense! aaaagh!!!" Sometimes the players will try to find out why theres a lone goblin in this necromancers lair full of undead. Others just shrug and move on.

OK, I've never had people flip out, but I've had players look at me and say, "Wait, what?  A goblin in a necromantic lair?  Really?"  And it bothers them, not enough to disturb the game, but often, after the adventure, when we talk about what was good and bad about the adventure, that sort of stuff WILL come up.

So, in that particular instance, I ran with it, and turned it into a running joke.  The Goblin was seen serving various evil wizards, and when the PC's came in to stop the evil plots, he was the first to run.  I think, it's been years, and it may have been a Kobold, but I made the little guy into a gal, and was actually quite an accomplished wizard's aide, with quite a bit of knowledge on the workings of certain magics, and could easily brew potions on her own.  So the PC Wizard hired her to manage her laboratory when they went on an adventure.

Since then though, I try to keep with a consistent theme to an underground lair/encounter/dungeon.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919002I'm sorry but why should such details, logic and sound story elements only be present in a book? We are creating our own work of fiction in an rpg. Why should we accept such a drop in quality?
Some of you make it sound very abstract, like encounters and plot elements in the game are just abstract challenges,  tactical puzzles and reasons to roll the dice instead of a practice in creativity.

RPGs are not about "creating a work of fiction". The two factors that matter in an RPG are making an effective virtual world, and making gameplay a fun and exciting experience.  These usually go hand-in-hand, but can sometimes require balancing one against the other.

Quote from: RPGPundit;920851RPGs are not about "creating a work of fiction". The two factors that matter in an RPG are making an effective virtual world, and making gameplay a fun and exciting experience.  These usually go hand-in-hand, but can sometimes require balancing one against the other.

This.  Fucking shitbunnies, this.

Well that certainly is one popular opinion.

Quote from: rgrove0172;920894Well that certainly is one popular opinion.

Keep in mind that for some DMs part of the fun of DMing is coming up with some reason why the wandering whatever is wandering around someplace it logically shouldnt be.

The trick here is that it just seems illogical for the goblin to be wandering the necromancers lair. If the players throw a hissy fit about it without even asking why. Then GOOD! Thats their own stupid hindering them. Grow some brain cells or fall into the next spiked pit trap.

As a player my reaction to something that is obviously out of place is not to whine "Man that makes no sense!". Instead I start wondering why this thing is here? How did it get here? How can we take advantage of it being here.

Like was suggested above. Could be the necromancers assistant. Or maybee its the lone survivour of a raiding party. Or was the pet of an adventurer. Or was summoned with one of the monster summoning spells, etc.

Prefer it t make sense, but then I can shoehorn almost anything into the "makes sense" camp.

Quote from: rgrove0172;920894Well that certainly is one popular opinion.

That's more in the realm of objective truth, but that doesn't prevent you from attempting this as a by-product.

Quote from: cranebump;920911Prefer it t make sense, but then I can shoehorn almost anything into the "makes sense" camp.

Given that humans are pattern-finding creatures - even when their isn't an actual pattern - players will happily do that work for you without realizing it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;920851RPGs are not about "creating a work of fiction".

My only caveat to this concept is that AFTER the session, the discussion by players about what happened, the retelling of the tale, etc is a creation of fiction. But the fiction comes POST-game, not PRE-game or DURING-game, but after all is said and done.

AKA, like writing a short story about a real-life football match. Doesn't make sense to declare it a story until after the buzzer sounds with the final score.

Quote from: Omega;920908Keep in mind that for some DMs part of the fun of DMing is coming up with some reason why the wandering whatever is wandering around someplace it logically shouldnt be.

Nah. I'd rather just ask my players. "Why do you think the umberhulk is here? Perhaps you could ask him."

And if they don't ask or he won't tell, then it just has to remain one of those mysteries of life. If the players keep arguing about it, "Your loud discussion may attract another wandering monster, you should roll for that now."

Quote from: rgrove0172;919033You don't have to be an ecologist to notice that the Undead wandering the halls don't seem to bother the Goblins that appear to be permanently encamped in the ruins of the old barracks or that the giant spiders infesting an entire section of the dungeon don't seem to be bother the orcs occupying several rooms.

Once you understand that the Dungeon itself is a malevolent living entity (aka the Mythic Underworld), and all these critters are Part of the Dungeon, then it all makes much more sense. For the Dungeon, having the Undead attack the Goblins would be like having its right arm attack its left arm.

Quote from: S'mon;921002Once you understand that the Dungeon itself is a malevolent living entity (aka the Mythic Underworld), and all these critters are Part of the Dungeon, then it all makes much more sense. For the Dungeon, having the Undead attack the Goblins would be like having its right arm attack its left arm.

Keep on the Borderland
All of the inhabitants are feuding with someone else in the complex. Especially the Hobgoblins and Bugbears.

Quote from: Omega;921032Keep on the Borderland
All of the inhabitants are feuding with someone else in the complex. Especially the Hobgoblins and Bugbears.

That'd be the Gygaxian Realism. Note that the caves are full of monsters who despite feuding have not killed each other off - no abandoned caves full of corpses.

Quote from: S'mon;921041That'd be the Gygaxian Realism. Note that the caves are full of monsters who despite feuding have not killed each other off - no abandoned caves full of corpses.

The PCs didnt arrive during a scirmish. Why would there be corpses all over?

Quote from: S'mon;921041That'd be the Gygaxian Realism. Note that the caves are full of monsters who despite feuding have not killed each other off - no abandoned caves full of corpses.

