Random Encounters are Stupid and Should Feel Bad!

[Easy e]

How is that for an inflammatory title intended to create discussion?

As background, I am strongly in favor of placing narrative structures on my gaming sessions. There needs to be a "goal" or "theme" to the session and the adventures. This is not for every GM and I understand many people run open-world/sandbox games. However, even in these types of games NO encounter should be random.

All encounters should be planned by the GM in order to do one of the following:

1. Be a plot hook
2. Add physical, emotional, or dramatic conflict for the players
3. Provide information or items the Players will need
4. Add a complication to an existing character arc/story line
5. Provide a consequence to previous activities or actions

Therefore, no encounter should be random and should instead meet the needs of the game, instead of being random. If an encounter needs to happen, it should be because the GM wants it to happen; not because a dice roll says it should happen.

Your thoughts?

[HumanFighter]

Um yeah I totally agree dude. I once had to suffer under a GM who absolutely seemed to love "random" encounters. Our party was assembled one time and we had to make our way across a world map to a certain dungeon, for a certain reason (don't remember). Turns out he had planned for us to go through 6 or 7 random encounters before we even made it to the dungeon. And these encounters were not easy. With this GM, they never are. We never actually finished the campaign or got to the dungeon that day, as we were all exhausted after the 3rd or 4th really hard encounter.

They say a good GM learns from his mistakes. But an even better GM learns from the mistakes of others as well.

When I GM, I allow random encounters to happen, as it makes the world feel a little more alive and dangerous. But it isn't just random, as I keep track in my GM's notes the overall "danger level" of the region or world the players are traveling in. The higher the danger level, the higher the chance of an encounter happening. Certain story and quest decisions the players make may influence this danger level, for better or worse.
And I really only allow ONE random encounter between point A and B, usually. If it is an especially long journey, I may throw in two. Also the rewards for random encounters are relatively low compared to normal ones, like gaining less XP and less loot. This is partially because random encounters are not that important in the grand scheme of things, but also random encounters should be more like a punishment than a reward, a consequence, if you will, for committing atrocities or other murderhobo crap the players might have done. If I don't reduce XP and loot rewards for random encounters, then the players will simply say "bring it on" and spam the random encounters so they can farm XP and loot.

[kyoryu]

Depends on the game.

In the context of early D&D, random encounters represented a cost/risk of exploration and other time-consuming activities within a dungeon. IN that context, they're great - they give you a tradeoff between continuing to search for things and just going on.

They're absolutely not necessary. I do think that if you remove them (which is fine) you should look at what they're in place to create cost/benefit tradeoffs for, and make sure you do something else to add those back in.

(Note - most games I run don't use random encounters).

[Batcathat]

I agree, though to be fair I don't think I've ever used a random encounter when GMing so I suppose I can't really judge them fairly. None of the games I played early on had any suggestions about random encounters in them (if I remember correctly) so I suppose I never really had a reason to use them when I was starting out and haven't found one since. Even if the GM improvises everything and the point of an encounter is only to liven things up with some combat, spending a few moments to pick something suitable seems like time well spent. I suppose it could be good for variety but that can easily be done without making it completely random.

[MartianInvader]

Depends on the game.

In the context of early D&D, random encounters represented a cost/risk of exploration and other time-consuming activities within a dungeon. IN that context, they're great - they give you a tradeoff between continuing to search for things and just going on.

They're absolutely not necessary. I do think that if you remove them (which is fine) you should look at what they're in place to create cost/benefit tradeoffs for, and make sure you do something else to add those back in.

(Note - most games I run don't use random encounters).

This.

Random encounters work when they are reflective of player choice - especially a type of choice the players make over and over. "Should we rest in the dungeon or go back to town?" "Should we take the long safe road or the shortcut through the Woods of Doom?" It might be tiring to have an encounter every time players try to rest in the dungeon, or take a shortcut, but having a chance of an encounter each time makes it a real decision and adds some excitement without needing to bog it down every time.

