Quote from: jeff37923;264275This is absolute bullshit.

If an isolated group of gamers think that 4e is full of more shit than a Christmas Turkey, then that has exactly what effect on any other unrelated 4e game?

Nothing. That's why I use words like "public" and "common", Jeffy. A culture relies on communication between its members. If they talk about it on the internet, write to Dragon or another magazine, attend conventions, or otherwise meet and discuss things with gamers (even if only to induct new gamers), then they are participating in the culture.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;264193I'm a bit rushed, but opinions of fashion are the very point of the ongoing discussion, and the divergence between your personal definition and the actual one is also pretty relevant.

There is no single "actual" definition of a random encounter against which mine could diverge. There are only implementations, of which my interpretation attempts to provide broad structural principles to distinguish them from other kinds of encounters.

QuoteThere's a big difference; one involves impersonal risk (to a large extent), the other is much more a matter of the DM specifically taking responsibility for modulating continuity and pacing. In the case with impersonal risk it's a lot easier for a DM to honestly say something after a game like, "Boy, you guys were lucky, I thought for sure you'd get caught sneaking through those tunnels," or "Tough break, it just wasn't your night."

This is just a matter of taste. One may prefer one style or another, but that doesn't make one "better" and one "inferior" since others may prefer the opposite.

Quote from: Drohem;264186This is your opinion, but it's simply not true for everyone.

I'll even use my group as an example.  I'm the only person in my group who participates in the hobby by taken part in online discussion on forums and boards like this one.  I'm the only person in my group who reads about the hobby and trends within the hobby.  All the other people in my group just buy the RAW, and play within our gaming group.  They don't belong to the 4e community.  Hell, they didn't even know that a 4th edition was being written until I told them.  The only thing that they have to go on is the RAW.  If the RAW doesn't have information or rules on wandering monsters or random encounters.  Guess what?  There are no random encounters or wandering monsters in the games run by everyone else in my group.  Why?  Because it's not in the RAW, and they don't participate in the culture of play.  I would say that gamers like you and me, and everyone else on these boards are the exception and not the rule.  Most gaming groups exist in isolation from the hobby conversation, or the culture of play.

I fully understand your points and contentions, and there is merit to them.  I'm just saying that your point is not absolute, and, more than likely, applies to the minority rather than the majority.  In fact, I think that the term 'culture of play' has a nice ring to it.

You yourself have pointed out on other threads that you're trying to change them to match your preferred style of play, which you describe using concepts you clearly picked up from the internet. They're not well-connected to the culture of play, but they are connected.

In this day and age, almost everyone is due to access to the internet and gaming overlapping quite a bit. They may not be well-connected in that they may not participate directly in online forums or whatever, but they are still tangentially connected to it.

As a second and final point, no one ever only has "RAW" to go on. Every rule requires interpretation, sometimes in a very abstract way, sometimes very directly. People can and do apply themselves to interpret those rules, to change them as desired, and to make on-the-spot decisions about whether they apply or not. It's simply a question of what knowledge or habits someone has are going to inform those acts.

Pseudo, your last response to my post is disappointing; it doesn't really address my points at all.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264879You yourself have pointed out on other threads that you're trying to change them to match your preferred style of play, which you describe using concepts you clearly picked up from the Internet.

No, I never once said that I was trying to change my group's play style.  I stated that I've come to realize my preference in style of play, and that it differs from the rest of my group currently.  Yes, I used some terms from the Internet.  I stated that I was the only active person in my group that participated in discussions on the Internet.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264879In this day and age, almost everyone is due to access to the Internet and gaming overlapping quite a bit. They may not be well-connected in that they may not participate directly in online forums or whatever, but they are still tangentially connected to it.

Access to the Internet does not equate to participating in the culture of play.  

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;264879As a second and final point, no one ever only has "RAW" to go on. Every rule requires interpretation, sometimes in a very abstract way, sometimes very directly. People can and do apply themselves to interpret those rules, to change them as desired, and to make on-the-spot decisions about whether they apply or not. It's simply a question of what knowledge or habits someone has are going to inform those acts.

Of course, groups or individuals may create House Rules.  However, there are also groups or individuals that may also play a game by the RAW.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;264902Pseudo, your last response to my post is disappointing; it doesn't really address my points at all.

It was a weird position for you to take, since depersonalisation is generally considered to be a feature of modern games like 3.x and Burning Empires, not "Old School" gaming.

If depersonalisation is a good thing, it's unclear why depersonalisation must operate in that specific way. For example, a DM could just as easily use perception or detection rolls on behalf of pre-positioned monsters to achieve the same result.

I'd in fact consider the latter superior to the former for two reasons:

1) If the monsters are already determined to be in the world and all that's in question is under what circumstances the PCs are going to encounter them, it allows the PCs to take actions to determine those circumstances, which increases their agency.

2) Logistically, it is easier on the DM, since they can already have the relevant material prepared, both mechanically and imaginatively. They monster's stats can be readied beforehand, and the DM can construct plausible reasons for why this monster is in the adventure location.

