That's all me, KenHR. It won't happen again.

Regards,
David R

Watch, next Mearls is going to talk about taking characters from levels -9 through 0. I'll agree that D&D 4e lost me for what I know it's missing, rather than what it has.




 And Pseudo: I think the major contention with the term "Culture of Play" is that it is private jargon. I.e. only you talk about common house-rules and common play-styles using that term. I suggest you not be Humpty-Dumpty (from Alice in Wonderland) and use the words everyone else in your "subculture" are using.

You'll be better understood that way and won't have to define your personal terms in every thread that you use them.

Quote from: David R;263215That's all me, KenHR. It won't happen again.

Regards,
David R

You're a gentleman and a scholar.

Seriously, I am enjoying the discussion, and I think it's helped me understand a bit of what Mearls was trying to say in those posts.  Not that it will make a 4e guy, but at least I think I get what he's going for.

Quote from: James J Skach;263211Here's my question - aren't both really required to increase the verisimilitude? Why get rid of one but leave the other?

In an ideal world they would both exist, but I don't think that 4E got rid of one and simply retained the other, it got rid of one (the random wandering monster) and promoted the other (interlinked, planned and triggered encounters).

Even so, the notion of a random wandering monster isn't what lends verisimilitude, that comes from having monsters walking around on "patrol" or similar. You don't need a random chance roll on a die to determine that - why not just decide that an encounter with monsters will occur in area X of the dungeon if the PCs stay there for any length of time? Why does it have to be random?

And 4E doesn't prevent the party from fighting monster patrols, it just doesn't contain default rules and tables for springing them on a party when it rests.

Quote from: Trevelyan;263179The PCs need it, the NPCs don't, and it's the NPCs/monsters that we are talking about.

That statement isn't self evident, and Mearls' speaking of using Orcus as a non-combat encounter belies the very concept.

QuoteWhich is my point. If the aim is to increase the verisimilitude of the dungeon environment ...

We need go no further.  I've already said that whatever level of verisimilitude introduced is an offshoot, or a positive side effect.  Wandering monsters have nothing to do with verisimilitude.

QuoteThat's an artifact of a disconnected dungeon environment. Essentially, if the orcs in 15 and the goblins in 17 are two srparate communities in the same underground space then tehy wouldn't, but iherent in the assumption of the 4E model is that the inhabitants of a relatively small location are likely to be members of the same larger group, and the goblins, orcs and bugbears are working together, at which point it makes moe sense that they investigate than that they don't.

No, it's an artifact of a design that takes the non-combat descriptions of the denizens into account.  Aside from providing a challenge for the PCs, what reason would the orcs and goblins have for working together?  Why would the trolls decide to join up with this unlikely group?  The orcs hear the goblins getting butchered three rooms over and up the hall, why do they care?

I would say that the 4e assumption you speak of is that the dungeon is there simply to give adventurers something to do.  That assumption informed much of the design, and it shows.

QuoteThe verisimilitude comes from an essentially metagame requirement rather than from an organically designed dungeon? Interesting... are you sure you really meant to say that?

Yes, that is exactly what I inteded to say.  For the same reason that level drain is a meta-game rule to simulate an in-game effect.  The characters should reasonably be terrified of a wight, but the players know it's just low level undead.  It's the same with wandering monsters.  Rather than spend an extra several hours placing monsters in the halls, just waiting for the PCs to show up, wandering monsters allow for unplanned encounters.  This isn't for verisimilitude, although that is a side effect.  Wandering monsters are the meta-game timer so you aren't pushing the 'artificial' timer of the sacrifice of midnight, or the portal closes on the full moon, or what have you.

Wandering monsters are part of an organically designed dungeon, just not one designed to exist solely for the sake of the PCs.  In fact, the PCs themselves could be considering 'wandering monsters', just as much a part of the organic design you refer to.  There is nothing to say that a bunch of orcs didn't stumble on the dungeon, same as the PCs, and hunkered down in room 15 for the time being, or are still in the process of scouting the area and aren't aware of the goblins.