Random encounters are much less fun when it's just the DM saying "I'm going to roll the die to see if you get attacked, and there's nothing you can do to change that."

[Yora]

What game are we talking about? Though I think it depends more on the GM's campaign than the game mechanic, D&D 5th edition still lacks most of the mechanics and game structures that make random encounters an important game element.

[DwarfFighter]

So the PCs are out and about and randomly run into a band of Orcs.

Maybe the players can offer up some suggestions as to why they are there. Raiders? Scouts? Deserters? Diplomats? Stag party?

After all, the GM has about as much idea why those Orcs are there as do the players.

Random encounters aren't always fight-to-the-death either. I've had a session where the players encountered a band of bugbears they figured were heading back to the base they had just cleared, and for some reason they exchanged insults at a distance instead of blows, and each went their separate ways.

[icefractal]

All encounters should be planned by the GM in order to do one of the following:
...
5. Provide a consequence to previous activities or actionsDon't most "random encounters" actually fall under this one? Where the action is "choose to travel through this area".

Now you could ask what the randomness adds - instead of "you may face one or more patrols if you travel through this empire's territory", you could have "you will face one patrol consisting of a half-dozen typical soldiers, two veteran archers, and one captain on horseback".

To which I'd say that the randomness can sometimes add to the strategic complexity. If combatants always hit and did a fixed amount of damage, it would be much simpler to determine the optimal action at any given time. Variability means you need to consider risk vs reward. Of course too much randomness does the reverse and removes complexity - if random encounters are so random you could have any number and any type occur in any location, then it doesn't really matter what route you take.

As a separate potential advantage, using an oracle (like a random encounter table) can shake things up from patterns that the GM unconsciously follows. For example, if you subconsciously tend to arrange encounters in an "easy, easy, hard, repeat" pattern, randomly rolling a "hard" encounter first or 3+ "easy" encounters in a row will prompt you to do something different (or to consciously commit to the prior pattern).

[Vahnavoi]

You can literally set up a randomized procedural generator to fill in all five traits of a proper planned encounter, proving that random generation has equal power to planning or, even more simply, is just a tool for planning. -_-

More often than not, the case against random generation is based on neglecting proper implementation because you know somebody else screwed it up and cannot think past their failures.

[McGarnagle]

I think they work fine for an adventure like Curse of Strahd. You take a shortcut through the woods, the random encounters on average become harder, and a range of possible outcomes means that no one, not even the DM, knows exactly what will happen next.

[Pex]

I'm not a fan of them either but can tolerate if used sparingly. If the DM is always rolling (or pretending to roll we get one anyway) for them I feel they are time wasters. I know it doesn't have to be a combat, but just because the party travels from point A to point B doesn't mean something must happen before reaching point B.

I won't say never have an encounter that has absolutely nothing to do with the current plot point or any campaign plot point. They can be fun, but they should be used sparingly and not every game day. This even includes camping at night keeping watch. It should be enough as flavor text we keep watches. I hate it when the DM has each person on watch roll a perception check or he rolls dice behind the screen for every watch every game night of traveling, even if nothing happens. It's not atmosphere. It's annoying. It's perfectly fine to just say 3 days later we arrive at point B and continue on with the adventure. If something is to happen during a watch I don't care if it's metagamey to know something is up because perception checks are only ever called for such an interruption.

[Thrudd]

"The needs of the game" are completely dependent on the game. Random encounters might just serve the need of making the game more interesting for the GM, which really is all the reason you need. There are many ways to implement "random", and the best way is when the the list of potential encounters are designed to reflect the particular environment in which the characters find themselves. It serves the need of reflecting the fact that the world is unpredictable and dangerous, demonstrating its character, and also the need of letting the players know that the danger for the characters is real. When they know you aren't just designed encounters to "serve the story", they have to think like their characters would, weighing options for travel and preparation; whether to fight or hide or run.
If the name of the game is improv acting and co-creating an epic narrative, that's fine. I can play along. But it's far more exciting and immersive to me when I'm not thinking "what story purpose does this encounter serve, what am I supposed to find for the quest? What character-arc or story beat should I be acting out?", but rather just seeing everything as the character would, being afraid for my life and the lives of my friends, weighing greed vs survival vs honor vs fulfilling my duty or mission or whatever. The meta stuff can live somewhere farther back in my mind, making sure we thoroughly search for important items and information, etc.

