Wandering Monster Frequency Changes

[delta]

Consider:

(1) In OD&D Vol-3 (1974), p. 10, it says, "At the end of every turn the referee will roll a six-sided die to see if a 'wandering monster' has been encountered."

(2) In Holmes Basic D&D (1977), p. 10, it says, "At the end of each three turns the Dungeon Master can roll a die to see if a wandering monster has come down the corridor. A roll of 6 means that something has come 'strolling' along." Zenopus Archives informs us this rule is the same in both Holmes' draft and after Gygax's editorial pass.

(3) In the AD&D DMG (1979), there is no explicit rule for frequency of dungeon wandering monsters, but a parenthetical note in the sample of play (p. 98) says, "(Here, as about 3 turns have elapsed, the DM rolls a d6 to see if a ’wandering monster’ appears; the resulting 5 indicates none.)".

So between 1974 and 1977 the standard rule seems to have been changed from check-every-turn to check-every-3-turns. It seems a bit odd that the revised rule first appears in Holmes' draft, and then has Gygax following suit in the later DMG. I can't think of any other rules novel to Holmes that Gygax honored in his later writings. (In addition there's a fairly long screed in the DMG Introduction p. 9 warning about the possible evils of random wandering monster checks.)

Was there any prior written revision or suggestion for reducing wandering monster rolls in OD&D (before the Holmes draft)? Is there any evidence that Holmes learned of the suggested revision from Gygax, or was it vice-versa, or from some 3rd party?

[Scott Anderson]

Interesting question. What inspired it?

(Btw 1-in-6 chance every ten minutes and every time the PCs stop and make a racket)

[delta]

Jan 7, 2020 13:16:20 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

Interesting question. What inspired it?

Well, basically I noticed the change from OD&D to AD&D, started to interpret that as a significant philosophical adjustment by Gygax, and then noticed Holmes actually seemed to put it on paper first. So I'm wondering how intentional or accidental that was, and who was the original theorist who "won the argument". So to speak.

[captainjapan]

I like the VanGrasstek method, where you roll for wandering monsters (doubles on 2d6) whenever the corridor dead-ends.

[Zenopus]

delta: Good question! It does seem strange that Holmes would just make this change on his own and then Gygax would off-handedly refer to it in the DMG Example of Play as if everyone knew about it.

I do note that Gygax also mentions it on page 90 of the DMG: "Check for encounters every three turns as normally, or otherwise as desired."
But this presumes that every three turns has been defined as normal elsewhere.

I double-checked the Holmes Manuscript and it does say three turns. Holmes also mentions it again in the Sample Dungeon, Room C, so it wasn't just a one-off typo:

Remember that at the end of 3 turns a wandering monster might appear — corridors are likely places for this to happen

I have no clue where he got this change from. I checked a few possible places - the Solo D&D rules in SR#1, the D&D FAQ in SR#2, the M&TAs, the Geomorphs, Warlock, and EPT but didn't turn up anything. EPT follows OD&D strictly: "At the end of every turn the referee will roll a 6- sided die, and a roll of 6 indicates that the party has encountered one or more wandering creatures" (page 63).

There is the possibility that Holmes discussed this change with Gygax by phone or letter prior to writing the manuscript.

[Scott Anderson]

This seems like a slide away from hardcore simulation/survival/horror toward a more fun and fantastic adventure. The PCs are less hamburger waiting to be eaten and more Heroes.

So it has always been thus but I find regular wandering checks to make the dungeon better - even if more dangerous.

[waysoftheearth]

B1 (1978?) also has under WANDERING MONSTERS: "Check every third turn; 1 in 6 (roll a 6-sided die)" p8.

interesting thou that B2 seems to omit this section?

[talysman]

Could it be that the change was mainly to reduce the number of die rolls?

I switched to wandering monsters on 5+ (1d6) but rolling every other turn, for that reason... but looking at this and reconsidering the probabilities, I should probably change to once an hour, followed by another d6 roll to determine which turn the encounter will appear.

[delta]

Jan 7, 2020 22:48:20 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

delta: Good question! It does seem strange that Holmes would just make this change on his own and then Gygax would off-handedly refer to it in the DMG Example of Play as if everyone knew about it.

Thanks! And thanks immensely for checking all those other sources looking for more clues. Really fascinating that the Holmes draft seems to be the first place it gets written down. Now I wish we had transcripts of any advance calls between him and Gygax.

Jan 7, 2020 22:48:20 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

I do note that Gygax also mentions it on page 90 of the DMG: "Check for encounters every three turns as normally, or otherwise as desired." But this presumes that every three turns has been defined as normal elsewhere.