QuoteNothing indicates that Mearls doesn't know why they were there, he was jsut suggesting ways in which you could put them back should you so wish.

Dude, seriously?  It's right there in black and white.  It's not like there is any interpretation needed.

Quote from: blogWandering monsters have been a fixture of D&D since the beginning. I can't even begin to explain how or why Gary included them. Did his players have a tendency to dither outside dungeon chambers? Was he bored and looking for an excuse to throw a gelatinous cube at the party? Who can say?

I mean, really, figure out what is worth defending before posting.

QuoteIf we're lucky then DMG2 will talk more about this sort of thing but it requires no house ruling to use the triggered event approach with 4E.

'If we're lucky' the rest of the rules that should have been published in the first place will be available?

QuoteIt does, and I have no idea why, other than that some people seem to like to argue on the basis of hearsay and prejudice rather than knowledge and experience. Some other people have knowledge and experience and still hold differing views, of course.

But you don't stick your hand in a fire to make sure, do you?  I mean, are you saying that no possible situation exists where direct experience is not necessary to make a judgement?

QuoteI put a lot of trouble down to a failure to distinguish between the precept that everyone has a right to an opinion (true), and that every opinion is equally valid (false).

The other problem is when people don't take the time to show when an opinion is inaccurate, or how.

It's interesting to see old schoolers' reaction to the idea of the culture of play when, in discussions about OD&D and AD&D, they're mantra has been, "Those may be the rules, but that's not how anyone actually played the game!"

Seanchai

Quote from: Trevelyan;263224Even so, the notion of a random wandering monster isn't what lends verisimilitude, that comes from having monsters walking around on "patrol" or similar. You don't need a random chance roll on a die to determine that - why not just decide that an encounter with monsters will occur in area X of the dungeon if the PCs stay there for any length of time? Why does it have to be random?

Because the monsters aren't waiting around for the PCs to show up, primarily.  Secondary to your point is that wandering monsters are there to deplete resources.  That is really it.  Do you have enough juice to take on a pack of orcs, or is it better to run or negotiate?  Should the Magic User blast every encounter with third and fourth level spells, then not have any later for the trolls and ogres guarding the big stash?

If the DM just decides to have an encounter somewhere, the prep time would go up by an order of magnitude, besides.

Quote from: Seanchai;263232It's interesting to see old schoolers' reaction to the idea of the culture of play when, in discussions about OD&D and AD&D, they're mantra has been, "Those may be the rules, but that's not how anyone actually played the game!"

That's because this has nothing to do with play culture and everything to do with the perceived failings of 4E, which are being arrived at via an inductive reading of Mearls' blog.

Quote from: StormBringer;263229That statement isn't self evident, and Mearls' speaking of using Orcus as a non-combat encounter belies the very concept.

I'm confused, are you sugegsting that Orcus might be a PC here? Isn't it self evident that Orcus isn't a PC?

QuoteWe need go no further.  I've already said that whatever level of verisimilitude introduced is an offshoot, or a positive side effect.  Wandering monsters have nothing to do with verisimilitude.

Ok, so they have merit primarily as a means of reducing the resources available to a party? In which case why do they need to be random? Doesn't a preplanned encounter serve the exact same purpose?

QuoteNo, it's an artifact of a design that takes the non-combat descriptions of the denizens into account.  Aside from providing a challenge for the PCs, what reason would the orcs and goblins have for working together?  Why would the trolls decide to join up with this unlikely group?  The orcs hear the goblins getting butchered three rooms over and up the hall, why do they care?

You miss my point. The fact that three totally disparate groups are living in such close proximity is a feature of earlier edition design. 4E starts from the assumption that they wouldn't be, and any group of monsters living within close proximity is likely to be part of a larger community or ecosystem.

QuoteI would say that the 4e assumption you speak of is that the dungeon is there simply to give adventurers something to do.  That assumption informed much of the design, and it shows.