[HidesHisEyes]

How is that for an inflammatory title intended to create discussion?

As background, I am strongly in favor of placing narrative structures on my gaming sessions. There needs to be a "goal" or "theme" to the session and the adventures. This is not for every GM and I understand many people run open-world/sandbox games. However, even in these types of games NO encounter should be random.

All encounters should be planned by the GM in order to do one of the following:

1. Be a plot hook
2. Add physical, emotional, or dramatic conflict for the players
3. Provide information or items the Players will need
4. Add a complication to an existing character arc/story line
5. Provide a consequence to previous activities or actions

Therefore, no encounter should be random and should instead meet the needs of the game, instead of being random. If an encounter needs to happen, it should be because the GM wants it to happen; not because a dice roll says it should happen.

Your thoughts?

I disagree but maybe not as vehemently as I thought I would from the inflammatory title (good job on that btw).

For me, I do want certain things from all my encounters (random or otherwise), and your list of things seems pretty decent, but it’s enough to make sure they have the potential to provide those things. If I find myself sitting down to craft an encounter specifically to guarantee certain things then I will put the GM notebook aside and write a short story instead. Yes I want plot, drama, conflict, all that good stuff. But my prep is only one of the alchemical ingredients to make that stuff. The alchemy happens at the table.

[Anonymouswizard]

As had been said, the point of random encounters in early D&D was to have consequences for risky actions, particularly in dungeon or hex crawls. Remember that in 0e-2e exploration was conducted in turns, so a monster wandering into the dungeon room the players are in if they spend sixteen turns looking everything with ten foot poles in case they're mimics is the game's easy of making them move on and keep finding new sources of treasure.

Also note that random encounters are meant to have their tables weighted t a particular level of challenge (in addition to only a certain chance of having a random encounter), so six hard encounters on the way to a dungeon is a good sign that you might have difficulty with it

That said, if you're trying to emulate narrative or character arcs they're basically pointless. I don't use them. But then again, how often are random encounters in dungeon crawls actually random?

[Satinavian]

I didn't like them very much and hardly used them.

But playing and running a lot of Splittermond lately, we regularly use the quite elaborate framework for overland travel. Which does include a chance for random encounters. This chance does depend on the area and also on the PCs actions during travel and their abilities to find a way through wilderness and avoid trouble. The random encounters are also sorted into "enemies","obstacles","friendies" and "lucky events" and a really well prepared and skilled group in a peaceful region will either likely encounter lucky events and friendlies when they take their time or travel really fast or get some other benefit (their choice).
It also helps that most of the regional supplements do provide region specific random encounter lists for all those options providing regional flair to travel.

I mean, it is possible that we all eventually get sick of it, but so far it is still fun enough.

[oxybe]

How is that for an inflammatory title intended to create discussion?

As background, I am strongly in favor of placing narrative structures on my gaming sessions. There needs to be a "goal" or "theme" to the session and the adventures. This is not for every GM and I understand many people run open-world/sandbox games. However, even in these types of games NO encounter should be random.

All encounters should be planned by the GM in order to do one of the following:

1. Be a plot hook
2. Add physical, emotional, or dramatic conflict for the players
3. Provide information or items the Players will need
4. Add a complication to an existing character arc/story line
5. Provide a consequence to previous activities or actions

Therefore, no encounter should be random and should instead meet the needs of the game, instead of being random. If an encounter needs to happen, it should be because the GM wants it to happen; not because a dice roll says it should happen.

