Matt Miller
In DnD, most XP comes from defeating monsters in combat. Making combat the main source of XP may not have been intended. But good tables on appropriate amounts of XP are available for combat, and none for other types of encounters. People respond to incentives. This suggests we need charts for different types of encounters-- a 'monster manual' for non-combat encounters, that includes appropriate XP.
I've never used wandering monster charts. I prefer to use lists that are based on environment, or theme them for the dungeon. Random encounters are done better through video games and don't tell much of a story....I bet fourth has charts out there, but if not, you could use 3e or pathfinder charts easily enough.
Nathan Dowdell
Functionally, random encounters are a part of a different style of play than 4e supports. 4e encounters are very much of the "set piece action movie" style, which makes random, spontaneous conflicts difficult to deal with (the best 4e encounters are ones the GM has had time to plan and prepare, with interesting environments and challenging opponents).
Wandering monster charts work well in 4e, assuming you aren't hand-waving exploration. Often 4e adventures assume you walk to the next dungeon or room of guys without incident, and as a result the dungeons can feel small, pre-generated and mechanical. The other thing that's different about 4e adventures is that encounters are usually balanced around the party, where random encounter tables usually don't cater towards any particular level PC.
There is no reason not to build Wandering Monster charts based on environment. A dungeon is a pretty generic environment--you can put almost anything inside it. A swamp or a forest offers a diverse habitat where dozens of creatures/foes could appear.
Making a wandering monster table is really easy... Just pick any number of your favorite monsters and make a table out of it...then, decide how frequently they will occur... 5th edition uses 17-20 on a d20. Older D&D versions used a roll of 1 on a d10, or a roll of 1 in 6. Frequency is all up to you -- the more frequent monsters appear, the more difficult things are for the party.
Nathan Dowdell
Random encounters really have their origin - and find their purpose most strongly - in the earliest versions of D&D, back when you got XP equal to gold recovered, rather than getting XP for monsters killed. By focussing all reward on treasure, the idea of avoiding encounters (because encounters could mean casualties, which lessens your ability to succeed) through stealth, guile, diplomacy, or deception becomes important. Encumbrance also matters here - the more you carry, the slower you travel, and the more chance of random encounters... which are a risk, rather than another source of XP, but the less you carry, the less XP you get at the end. In that context, XP-for-Gold, Encumbrance, and Random Encounters are three parts of a mechanical construct that encourages cunning over brute force, and self-preservation over battlefield glory.
In that context, XP-for-Gold, Encumbrance, and Random Encounters are three parts of a mechanical construct that encourages cunning over brute force, and self-preservation over battlefield glory.
Random encounters serve less of a purpose outside of that context, becoming more an element of worldbuilding for sandbox-style play (with different tables for different environments) instead of a hazard to force logistical considerations.
If a player's expectation is similar to an adventure like Dungeon Delve, or Keep on the Shadowfell, they may not have any experience with exploration and resource management. The hardest part will be introducing the game style to the players -- that the PCs move only their speed per round, and have to cover the space between before they get to those labeled encounter areas. The longer they dawdle the more potential for random monsters there are.
I always felt wandering monsters were more work. 'Where did they come from?', players trying to track them to origin, just added a lot of faff.....However if you are playing a free form travelling with no purpose type game...there are millions of tables from all the editions.
For outside environments, when players are 'on the road', wandering encounters make more sense. But you can't do the same time/space compaction in a dungeon...so you have to generate tension through spot checks and perception.
Matt Miller
Hearsay has it than in early DnD, treasure was the goal, as (originally) players could translate gold into XP. Over time, this switched so that most XP came from defeating enemies in combat. I don't think the intent was to make combat the main source of XP, but good tables on appropriate amounts of XP are available for combat, but none for other types of encounters. People respond to incentives.
Dan Felder
This is why all my systems and campaigns in other systems always shift things to have XP awarded for accomplishing goals. Combat inherently provides nothing, but you can use it as a way to achieve a goal.
Keith J Davies
Indeed. Reward the behavior you want to see. If it's 'kill everything', give XP for killing stuff. If you want to see 'cunningly recover..treasure', leave combat out of the XP calculation because it's only an obstacle, and reward 'recover...treasure'.
I interpreted "gold to XP" to mean paying for training. Some of my DMs only allowed levelling up after gaining enough XP then paying for training.
Alexander Staniforth
The difficulty with it was that gold is reward in itself as it allows you access to rare goods etc. So in getting gold you are rewarded twice. I prefer pure accomplishment and GM decision (with a smattering of group decision should everyone be impressed).
The group I play with most regularly moved to mission/goal based exp. ....it removes the need for tracking and encourages a team effort. I, personally, will just tell the group when to level. So long as everyone is happy with the pace and progress it lets you slow and speed up the pace of the campaign as desired.
....there are a number of systems that handle character growth in different ways - Fate uses milestones in the story to govern changes to characters, while Smallville (Cortex Plus Drama) based character development on stress and challenging personal beliefs, so that characters suffer dramatically in order to grow.