Absolutely not the case. Had you actually read the 4E DMG you would know that it encourages the DM to ensure that a dungeon is designed with considerations like these in mind - it should never be a series of unrelated encounters put in place so the PCs have something to fight and should be designed, down to the layout and function of the rooms, to create a realistic environment which might exist independant of the PCs.

QuoteYes, that is exactly what I inteded to say.  For the same reason that level drain is a meta-game rule to simulate an in-game effect.

Now you've got me confused as you seem to be see-sawing between wandering monsters as a metagame means of reducing party resources and discouraging which has the consequential effect of enhancing verisimilitude, and wandering monsters as primarily a method of enhancing verisimilitude with the fringe benefit that they drain party resources and discourage loitering. Which is it? Functionally they might be said to do both to varying degrees, but what do you see as the original intent.

But the real question is, why do they have to be wandering monsters in the "random chance of occuring" sense? Why can't they be planned encounters which the DM uses if the party doesn't move fast enough? If the aim is to discourage loitering then what value is there in a mechanic which might let the party get away with loitering as often as not?

QuoteWandering monsters are part of an organically designed dungeon, just not one designed to exist solely for the sake of the PCs.  In fact, the PCs themselves could be considering 'wandering monsters', just as much a part of the organic design you refer to.

Are we talking about the same definition of wandering monster here? I'm specifically talking about (and the article deals with) monsters which have a random chance of simply turning up based largely on the outcome of a die roll. Nothing inherent in that model is any more organic than simple determining in advance that such an event will occur. If you are talking about encounters with monsters who do more than simply sit in a room and wait for the PCs to arive then we're in agreement, I just don't see what advantage lies in their arrival being predicated on the roll of a die.

QuoteThere is nothing to say that a bunch of orcs didn't stumble on the dungeon, same as the PCs, and hunkered down in room 15 for the time being, or are still in the process of scouting the area and aren't aware of the goblins.

This is entirely true, and the DM should determine such things in advance. He might even decide to initiate a three way fight with orcs turning up to take advantage of the distraction to attack both sides. The point is that the implications of the existence of orcs and goblins in close proximity should be considered by the DM in advance.

QuoteDude, seriously?  It's right there in black and white.  It's not like there is any interpretation needed.

I mean, really, figure out what is worth defending before posting.

Ok, I admit that I phrased that last comment poorly, but you need to stop taking everything written so literally. Allow Mearls room for a little bit of flair in his writing and learn to spot the use of comedic hyperbole.

Form a purely technical point of view, I agree with Mearls comment - what advantage exists in a random monster (random from the PoV of the DM as well as the players) rather than a planned encounter? From what you've said so far I don't thin that you could answer the question either.

But from a practical PoV, Mearls clearly understands the use to which such an encounter can be put in the game and the implications of including such in 4E and earlier editions in terms of resources.

Quote'If we're lucky' the rest of the rules that should have been published in the first place will be available?

No, "if we're lucky" sufficient guidance will be published to allow those people with less experience of the system to more readily see the potential within it. There is a very significant difference between "rules" and "advice", and nothing that I have talked about requires new rules, it's all just ways of using the rules which already exist. It's encounter design advice, nothing more.

QuoteBut you don't stick your hand in a fire to make sure, do you?  I mean, are you saying that no possible situation exists where direct experience is not necessary to make a judgement?

Whatever gives you that idea? I'm just saying that there is a difference between being told that fire hurts and actually being burnt.

I have a nice analogy using Shakespeare if you like?

QuoteThe other problem is when people don't take the time to show when an opinion is inaccurate, or how.

No, the problem is when the people they show don't listen.

Quote from: Trevelyan;263224In an ideal world they would both exist, but I don't think that 4E got rid of one and simply retained the other, it got rid of one (the random wandering monster) and promoted the other (interlinked, planned and triggered encounters).

