Random roleplaying musings

[jack]

Armour Class

Emblematic of 5e reducing the spread between low and high level is something I noticed in the monster manual, armour class is even flatter than other stats, that first level players are generally fighting monsters with AC 12-15, 20 might be possible for something fragile but really hard to hit. But the highest AC in the whole thing is the Tarrasque with AC only 25. Which doesn't mean level 20s are not mythological compared to level 1s, but that they improve in ways other than "bigger numbers", and low-level monsters are relevant for longer.

"Legendary" monsters

I also like what they did with some really tough monsters, like adult dragons. They have two features which make them effective as a large single monster. They have extra actions they take after other people's turns (often a simple attack). That means that combat is more interactive than "ok, you win initiative you marmelise the dragon before it acts" or "ok, the dragon wins initiative, it kills you, you and you" even if there's only one monster.

And also, instead of spell resistance, they have three "legendary points" which let them pass a saving throw they would otherwise have failed. That means, "I mind control the dragon" is never a game-winner, but nor is it completely useless. I don't know why that feels more appropriate than spell resistance, but it does to me -- maybe that it didn't make sense to me that "big and tough" automatically meant "resistance to magic", but "I'm just that epic" fits naturally into "you can't take me out in one hit".

There is still spell resistance in a simpler form (they have a bonus on saving throw) for a few monsters where it's appropriate.

But I also notice, it's one mechanic that stays leaning into a videogame or story-telling mode than a simulationist mode -- there's no in-world understanding of what this is, it just makes things more dramatic, and is explicitly appropriate for large single monsters (I might use the same mechanic for a party of 0th level halflings fighting a troll, but not for a party of gods fighting a swarm of adult dragons).

Stunts in combat

A problem I often had with players first getting into a mechanics-heavy roleplaying system like DnD is when someone does something dramatic like "I jump over the balcony swinging on the chandelier and attack the orc from above". There are no rules for that, really not, and it's easy for the GM to revert to a habit of saying "you can't" or "ok, you roll an attack" or "ok, here's the rules for jumping, no, it doesn't say you get any benefit". You do want to embrace that! (At least in my sort of 50/50 roleplaying, if you're concentrating on miniature wargaming, then maybe not.)

But I read an article that pointed out, if you default to fancy stunts being "make a str/dex check against DC 15, if you do, you get a small bonus to an attack, or another effect like driving them back", then it usually just works -- the dramatic move has a clear advantage, but not such a big one that usual combat is pointless. So it allows a reasonable amount of adlibbing.

It also suggests allowing the target a saving throw. I might just ignore that in the case of one-off stunts, or stunts against minion-enemies, but it says it's a useful balancing feature in any case where the stunt might make a big different ("I want to push the lich off the cliff", "I want to disarm EVERY COMBAT").

The wandering monster table is like the audience members who yell out suggestions on an improv show

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1248/roleplaying-games/re-running-the-megadungeon-part-2-restocking-the-dungeon

The wandering monster table is like the audience members who yell out suggestions on an improv show: Simply yelling out “mime” and “airplane” doesn’t make for a comedy show; it requires the improv actors to create a sketch about a mime pilot making an announcement over the plane’s intercom system for that. Similarly, just having random “giant spiders” attack the PCs because the table says so doesn’t make for an adventure; what you need are giant spiders in a particular place for a particular reason and doing a particular thing.

I definitely used to think "wandering monster, huh, why would you do that?" But now, although I haven't tried it, I can see when it could be a useful approach:

You wouldn't necessarily use this when you know in advance somewhere's important, where you hopefully will plan it in advance.

But consider when you're simulating an area more detailed than you can conceivably plan in advance. OK, you're sneaking into an orc camp. You plan the areas, where most orcs are. But they're also going to be wandering about, getting a snack, leaving to scout, etc. You can't plan every single Orc's hunger level. Probably the best way of giving that effect is to say "about every 5 minutes, some orc wanders SOMEWHERE", and if the players are still sneaking about, roll randomly to discover what the orcs are doing.

And the same if the players are exploring a dungeon larger than 5 rooms; it's big enough the monsters probably do wander about, if you're pretending there's some sort of ecology, and if you assume that, it adds a bit of verisimilitude over just "the monsters wait where they are until you find them". And it can also lead to more interesting exploring -- the PCs are not incentivised to always clear through methodically, but to choose trade-offs "safer to hole up for the night or go deeper while we can?"

And it can lead to awesome moments. Some things are more interesting when they happened by chance, which is why there's a random element in combat. If the giant earthworm blunders across the party when they're half-way through crossing a pit-trap, or an NPC party with the very item the party needed are camped in the first room, and everyone knows the GM decided it, it's just "ah, now the GM is screwing with us". But if it's chance, it can lead to hilarious memories.