I think that passage is on p. 190, specific to City/Town Encounters, right? (It's the only place I find that language on a text search.)

[grodog]

Jan 7, 2020 22:48:20 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

I double-checked the Holmes Manuscript and it does say three turns. Holmes also mentions it again in the Sample Dungeon, Room C, so it wasn't just a one-off typo:

Remember that at the end of 3 turns a wandering monster might appear — corridors are likely places for this to happen

I have no clue where he got this change from. I checked a few possible places - the Solo D&D rules in SR#1, the D&D FAQ in SR#2, the M&TAs, the Geomorphs, Warlock, and EPT but didn't turn up anything. EPT follows OD&D strictly: "At the end of every turn the referee will roll a 6- sided die, and a roll of 6 indicates that the party has encountered one or more wandering creatures" (page 63).

There is the possibility that Holmes discussed this change with Gygax by phone or letter prior to writing the manuscript.

Since Eric and Chris attended GenCon together a few years in a row, the change have been based on observing EGG, RJK, DA, etc. running games, perhaps. I haven't gone back to look at Eric's manuscript scans, Zenopus but perhaps they might also make clearer when the change happened for his personal games, or if it was only in the Basic set ms.

Allan.

[dicebro]

If possible, check some of the amateur zines from the era to see if the d6 roll every turn was discussed or griped about. Might find a good lead to”evidence” there. Or ask Tim Kask. He’d be a good primary source of info.

[rustic313]

One could roll 1d20 every round and get a similar probability of encounters as Rolling 1d6 every three turns, could they not?

Assuming monsters on a "1" of course...

[gemini476]

1d20 every round gives a 14.26%/three rounds probability, which is close-ish but not quite the 16.67% of 1d6/three rounds. Also, it's just that much more rolling.

Another interesting thing to note, I guess, is that OD&D is actually more like 1d6/two rounds: players get two moves per turn in OD&D but IIRC just one per turn in later products.

[dicebro]

It’s a rule that is impossible for me to follow to the letter either way. I just roll for WM when it feels right, or when I’m bored. It’s more fun that way.

[Mordorandor]

Jan 6, 2020 23:39:02 GMT -6 delta said:

Consider:

Moldvay has the following.

“At the end of every 2 turns, the DM should check for Wandering Monsters.”

[muddy]

Jan 8, 2020 10:52:17 GMT -6 talysman said:

Could it be that the change was mainly to reduce the number of die rolls?

That would be my guess, especially considering the implications of "every turn + whenever the party makes a racket".  If they spend a turn banging down a stuck door should I roll twice that turn - once for racket and once for chance encounter?

[dukeofchutney]

Player activity does affect my roll frequency as does whatever wandering monster/ encounters table I’m using. Base d6 ever 3 turns but that assumes stealth quiet players. If the dungeon is densely populated or if I think the random tables are interesting this increases.

Interesting to read the evolution of the rule sets

[Mordorandor]

I just came across this passage on p9 of the 1e DMG.

Thought I'd risk replicating the full passage verbatim to show where Gygax had landed re: Wandering Monsters in 1978/9.

The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. For example, the rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well- thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest, and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the “monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game. Wandering monsters, however, are included for two reasons, as is explained in the section about them. [Editor's note: not sure where this section is. I can't seem to find it.] If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter, but in the example above it is assumed that they are doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination. If your work as a DM has been sufficient, the players will have all they can handle upon arrival, so let them get there, give them a chance. The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play.

[geoffrey]

Jan 8, 2020 0:27:21 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

B1 (1978?) also has under WANDERING MONSTERS: "Check every third turn; 1 in 6 (roll a 6-sided die)" p8.

interesting thou that B2 seems to omit this section?

I think that B2 does not have wandering monsters because the Caves of Chaos are so heavily inhabited by monsters that there really aren't many places that wandering monsters could wander without getting attacked by the caves' dwellers:

A. KOBOLD LAIR
1. kobolds
2. giant rats
3. no monsters
4. kobolds
5. kobolds
6. kobolds
Analysis: 83% of the rooms have monsters, and 67% of them are kobolds. The door to the only room with no monsters is locked. What could wander around in these caves without getting into an immediate war with the kobold tribe?

B. ORC LAIR
7. orcs
8. orcs
9. no monsters
10. orcs
11. no monsters
12. orcs
Analysis: 67% of the rooms have monsters, and 100% of them are orcs. The door to area 11 is locked. What could be wandering in area 9? It would have been attacked by the orc guards at 7 and 8. There simply is not any place herein for something other than a member of the orc tribe to be wandering around.