Your thoughts?

1) a random encounter could very well be a plot hook. remember that somewhere along the way, Random Encounter got twisted to mean Random Fight. an RE doesn't mean combat. It could very well mean that along your travels, you meet up with a caravan of merchants or travellers and someone tells a ghost story about some spooky tower in a lake. Bam. Random adventure hook.

2) I'm pretty sure "an angry owlbear barrels out of the forest and attacks you" is a physical conflict

3) Random rumour tables are a thing. mix them in with a random city encounter table and there you have it.

4) this is admittingly a bit more specific then what most random encounters try to cover, but who says the GM can't say that yeah, that orcish warband you bumped into? Among the loot they carry are items that have carving or quilting patterns similar to those from Bhaube the Elf 's hometown... and when you arrive at his home, guess what's been recently pillaged and needs help rebuilding?

5) the actual point of random encounter "you're resting 8 hours in this highly dangerous area? i'll roll once each hour to see if something may occur.". You decide to take a shortcut through a dangerous forest? sure, but there's a chance you may bump into the reason folks stay out of the danger woods. It's the consequence of their actions/activities.

[Batcathat]

1) a random encounter could very well be a plot hook. remember that somewhere along the way, Random Encounter got twisted to mean Random Fight. an RE doesn't mean combat. It could very well mean that along your travels, you meet up with a caravan of merchants or travellers and someone tells a ghost story about some spooky tower in a lake. Bam. Random adventure hook.

Wouldn't that require either that the GM plans adventures for an entire list of random hooks or that the GM has to figure out an adventure to go with the hook after it comes up? Either way, it seems like it would mean an increased workload and/or more improvisation (granted, not necessarily a bad thing) from the GM than just deciding where to use what hooks.

It occured to me that my feelings towards random encounters are very similar to my feelings regarding another D&D staple – alignments. They're not necessarily bad, but the combination of potential pitfalls and very slim upsides makes me question using them.

[oxybe]

Wouldn't that require either that the GM plans adventures for an entire list of random hooks or that the GM has to figure out an adventure to go with the hook after it comes up? Either way, it seems like it would mean an increased workload and/or more improvisation (granted, not necessarily a bad thing) from the GM than just deciding where to use what hooks.

It occured to me that my feelings towards random encounters are very similar to my feelings regarding another D&D stable – alignments. They're not necessarily bad, but the combination of potential pitfalls and very slim upsides makes me question using them.

Only as much as our GM feels it's necessary.

An adventure doesn't need to be a 30 session affair, it could very well be "hey, we're in no rush to do anything at the moment, want to check out that spooky tower those guys mentioned?" and the spooky tower could be just that: a old, run down tower in the middle of the lake, where the inhabitants are long gone and looks spooky when the mists are rolling on the lake early in the morning.

Or the gm could decide to put more effort and make it a thing, with a cult meeting up under the moonlight to do some rituals to call down some ancient sealed being and just spooking away any nosy kids.

Or whatever. Sometimes a rumor is just that and a tall tale is just a tall tale.

[Xervous]

I’m not seeing solid reasoning for randomness being unable to meet the needs of the game. Also missing from the list is 6. Scenery. Encounters that do not force themselves upon the player and go ignored are just descriptions. A painting on a wall is just a description until one player decides he wants to steal it, at which point its function within the game is shifted by player action. The dead merchants are scenery if nobody gives a hoot. Plot hooks that players never bite are functionally little more than scenery.

Random encounters are a way to add variety, as outside of running multiple GMs you are giving your players unreviewed single author fiction. Break up patterns to reduce a bit of the unconscious monotony, chance upon a better option through inspiration. Random encounters are all manner of things that the players could bump into. You populated and approved the list after all, it’s just the dice narrowing down the options rather than you.

Am I going to map out where every bar patron is throughout the night like it’s a murder mystery? Hardly, I can easily roll or arsepull to see who the players encounter when they finally make their way there.