I'm not exactly sure how getting rid of one and promoting (now with italics!) the other is significantly different than getting rid of one and retaining the other. Are you intending to imply that the promotion of the one was to cover the issues covered by the other - that the promotion of "triggered, planned" events was in ways that covered the needs addressed by wandering monsters? If so, in what ways do the former address what was addressed by the latter?

Quote from: Trevelyan;263224Even so, the notion of a random wandering monster isn't what lends verisimilitude, that comes from having monsters walking around on "patrol" or similar. You don't need a random chance roll on a die to determine that - why not just decide that an encounter with monsters will occur in area X of the dungeon if the PCs stay there for any length of time? Why does it have to be random?

So that it's not in the DM's hands to determine it? So that the players, including the DM, are never really quite sure if something is about to happen? Because luck is part of the excitement of the game?

The bolded part? That is what a wandering monster table is meant to do - coupled with a chance of that encounter happening.

I'm not sure, but is the random aspect of it happening the issue, or the random aspect of what is actually encountered?

Quote from: Drew;263243That's because this has nothing to do with play culture and everything to do with the perceived failings of 4E, which are being expounded via an inductive reading of Mearls' blog.

Oh, yeah. I'm with you. I just like pointing out the inconsistencies in their night incoherent hatred of a game...

Seanchai

Quote from: James J Skach;263254So that it's not in the DM's hands to determine it? So that the players, including the DM, are never really quite sure if something is about to happen? Because luck is part of the excitement of the game?

The bolded part? That is what a wandering monster table is meant to do - coupled with a chance of that encounter happening.

I'm not sure, but is the random aspect of it happening the issue, or the random aspect of what is actually encountered?

Actually both can still be random: For example: in the Weekend in the Realms adventure, there were encounters that had the Dm randomly determine (via a dice roll) if, when, and where extra monsters would be introduced into the encounter area.

The key concept that changes (and perhaps negates) the previous concept of wandering monsters is actually the encounter area. Instead of a room by room description, you might have 3 or 4 (or more) rooms kinda clumped together with their adjoining hallways and whatnot. Then somewhere in the encounter description there might be instructions to determine if the PCs are making enough noise to warrant a visit from a wanderer, or if there is some patrol through the area, etc, or even if the check happens after a set period of time/rounds.

And the reason the encounter area changes (or perhaps the idea of wandering monsters? Well, in my view it's because DM's rarely include a key to the hallways and arteries in a dungeon.  So previously they would add the wanderers to the level map to accomplish the same thing that 4e does with encounter areas.  

FWIW, I still use random wilderness encounters in 4E but not wandering monsters- it doesn't change the game at all as far as I can tell.

Quote from: Trevelyan;263245I'm confused, are you sugegsting that Orcus might be a PC here? Isn't it self evident that Orcus isn't a PC?

I agree, you are confused.  Are you seriously asking this question?  Clearly, you are assuming that NPCs and PCs having different rules is self-evidently better, but there is nothing to support that, so now you need to show why that is beneficial.

QuoteOk, so they have merit primarily as a means of reducing the resources available to a party? In which case why do they need to be random? Doesn't a preplanned encounter serve the exact same purpose?

No.  The 'pre-planned' part is what the DM writes to specifically challenge and reward the players.  The only way random encounters and pre-planned encounters serve the exact same purpose is if the pre-planned encounters are designed to deplete resources with little reward.  Are you saying that pre-planned encounters serve the same purpose as wandering monsters?  Do you have any support for that besides your assertion?

QuoteYou miss my point. The fact that three totally disparate groups are living in such close proximity is a feature of earlier edition design. 4E starts from the assumption that they wouldn't be, and any group of monsters living within close proximity is likely to be part of a larger community or ecosystem.

There is nothing to suuport that assumption.  I don't know if you have lived in any large community or city, but people across the fence from each other often don't know each other's names, how many kids they have, or anything else about them. Assuming they could even hear a ruckus in the other person's house, the odds of them calling the police range from moderately slim to none.

The idea that any group near another group is necessarily allied stems from the foundation that their only reason for existing in the first place is to provide an encounter or encounters for the PCs.

