Blog Book Club #56: Wandering Monsters

[Barnum]

Welcome to the blog book club. This week we are discussing “A Procedure for Wandering Monsters” by John B. of the Retired Adventurer.

For next week we are reading “Armor and Inventory Jr.” by Arnold Kemp of Goblin Punch.

You can see a list of previous blog club posts here.

—

The exact frequency of wandering monsters in old school games is dependent on the system and sometimes the adventure. One of the standard methods is found in Basic D&D which notes there’s a 1 in 6 chance of an encounter appearing every other dungeon turn. This week’s blog post expands what happens during the other 5 out 6 times a monster doesn’t show up: stumbling on the monster’s lair, spoors that indicate the monster is nearby, tracks that a monster has passed this way before, and traces that can identify the monster.

I think this is an imaginative and cool way of conceptualizing dungeon space. Would I ever use this system? Well that depends…

On a result of 4 a Yeti may have recently left this track.

Pros. This procedure may give players more agency over information of dungeon ecology by allowing them to learn about the dungeon. It can also add new choices to players who wish to track down or avoid a particular monster. Finally, it grounds enemies to locations within a dungeon that would otherwise be floating and some players may appreciate the increased verisimilitude.

Cons. Greater mental load on the GM and to some degree the players. The blog gives an example random encounter chart with 11 entries. I feel like tracking the conflict states of 11 different monsters through a single dungeon level is a lot. Even if you pair down the results to fewer monsters, I still believe that more dynamic dungeons will introduce complexity.

Also, I have a mild objection to the ‘lairs’ result as it may conflict with other dungeon design principles. Say you roll a lair result in a keyed room with an encounter. I just feel like while the other results focus on the present status of monster relative to a player, this one changes the dungeon itself. For me the role of a wandering monster is not necessarily to expand the dungeon, but keep the pressure on player decision making. Introducing this procedure could alter the focus of the game.

Does that mean this tracking system is without value? No way. I feel like this procedure would shine in very barebone dungeons with monsters and otherwise minimal keying. The so-called monster hotels of yesteryear without much else going on. Maybe it could help breath some life into Palace of the Vampire Queen. While the standard D&D game is about finding ways to avoid or dispatch monsters through efficient use of party resources, this system could be useful in campaigns that want to bring monster hunting front and center.

In a few weeks we’ll check out the hazard dice post on the Necropraxis blog which provides a condensed version of the monster tracking concept.

What do you think about this system?

Happy Hunting.

[martin]

This is a rather maximalist version of this kind of encounter procedure. But it’s become pretty common in OSR/NSR to have a single “traces” entry for each encounter, and encounter that on a 2. Off the top of my head, Desert Moon of Karth is one such example from the last few years.

Also, I want to know more about this line:

The Flying Oozes leave chemtrails from their jetpacks, for example.

[pladohsghost]

This is the sort of approach I was happy to see when I finally stumbled across the OSR online a few years ago. I think the traditional approach of only having something interesting/an encounter happen infrequently just doesn’t fit well with what I imagine a lively game would provide. Authors of books can skip all the parts where little happens and focus only on the interesting parts. Playing a game that doesn’t offer good ways to skip around like that means more should be happening every step of the way. I say wilderness travel should be hopping with wilderness happenings, especially in lands that are teeming with wildlife and ancient ruins and all the stuff of fantasy.

Pointcrawls can focus in on primary locations for interesting stuff to happen. I think they leave out interesting stuff, too, so a bit more randomness would be good. Working extra random things into a pointcrawl can make for a working substitute for a hexcrawl, certainly, though I expect both pointcrawl and hexcrawl procedures should be available (use the tool needed at the moment).