Comments

[rysmiel]

But consider when you're simulating an area more detailed than you can conceivably plan in advance. OK, you're sneaking into an orc camp. You plan the areas, where most orcs are. But they're also going to be wandering about, getting a snack, leaving to scout, etc. You can't plan every single Orc's hunger level.

Tempting though that would be, you're probably right. (I do want to keep an eye on what the orc who actually has bubonic plague is doing, though. Him bumping into the party is different from the others.)

Probably the best way of giving that effect is to say "about every 5 minutes, some orc wanders SOMEWHERE", and if the players are still sneaking about, roll randomly to discover what the orcs are doing.

I agree entirely. That is organised enough for me not to really think of it as a random monster, though.

And the same if the players are exploring a dungeon larger than 5 rooms; it's big enough the monsters probably do wander about, if you're pretending there's some sort of ecology, and if you assume that, it adds a bit of verisimilitude over just "the monsters wait where they are until you find them". And it can also lead to more interesting exploring -- the PCs are not incentivised to always clear through methodically, but to choose trade-offs "safer to hole up for the night or go deeper while we can?"

A lot depends on what kind of dungeon it is, though. A cave system with a couple of high-end predators lairing in it, and a group of smaller scavengers in a side cave too small for the big predators to get into, and maybe a couple of people who have been there for a week or two trying to take advantage of the situation, and sundry fungi and slimes of the sort that go back and forth between counting as monsters and as hazards depending on the edition you are using, is one thing, and in that case, where you expect to meet the giant spider wandering about would totally depend on whether the dragon's out hunting or no; on the other hand, if you're in the basement of a frost giant fortress, I'd expect patrols, but I'd also expect that the particular frost giants hammering out weapons in the smithy or tanning leather in the tannery would stay in their rooms most of the working day and in the barracks or dining rooms at predictable points the rest of the time, and random giant centipedes showing up is unlikely without some specific circumstance to explain them. And then again if you happen to be a powerful evil wizard who is setting up a vault full of traps and monsters to keep passing adventurers off your treasure, it's to your advantage to go for the kind of monsters that won't eat each other or wander off, and you can populate quite a satisfactory dungeon with undead and golems and bound demons that will all plausibly default to staying where they are put.

Some things are more interesting when they happened by chance, which is why there's a random element in combat. If the giant earthworm blunders across the party when they're half-way through crossing a pit-trap, or an NPC party with the very item the party needed are camped in the first room, and everyone knows the GM decided it, it's just "ah, now the GM is screwing with us". But if it's chance, it can lead to hilarious memories.

I don't think I'm quite in sympathy with this.

I do, as a GM, firmly believe there's a place for "this monster is way too tough and if you take it on directly it will eat you all, but right now you want to rescue the kid it's captured and get the heck out". (Also for "you are strong enough to massacre these monsters without breathing hard, maybe that's not the optimal solution here and you should look more closely at what's going on".) Both of which are, IMO, easier to signal to your players if planned in advance than if they come up on a random roll. And the alternative of having a random encounter table that's only challenges within a fairly narrow range that the party can handle tends to break my suspension of disbelief without fairly specific large-scale setup. (If your party's of a level to be fighting mostly regular orcs, breaking into an orc encampment and meeting mostly orcs as wandering monsters makes sense for them. An encampment where most of the wanderers are ogres is probably not a pro-survival place for them to be at that level anyway.)

I'm not sure I see the difference between the scale of "GM screwing with us" your examples are and the scale at which a whole campaign is that. Then again, necessary plot tokens are absolutely the last thing I would randomly give out, and if I send a giant earthworm against people half-way across a pit-trap, it's either because that was part of the plot from the beginning, or because the previous four pit traps were meant to be a significant challenge and the players have been breezing through them so I want to readjust the degree of challenge this particular bit is.

[jack]

I agree entirely. That is organised enough for me not to really think of it as a random monster, though.

I commented above, I think I've seen a lot of recent articles about how random monsters (maybe "procedurally generated" would be a better term :)) can work well (basically if it feels a natural extension of the place, it's not usually obvious or doesn't matter which encounters are "random" and which aren't, it would feel odd if it were more static than that). But I've not seen old school play, I've seen pariodies of "you walk into a room and there's a... 20-ft basilisk there", and I don't know how much that's an accurate description... but if it is, I agree, that's not what I usually want.

[rysmiel]

I think I've seen a lot of recent articles about how random monsters (maybe "procedurally generated" would be a better term :))

Oh, I do like that, that very much makes the distinction I was flailing around for.

I've seen pariodies of "you walk into a room and there's a... 20-ft basilisk there", and I don't know how much that's an accurate description... but if it is, I agree, that's not what I usually want.