QuoteAbsolutely not the case. Had you actually read the 4E DMG you would know that it encourages the DM to ensure that a dungeon is designed with considerations like these in mind - it should never be a series of unrelated encounters put in place so the PCs have something to fight and should be designed, down to the layout and function of the rooms, to create a realistic environment which might exist independant of the PCs.

Had you read the 1st Edition DMG, you would see the exact same thing.

QuoteNow you've got me confused as you seem to be see-sawing between wandering monsters as a metagame means of reducing party resources and discouraging which has the consequential effect of enhancing verisimilitude, and wandering monsters as primarily a method of enhancing verisimilitude with the fringe benefit that they drain party resources and discourage loitering. Which is it? Functionally they might be said to do both to varying degrees, but what do you see as the original intent.

You seem to be see-sawing between different interpretations of my statements.  Recently, I mentioned that as a secondary element to rebutting your argument.  Monsters aren't standing around as a pre-planned encounter, or walking a set patrol waiting for the players to show up.  Those kinds of encounters are to provide a specific challenge, and require additional prep time.  Wandering monsters exist to throw the unexpected at the players to break out of the 'kick the door, attack the monsters' rut, and to keep them from searching every square inch of the dungeon.  As a side benefit, it shows the dungeon as a living, changing entity that exists apart from the PCs.  Why are the orcs there?  Who knows, the party just plowed into them coming around a corner.  Fight, flight, start talking?  That is for the PCs to figure out.

QuoteBut the real question is, why do they have to be wandering monsters in the "random chance of occuring" sense? Why can't they be planned encounters which the DM uses if the party doesn't move fast enough? If the aim is to discourage loitering then what value is there in a mechanic which might let the party get away with loitering as often as not?

It's a gamble.  You sound like you are looking for a game that has exactly planned out encounters at every step.  The DM plans the hallway encounters, the DM plans out the room encounters, if the players take too many rounds exploring the room, another pre-planned encounter triggers.

It's another gamble in the life of an adventurer who spends their time pushing the odds.  It's not a trip through Disney's Magic Mountain in a little car on rails.

You are treating this as though the 4e method is better because it is more recent.  You will need to start demonstrating why wandering monsters are detrimental to game play.

QuoteAre we talking about the same definition of wandering monster here? I'm specifically talking about (and the article deals with) monsters which have a random chance of simply turning up based largely on the outcome of a die roll.

That is exactly the definition of a wandering monster.

QuoteNothing inherent in that model is any more organic than simple determining in advance that such an event will occur. If you are talking about encounters with monsters who do more than simply sit in a room and wait for the PCs to arive then we're in agreement, I just don't see what advantage lies in their arrival being predicated on the roll of a die.

Well, it is the difference between a neatly planted row of trees, and an old-growth forest.  They are certainly both organic, but the old-growth forest is a good deal more interesting, for one thing.  Navigating it is a good deal more challenging.  Biodiversity is typically much higher.

There have been dozens upon dozens of posts and blogs as to why wandering monsters are beneficial and enjoyable, but the arguments against have primarily been "I don't like them".  Therefore, it now falls to you to present an argument as to why wandering monsters are detrimental besides a personal dislike or some kind of frustration anecdote.

QuoteThis is entirely true, and the DM should determine such things in advance. He might even decide to initiate a three way fight with orcs turning up to take advantage of the distraction to attack both sides. The point is that the implications of the existence of orcs and goblins in close proximity should be considered by the DM in advance.

Only if the dungeon is a very exacting set of discrete encounters.  In a clean, well-lit, OSHA certified dungeon with handrails, that is probably a good method.

Let's take a look at another situation.  You head down to Wal-Mart to grab a couple of notepads and a soda.  Or smokes and beer.  Or whatever it is you need.  The cashiers are there on a more or less regular schedule, but from your point of view, it's largely random.  (Why are there orcs in 15 instead of 17?)  Nonetheless, they are there because they are supposed to be.  Everyone other patron in Wal-Mart is there purely by happenstance.  They aren't there for your benefit, they aren't there for you to interact with, they didn't leave at an appropriate time to show up there when you do.  They are there precisely because they wanted to be, it has nothing to do with your presence.  They are random 'wandering monsters'.  What you decide to do in that instance is entirely up to you.  But they aren't there because someone planned them to be.