Rolling on a wandering monster table isn't terrible or anything, but it strikes me as only one possible way of introducing variability into the pacing of the adventure, to be honest, a particularly crude version at that unless combined with others (such as perception/detection rolls).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;265118Rolling on a wandering monster table isn't terrible or anything, but it strikes me as only one possible way of introducing variability into the pacing of the adventure, to be honest, a particularly crude version at that unless combined with others (such as perception/detection rolls).

Doesn't this presume the the reason for wandering monsters is to introduce variability into the pacing of the adventure? It seems to imply, also, that it's the only reason.

Couple this with "depersonalization", Pseudo, and you're starting to lose me.

Quote from: James J Skach;265122Doesn't this presume the the reason for wandering monsters is to introduce variability into the pacing of the adventure? It seems to imply, also, that it's the only reason.

I'm responding to Elliott's statements. Your objections ought to be leveled at him, not me.

I'm not sure if these are the only reasons Gygax included wandering monsters but I feel the intention was to provide unpredictability and time pressure, which aren't exactly the same as variabity of pacing, as well as reinforcing the degree to which the world is independent of the characters. As someone wrote (I think it was the Col.) the form of wandering monsters presented in OD&D and other early editions implies that the stuff you encounter is a property of the terrain or location rather than the party.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;265118It was a weird position for you to take, since depersonalisation is generally considered to be a feature of modern games like 3.x and Burning Empires, not "Old School" gaming.

If depersonalisation is a good thing, it's unclear why depersonalisation must operate in that specific way. For example, a DM could just as easily use perception or detection rolls on behalf of pre-positioned monsters to achieve the same result.

Eliot didn't say 'depersonal'.  He said 'impersonal'.  As in, 'impartial'.  Positioned, portioned, and parceled monsters are part of stocking the dungeon in the first place, and are necessarily part of the design.  Wandering monsters introduce a random element, one that can't be predicted or planned for.  It's part of playing a game.  The banker doesn't set the prices in Monopoly, nor direct the players to a specific porperty to land on, based on their ability to pay for it.  You roll the dice, decide if you can afford the property, and pass the turn.

Quote1) If the monsters are already determined to be in the world and all that's in question is under what circumstances the PCs are going to encounter them, it allows the PCs to take actions to determine those circumstances, which increases their agency.

They already took the actions to determine those circumstances.  They woke up and left the tavern that morning.  As Geddy Lee says: Why are we here?  Because we're here.  Roll the bones.

As I mentioned before, not every trip to Wal-Mart is a set piece.  Sometimes, you just run into a random assortment of humanity.  They aren't there to enlighten you, they aren't there to point out the best sales, they aren't there for any purpose related to you whatsoever.  The Great Dungeon Master in the sky rolled a bunch of wandering consumers for you.

Quote2) Logistically, it is easier on the DM, since they can already have the relevant material prepared, both mechanically and imaginatively. They monster's stats can be readied beforehand, and the DM can construct plausible reasons for why this monster is in the adventure location.

Clearly, you have never laid eyes on a wandering monster table.  Nothing about wandering monsters in any way prevents having the information in your notes.  Statblock, reasons and typcial reactions, squares to check off for hit points, &c.

Were you thinking a wandering monster table was just a bare list of monster names with numbers on the left?  You can grab a ton of olde school modules for $4 over on Paizo to brush up on your wandering monster knowledge.  The Queen of Spiders megamodule is the same $4 over there, and it is jam packed with good examples of how to set up wandering monster tables.

And why would they need some kind of deep plot related reason to be there?  What are the adventurers doing there?  Dowsing for gold.  Looking for shelter.  Treasure map.  What difference?  Especially in a wilderness adventure.  A planned and plotted encounter a thousand miles from nowhere is preposterous.

QuoteRolling on a wandering monster table isn't terrible or anything, but it strikes me as only one possible way of introducing variability into the pacing of the adventure, to be honest, a particularly crude version at that unless combined with others (such as perception/detection rolls).

How does one go about rolling for perception/detection without the relevant skills?  You are clearly thinking in a 3.x pattern.  It shows, frankly, in your posts.  The other pattern is this whole 'everything is there for a plot related reason' nonsense.  Utter drivel.  They are there as a decision point.  Does the party negotiate, run or fight?  It may only be a pack of goblins, but a low level party could still take a few hits, or foolishly waste their spells for little to no treasure or xp.  How does a perception roll improve this?  They have a few extra seconds to decide whether they...  talk, run or fight.  As much as you would like to believe more rolls make for more fun, not one whit is added to the game by extraneous rolls to detect a set encounter piece.  Have the characters happen upon it in the normal course of exploring, like all the other keyed locations.  There is absolutely no sense in adding additional keyed encounters in the hallways.

Because that is all you are really talking about.  Additional hallway encounters.  Your method has nothing in common with wandering monsters in the least.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265144I'm not sure if these are the only reasons Gygax included wandering monsters but I feel the intention was to provide unpredictability and time pressure, which aren't exactly the same as variabity of pacing, as well as reinforcing the degree to which the world is independent of the characters. As someone wrote (I think it was the Col.) the form of wandering monsters presented in OD&D and other early editions implies that the stuff you encounter is a property of the terrain or location rather than the party.