[King of Nowhere]

i use them when it's reasonable to encounter multiple hostiles, when the party is in highly dangerous areas. in my campaign, those are generally magical in nature, and getting constantly hit with encounters is a specific part of the difficulty; you can't go anywhere without fighting multiple times.
outside of those magically dangerous areas, i normally don't run them. people manage to travel around the world and die in their bed, it means the chance of being attacked by bandits or owlbears when crossing a forest is not THAT high.

I also run combat encounters only if there are real risks and rewards. If the party is level 10 and they travel the dangerous forest, and they will get to rest at the end (so spent resources is not an issue), i won't bother running a fight with the level 2 bandits or the CR4 owlbear. At most, I'll describe it: "while traveling the forest you have to fight a couple owlbears, but they are not a threat to you guys".
What I'm NOT going to do is increase the difficulty of those encounters to match the party's level. the level 10 party won't encounter level 10 bandits because it makes no sense for level 10 bandits to hide in the forest and attack travelers. If the forest is close to an organized civilization, then that civilization will have already killed the most dangerous monsters, so the party won't find a CR 10 monster. as such, i tend to run random encounters most often at low levels, when stumbling over a pack of hungry wolves may represent an actual danger. as the party grows in power, the random denizens of the world are not a concern to them, not unless they are directly looking for trouble. and when they get teleport, random encounters during travel are no longer an issue.
incidentally, those magically hazardous areas also prevent teleportation and other similar means of travel, and i inserted them in the worldbuilding partially to be able to have that kind of gameing style every once in a while.

so, like everything else, random encounters are good if they are a sensible part of the campaign and they make sense in the worldbuilding context.

Otherwise, I think we can all agree fighting 1d3 dire camels in a swamp (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0564.html) is stupid and should feel bad

[Sparky McDibben]

Therefore, no encounter should be random and should instead meet the needs of the game, instead of being random. If an encounter needs to happen, it should be because the GM wants it to happen; not because a dice roll says it should happen.

Your thoughts?

You are "random encountering" wrong. The random part refers to procedural generation, not how it feels in the game. This can be fixed by tying your random encounter tables more tightly to the game world, randomizing elements (reaction roll, mutual surprise check, etc.) to avoid repetition, and avoiding DM fiat in how the encounter manifests (that is, avoid prescribing any given way the PCs will resolve the encounter).

More broadly, I prefer random encounters as a player because the world feels more real, because they're a fun RP/rationalization challenge, and because they keep me on my toes. If I know the DM has everything planned out in advance, then I have one of two reactions:

1) I check out; the DM's got this and I don't need to pay attention

2) I immediately start ****ing with everything and everyone I can reach.

So, yeah. For further reading, check out the Alexandrian. For further viewing, see WEBDM.

[Quertus]

Well, this is complicated. But I think that the simple answer is, every encounter should serve some purpose, and the original list in the OP is woefully inadequate to serve as an exhaustive list of possible purposes.

Encounters - random or otherwise - can help characterize the world / area / time, can allow players the chance to characterize their characters, can provide plot hooks or information, can help with pacing, can help the players view the game in character, can provide experience (literal and figuratively), cab serve as consequences for actions taken, can modify wealth/tools available, and so much more. Random encounters can do all of that.

Encounters - random or otherwise - that do none of that should go home and rethink their lives.

Also, "encounter" <> "combat". I've had things like ferrous flowers, swarms of gnats, tornado in the distance, friendly merchants, rival adventurers, holy pilgrims, dead hunters, dead goblins, and crashed space ships as random encounters.

[Vahnavoi]

You know the plot of Alien? A crew finds wrecked ship and one of them gets infected with malicious parasite, while another is secretly an impostor who wants to take the parasite home? Back in the day, they made it into a computer game. So how to keep it fresh for people who'd already seen the movie? Randomize who gets infected, randomize who is the impostor. Suddenly no-one is safe and the player has to use their wits to figure out what to do.