Certainly, "random monsters are supposed to be random and oops, I rolled something from the last three entries on the d% table that is way too strong for you to fight, so there goes that party" is a problem I have hit with DMs and wish to avoid as a DM myself.

[jack]

Oh, cool. Right, that makes sense.

[jack]

A lot depends on what kind of dungeon it is, though.

Oh yes. I mean, "it's usually useful" not "you always have to do it". In the one-shot I ran it was fairly small and I didn't have any random elements.

Although there were a few things like hazardous static obstacles which could have gone in multiple places and I dropped in when they felt appropriate. And though I did have things like "assume the players spot about 75% of the things they MIGHT spot, and make sure the adventure works in that case (everything else is either spotted automatically, or doesn't need to be spotted.)"

In the frost giant example, I can see the GM either saying "the patrols and snack-breaks are negligible, it's more fun to just concentrate on the infiltration" or "I want the players to be cautious of patrols even if they're not continuous, wandering monsters are 10% patrol 10% one giant on an errand 80% nothing" depending which they think is more fun and captures the feel of the fortress better.

I agree, if there's no centipedes, there's no need to centipedes :) Although a few challenges which SOMEHOW give a small chance of discovery may keep things tense, eg. areas where it's easy but not trivial to pass unseen.

[jack]

I don't think I'm quite in sympathy with this.

I'm sorry, I think I didn't quite have a good enough idea what I was trying to get across and I think I again chose a bad example. I'm not talking specifically about tougher monsters, I'm talking about a random element having a beneficial effect on the story, and I thought that might have been a useful example but it obviously wasn't.

I think one of the interesting things about roleplaying games is the potentially beneficial effect random elements can have on the experience. I'm not sure I have a comprehensive understanding of that, but I feel like there are ways that happens.

One is, the effect of increased variance on creativity -- that if people just make something up, they can repeatedly fall into the same cliches, but if they have an external source of input to riff off, you can produce lots more ideas. cf. the example given of improv shows and stand-up comedians asking the audience for a random premise for a sketch. cf. authors seeking prompts, even random, bad or bizarre prompts, to get ideas flowing. Maybe some people do this so instinctively they don't notice that having a framework for it can help other people. But it's easy for many GMs (notably me) to fall into the same cliches for NPCs, etc. But if you seed one with one or two somewhat less usual elements, it can be memorably different and some can grow. I think you get the same effect by throwing characters into your setting, and having them do what you didn't expect. But you can also get it from (judicious) explicit randomness, common in combat ("you remember that time when?"!), but also in "just happening to walk into the right/wrong monster at the right/wrong time".

And I think, some randomness makes it more exciting. If the GM decides in advance which combats will be a success and which won't, that makes a good book, but loses what's special at roleplaying, that the story depends on how well the characters genuinely do (both due to player tactics and character luck). If the players surprisingly succeed or surprisingly lose, they often talk about it for ages. And I think it's hard to capture that same feel if the encounter result is purely decided, not determined through play. And I was trying to say, I think the same sort of thing can happen with (judicious) randomness in other areas, such as whether the party do, or do not, end up slap-bang face-to-face with the orc patrol :)

[rysmiel]

I think one of the interesting things about roleplaying games is the potentially beneficial effect random elements can have on the experience. I'm not sure I have a comprehensive understanding of that, but I feel like there are ways that happens.

It depends on the scale of random event, to my way of thinking.

One is, the effect of increased variance on creativity -- that if people just make something up, they can repeatedly fall into the same cliches, but if they have an external source of input to riff off, you can produce lots more ideas.

I can see this in principle. In practice.. I am reasonably confident that I don't feel a huge need for it as a DM, playing off good players there's usually been enough creative synergy that I am not often minded to throw in large-scale randomness. (And also that the creative benefit of large-scale randomness does not always outweigh the degree of work I have to do on the fly if a fairly complex set-up has just been significantly altered.)

And I think, some randomness makes it more exciting. If the GM decides in advance which combats will be a success and which won't, that makes a good book, but loses what's special at roleplaying, that the story depends on how well the characters genuinely do (both due to player tactics and character luck). If the players surprisingly succeed or surprisingly lose, they often talk about it for ages. And I think it's hard to capture that same feel if the encounter result is purely decided, not determined through play.

I pretty much agree, within certain limits.

My opinion here is basically; killing everybody at random is usually not much fun, and less so the more focused one's game is on character development and complex narrative arcs and so on. At the other extreme, I also prefer not to have random elements make everything boringly easy. Ideally in a D&D-type setting I am aiming for a feel of significant challenge, tension and high stakes and drama, and I don't know that there's any hard and fast way of determining how to establish that in advance particularly as it is so dependent on your players.

There is also a certain art to scaling things to teach new players tactics. A fairly early encounter with a level-appropriate flying enemy to teach them that everyone who can should carry a missile weapon at all times, for example.