The problem is that just rolling on the table, no matter how well structured, doesn't really do anything to bring the creature in as a plausible part of the gameworld unless you surround it with things like perception rolls, etc. to explain its approach on the PCs.

The comparison I would draw is establishing a set of pre-designed patrols, each of which has a certain chance rolled every so often to be passing near enough to the PCs to make perception checks to spot them (and vice versa). I see the patrols (as one possible example, of course) as being equivalent, if not superior (because the DM is already prepped, as mentioned earlier) to rolling on the table.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;265149The problem is that just rolling on the table, no matter how well structured, doesn't really do anything to bring the creature in as a plausible part of the gameworld unless you surround it with things like perception rolls, etc. to explain its approach on the PCs.

Really? Because the point of the table, a well-structured one, is to provide that plausibility.

Why else do you find a Remorahaz in arctic and sub arctic conditions, and only then in rough or mountainous terrain, whereas no such creature appears in the temperate and sub-tropical conditions?

For reference, please consult pages 183-4 of your 1e DMG.

There are variations dealing with populated versus unpopulated areas; sylvan settings - even tables for pre-historic/dinosaur settings! All created to provide that plausibility.

I think, perhaps, we're running into very different ideas of what a wandering monster means.

In AD&D at least, a wandering or random encounter starts essentially by establishing that the monster is in the vicinity of the group; this is on pp. 47-49 of the DMG. You determine surprise, and from that you determine the distance at which the encounter occurs (i.e., the range at which at least one party becomes aware of the other). Then you move onto evasion, pursuit, and/or combat. Since AD&D had no perception rolls, the surprise and evasion guidelines effectively handled the questions that Pseudo raises. Or there's also the suggestion (at least in Moldvay/Cook, and almost certainly in AD&D) that encounters can be defined by the area to whatever degree of specificity the DM wishes. In other words, if you want patrols, you do exactly as Pseudo suggests, although in many circumstances the patrol will be included as one among several possible encounter types for the locale. The dungeon adventure I wrote up a while back shows how it's done.

The issue of prep is an interesting one; the thing about older editions of D&D is that prep is very easy, and so is rolling stuff up on the spot. So if the DM wants to, he or she can pregenerate a large number of encounters without wasting a lot of time, or conversely if an encounter occurs that isn't pregenerated, it doesn't slow the game down very much. Either way, there's less of a temptation and less of a need to channel adventures along the path of prep. (This is something that "Superdan" noticed as also affecting overall adventure design in the first two pages of this interesting essay.)

If you think the random encounter system could be further nuanced, you're right. For example you could have a rule or guideline so that if, say, a "bear" is rolled, the interpretation in some circumstances could be as subtle as finding bear tracks, dung, a deer carcass, etc.; the players' subsequent actions could determine whether they really encounter a bear.

But this is drilling down into the level of detail and abstraction you want to provide; it doesn't really change the fundamental philosophical difference between the risk properties of old-school random encounters and new-school approaches of planned or GM-improvised encounters. A GM who exerts very little control over when or what the PCs might encounter has effectively taken the stance that there's potentially more going on in the game world than he or she has mapped or scripted out. In practice, absolute randomness takes things too far--actually I think it's almost always better to have custom tables instead of the DMG encounter tables. I think this is because, unless you have some sort of Bayesian inference that feeds back into the system, pure randomness breaks the chains of causation and association that we use to make sense of the world. In plainer terms, random encounters represent risks due to incomplete information--not actual randomness in the world--and since they limit the ability of the GM to script or pace events, they mitigate the tendency of players to see the unknown in terms of GM psychology rather than hidden elements of the game-world. Instead of trying to second-guess the GM, they'll infer properties of the setting.

In very practical terms, emphasizing encounters based either on pre-keyed maps & notes or on random mechanics reduces the role of the GM in managing the direction and flow of the game and puts more responsibility on the players--they can't rely on the GM to feed them a steady but manageable series of encounters. The plausibility of random encounters isn't found in some detail of how the encounters are handled but in the basic premise of the setting as an external reality.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265193In very practical terms, emphasizing encounters based either on pre-keyed maps & notes or on random mechanics reduces the role of the GM in managing the direction and flow of the game and puts more responsibility on the players--they can't rely on the GM to feed them a steady but manageable series of encounters. The plausibility of random encounters isn't found in some detail of how the encounters are handled but in the basic premise of the setting as an external reality.

Once again, Mr. Wilen makes my point in a manner I hope to achieve some day.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265193In very practical terms, emphasizing encounters based either on pre-keyed maps & notes or on random mechanics reduces the role of the GM in managing the direction and flow of the game and puts more responsibility on the players--they can't rely on the GM to feed them a steady but manageable series of encounters. The plausibility of random encounters isn't found in some detail of how the encounters are handled but in the basic premise of the setting as an external reality.

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.