I tend to assume that both sides are just eating the corpses of the fallen, and new goblinoids arise from the feces of other goblinoids. It's not like any of the dungeon designers ever bother to provide for food sources or waste disposal, after all.

I still think that people confuse 2 related rules ("gm guidelines"), one at the dungeon scale of play - another at the hex-crawl "wilderness" scale of play. I'm not going to make a call on which is named which, and I totally agree that they seem to fill the same "rule slot" in each scale of play so they might as well be called the same thing. I just think that the context is important, especially the time-scale the players have to act in, as they have distinct design differences.

The hexcrawl/wilderness scale has long exploration turns and very abstracted movement "through" large spaces - and a positive result on the "random encounter" means a creature/band-of-monsters/lair is set into that hex and becomes "active" (i.e. the GM is meant to make it part of the living world, big monsters wander around hexes, bands raid out and back to their lairs, and lairs serve as "monster generators" in the video game tradition sense, "Gauntlet" etc). I think that the descriptions and statistical math given in the early Monster Manuals (# appearing, % "in lair" and all that) was intended to fit into this slot.

The dungeon scale exploration turn was 10 minutes, rest after 5 turns of movement - and movement is very detailed and in the players hands. A positive result on the "random encounter" means that one of the possible escalation (the "time sensitivity" meme) or "mood" results are triggered. Read a bunch of dungeon-scale adventure site modules from the early days and this stands out. These are party-scale threats (as opposed to the higher level or larger company threats that some wilderness random encounters generate), and are scaled along the "what belongs in this dungeon level, or the next few below it" design mentality and rules guidelines in those parts of the various oD&D GM materials.

These also serve as part of the "living world" or what is happening in the fog of war of the dungeon, and in my last few Earthdawn games I even pre-rolled the dungeon level random encounter checks for a few hours in advance (what they generated, not the x in 6 chance of one happening). This gave me a time-line of cool shit to spring on the players (& I didn't have to roll in-game for "what the RE is"), but I never knew where in the dungeon they would be when the turn-clock ticked to "2 gnolls patrolling", etc, etc based on the X in 6 each (or every other) turn.

Quote from: Telarus;921713I still think that people confuse 2 related rules ("gm guidelines"), one at the dungeon scale of play - another at the hex-crawl "wilderness" scale of play. I'm not going to make a call on which is named which, and I totally agree that they seem to fill the same "rule slot" in each scale of play so they might as well be called the same thing. I just think that the context is important, especially the time-scale the players have to act in, as they have distinct design differences.

The hexcrawl/wilderness scale has long exploration turns and very abstracted movement "through" large spaces - and a positive result on the "random encounter" means a creature/band-of-monsters/lair is set into that hex and becomes "active" (i.e. the GM is meant to make it part of the living world, big monsters wander around hexes, bands raid out and back to their lairs, and lairs serve as "monster generators" in the video game tradition sense, "Gauntlet" etc). I think that the descriptions and statistical math given in the early Monster Manuals (# appearing, % "in lair" and all that) was intended to fit into this slot.

I always wondered when browsing such books how exactly they expected people to use those stats. I really like your interpretation. That would be a great mechanic for an into-level sandbox game system, or a pre-D&D-style "campaign", i.e. a regional wargame/simulation where a PC party is basically a special set of units, but play tracks heaps of other stuff moving and acting in the world. I've always assumed that was the general idea of a campaign, but never seen explicit rules for running it quite that way. Except in a refereed double-blind wargame campaign (a model I also like a lot). Interesting...

QuoteThe dungeon scale exploration turn was 10 minutes, rest after 5 turns of movement - and movement is very detailed and in the players hands. A positive result on the "random encounter" means that one of the possible escalation (the "time sensitivity" meme) or "mood" results are triggered. Read a bunch of dungeon-scale adventure site modules from the early days and this stands out. These are party-scale threats (as opposed to the higher level or larger company threats that some wilderness random encounters generate), and are scaled along the "what belongs in this dungeon level, or the next few below it" design mentality and rules guidelines in those parts of the various oD&D GM materials.

These also serve as part of the "living world" or what is happening in the fog of war of the dungeon, and in my last few Earthdawn games I even pre-rolled the dungeon level random encounter checks for a few hours in advance (what they generated, not the x in 6 chance of one happening). This gave me a time-line of cool shit to spring on the players (& I didn't have to roll in-game for "what the RE is"), but I never knew where in the dungeon they would be when the turn-clock ticked to "2 gnolls patrolling", etc, etc based on the X in 6 each (or every other) turn.

This I have done for a long time. It helped that the first module I had for my system of choice (TFT, so it was also the ONLY module written in the original spirit and detail level of the core campaign rules) explicitly explained that the random encounters were suggestions that should only happen if/when they made sense, and that they referred to specific denizens which were described in the room and level descriptions, so the GM was to track who was alive or dead, and once in play, where they were and what they were doing. The first time I GM'd that module, I sort of missed that bit, but later I noticed it and "OHHhhhh...!!!" a light went off, and it was suddenly a vastly more interesting thing, and suddenly it mattered far more what the players did, and play was bumped up to the level of the whole map (or at least a level or two at a time), not just one-room-at-a-time.

AD&D lays out fairly plainly how the outdoor system works. Its a little odd in describing the dungeon encounters and how it all meshes. You have to pay attention to the differences.

I agree, and I think that the older products describe dungeon design a bit better. Which led to a lot of confusion...

I think understanding this distinction (how to run a Random Encounter check at each "Scale" of play), along with strict equipment/time tracking, and Morale for both monsters and hirelings, really made the old "campaign map" style of play ("hexcrawl"/"pointcrawls" in some expressions) make a WHOLE LOT MORE SENSE to me.