Well, unless your designed is based on some goofy philosophy that everything happens for a reason.  This isn't the place for me to make fun of silly theories, however.

QuoteOk, I admit that I phrased that last comment poorly, but you need to stop taking everything written so literally. Allow Mearls room for a little bit of flair in his writing and learn to spot the use of comedic hyperbole.

No way.  Seriously?  It's not what he said, it's what he meant?  Clearly, this is grasping for straws.  Allow Mearls' a little room for explaining what he meant on his own.  He cut a mechanic that he didn't fully understand, and now he is being called on it.  So, he is backpedalling and trying to offer suggestions for adding it back in.

QuoteForm a purely technical point of view, I agree with Mearls comment - what advantage exists in a random monster (random from the PoV of the DM as well as the players) rather than a planned encounter? From what you've said so far I don't thin that you could answer the question either.

Except, it has been answered.  It was there for an unplanned challenge to the players.  As a side benefit, it offered a sense of verisimilitude.  A tertiary benefit was the reduction in prep time.

QuoteBut from a practical PoV, Mearls clearly understands the use to which such an encounter can be put in the game and the implications of including such in 4E and earlier editions in terms of resources.

Which is a bold statement, as his blog from less than four months ago shows he is still in the dark as to the reasons or uses of wandering monsters.  I will certainly allow for changes in thought, and if you have a blog entry or forum discussion showing this change, I would be happy to read it.

QuoteNo, "if we're lucky" sufficient guidance will be published to allow those people with less experience of the system to more readily see the potential within it. There is a very significant difference between "rules" and "advice", and nothing that I have talked about requires new rules, it's all just ways of using the rules which already exist. It's encounter design advice, nothing more.

So, Dragon articles rather than a DMGII would be sufficient?  Or, perhaps blog entries from the authours?

QuoteWhatever gives you that idea? I'm just saying that there is a difference between being told that fire hurts and actually being burnt.

So, you would still believe someone with massive scarring on their hand over someone who hasn't?

QuoteNo, the problem is when the people they show don't listen.

Look, dude, you were directly contradicted by what Mearls' said, then started the hoop jumping to show what he said actually means what you want it to.

Perhaps you should work on this 'listening' of which you speak.

Quote from: StormBringer;263270There is nothing to suuport that assumption.  I don't know if you have lived in any large community or city, but people across the fence from each other often don't know each other's names, how many kids they have, or anything else about them. Assuming they could even hear a ruckus in the other person's house, the odds of them calling the police range from moderately slim to none.

The idea that any group near another group is necessarily allied stems from the foundation that their only reason for existing in the first place is to provide an encounter or encounters for the PCs.

Monsters in a dungeon are nothing like people in a city or neighbors in a community. For one thing, people in a modern community don't know one another's names because they don't need one another for anything. They drive to their communities in places that are far away. Knowing the guy next door and knowing the people you work with or go to church with are two totally different things, now, but take cars away and they become the same.

Monsters in a dungeon have to know everything they can about one another because they are going to go after the same food and water sources.

Not to mention, the dumber they are, the less likely they are to share a dungeon of any size with another creature. A pack of wolves, or a bear, will not, ever, share a cave with another large creature, let alone a bunch of orcs.

Quote from: Seanchai;263258Oh, yeah. I'm with you. I just like pointing out the inconsistencies in their night incoherent hatred of a game...

Seanchai

I personally played 4e once, made some characters, and hated it so much I never bought the books, read them, or tried to play it again. I thought it was easily the worst rpg I ever played. I can't imagine anyone who really hates the game wanting anything to do with it. I get bored just thinking about learning 4e enough to have a long opinion about specific mechanics.