C. ORC LAIR
13. giant centipedes
14. orcs
15. orcs
16. orcs
Analysis: 100% of the rooms have monsters, and 75% of them are orcs. Area 13 is accessible only through secret doors, and only the two orc leaders know that it exists. Any monster other than a member of the orc tribe wandering through here would immediately be set upon by orcs.

D. GOBLIN LAIR
17. goblins
18. goblins
19. goblins
20.goblins
21. guarded by goblins
Analysis: Basically 100% of the rooms have monsters, and 100% of them are goblins. Anything other than a member of the goblin tribe would be attacked by goblins.

E. OGRE CAVE
22. ogre
Analysis: Only one area, and it is the lair of the ogre. Would the ogre permit monsters to poke around in his cave?

F. HOBGOBLIN LAIR
23. hobgoblins
24. hobgoblins
25. hobgoblins
26. hobgoblins
27. hobgoblins
28. hobgoblin
29. hobgoblins
30. hobgoblins
31. hobgoblins
Analysis: 100% of the rooms have monsters, and 100% of them are hobgoblins. Pity the poor monster that thinks it could wander about in here!

G. SHUNNED CAVERN
32. empty (though on average every other round spent therein will bring giant rats, the owl bear from 34, or a gray ooze from 33)
33. gray oozes
34. owl bear
Analysis: 67% of the rooms have monsters, and the only one that does not will have a monster if you spend more than a minute or two in it. Where would wandering monsters wander?

H. BUGBEAR LAIR
35. bugbears
36. bugbears
37. no monster
38. bugbears
39. bugbears
40. prisoners
41. prisoners
Analysis: 57% of the rooms have monsters, and 100% of them are bugbears (unless you count the prisoners). All areas without bugbears are securely locked. Monsters could not wander about in here, with the obvious exception of members of the bugbear tribe.

I. CAVES OF THE MINOTAUR
42. stirges
43. fire beetles
44. fire beetles
45. minotaur
Analysis: 100% of the rooms have monsters. The twisting passageways could conceivably have monsters lost therein that wandered in from outside.

J. GNOLL LAIR
46. gnolls
47. gnolls
48. no monsters
49. gnolls
50. gnolls
Analysis: 80% of the rooms have monsters, and 100% of them are gnolls. The only room without a monster is locked. Any monster wandering about here would be given short shrift by the gnolls.

K. SHRINE OF EVIL CHAOS
51. no monsters
52. skeletons
53. zombies
54. acolytes
55. no monsters
56. adepts
57. skeletons and zombies
58. no monsters
59. evil priest
60. no monster
61. torturer
62. wight
63. gelatinous cube
64. medusa
Analysis: 71% of the rooms have monsters, and 70% of them are either cult members or their skeleton/zombie servitors. Area 51 is not even a room but a blocked passage between two rooms with monsters. The passage between area 55 and the cave entrance could conceivably have monsters that wandered in from outside, and the same is true for the passage between area 58 and the cave entrance, and the same is true for the passage between area 60 and the cave entrance.

Basically, only some of the passages in the minotaur's labyrinth and the Shrine of Evil Chaos could realistically host wandering monsters (not including, of course, the monsters that lair in the caves and which might wander about). Wandering kobolds will not be in the goblin caves, gnomes won't be in the hobgoblin caves, berserkers won't be puttering about in the orc lair, etc. Wandering monsters would be almost solely the caves' inhabitants listed in the module wandering about.

[dicebro]

Checking every 3 turns fits pretty well with the following procedure: Turn 1: moving down corridor to next room. Turn 2: exploring next room and/or combat with inhabitant. Turn 3: Resting & Packing Loot before moving on.

[grodog]

FWIW, I design the WM checks as part of the general level design, which is to say that some areas within a level will have higher-traffic areas with more-frequent and/or higher-probability of encounters for WM checks, while other areas will have lower/lesser chances. Sometimes these play out across an entire level/sub-level, but more often I segment these by areas within a level based on how I imagine the traffic patterns among the inhabitants of the level as well as from nearby/adjacent levels/sub-levels (who may be raiding/exploring other areas nearby, in addition to on their own levels).

I'll generally tailor the WM encounters based on these level sections, too, so that some monsters may only be encountered as WM on one table/in one area within a level, while in another section those monsters don't appear on the table as WM options.

Allan.

[dicebro]

WM checks seem to be relevant to movement speed, which is related to encumbrance, which is germane to loot being carried.