Adapting this to the tabletop and getting few sessions worth of game out of it is trivial.

[GravityEmblem]

I just hate combat, and will avoid it whenever possible!

I briefly toyed with doing random encounters, and wrote up tables and whatnot, but I soon tired of them. I would pick one of them up and run it if I thought it would be funny or build the world, or just make something up. (For example, a Cthuhlu missionary, or a traveling rug salesman)

[Morty]

I used to be against random encounters, but after playing a hexcrawl Savage Worlds game I've warmed up to them somewhat. If the point of the game is to explore a dangerous area filled with people, creatures and locations, random encounters can make sure the players find something interesting no matter where they go, without the GM having to plan out everything in every direction. Of course, it does still help if the encounters have more flesh to them than "you meet three trolls and one hell hound in the middle of a forest".

[kyoryu]

I think it's usually more interesting to frame things like this as "when is this a useful tool?"

Statements like this are usually closer to "this thing is mandatory/bad for the type of game I like". It's a tool used as a proxy for discussion of what game type is best (spoiler: No game type is best. Just best for some people).


You know the plot of Alien? A crew finds wrecked ship and one of them gets infected with malicious parasite, while another is secretly an impostor who wants to take the parasite home? Back in the day, they made it into a computer game.

The one I'm thinking of is #11 on this list (https://www.slashfilm.com/550982/alien-video-games-ranked/)

[Anonymouswizard]

I used to be against random encounters, but after playing a hexcrawl Savage Worlds game I've warmed up to them somewhat. If the point of the game is to explore a dangerous area filled with people, creatures and locations, random encounters can make sure the players find something interesting no matter where they go, without the GM having to plan out everything in every direction. Of course, it does still help if the encounters have more flesh to them than "you meet three trolls and one hell hound in the middle of a forest".

Oh, definitely. When using random encounters the more specific the tables the better. But random encounter tables take time to make, and when your Yankees are more specific you have to spend longer making sure potential encounters fit, as well as potentially making more of them. Plus more detailed encounters airway require more time (although in theory you'd only having to replace the ones the players triggered).

[Easy e]

1) a random encounter could very well be a plot hook. remember that somewhere along the way, Random Encounter got twisted to mean Random Fight. an RE doesn't mean combat. It could very well mean that along your travels, you meet up with a caravan of merchants or travellers and someone tells a ghost story about some spooky tower in a lake. Bam. Random adventure hook.

2) I'm pretty sure "an angry owlbear barrels out of the forest and attacks you" is a physical conflict

3) Random rumour tables are a thing. mix them in with a random city encounter table and there you have it.

4) this is admittingly a bit more specific then what most random encounters try to cover, but who says the GM can't say that yeah, that orcish warband you bumped into? Among the loot they carry are items that have carving or quilting patterns similar to those from Bhaube the Elf 's hometown... and when you arrive at his home, guess what's been recently pillaged and needs help rebuilding?

5) the actual point of random encounter "you're resting 8 hours in this highly dangerous area? i'll roll once each hour to see if something may occur.". You decide to take a shortcut through a dangerous forest? sure, but there's a chance you may bump into the reason folks stay out of the danger woods. It's the consequence of their actions/activities.

I am not saying they do not provide those things, but that it should be by GM intent rather than random.

[HidesHisEyes]

I am not saying they do not provide those things, but that it should be by GM intent rather than random.

But it is by the GM’s intent. They wrote the encounter table, they just don’t know which encounter is going to pop up when.

For me the more important point is that I don’t put drama, conflict, plot points etc in my prep and serve it up to the players. My prep (encounters, random tables and everything else) is one ingredient for making those things. The others are the players’ ideas/actions and the game’s mechanics. We combine them at the table and make the story live.

[kyoryu]

I am not saying they do not provide those things, but that it should be by GM intent rather than random.

I think random encounters can express intent.

"You need to get to Cityville. You can take the safe path through Pleasant Plains, that has maybe some kobolds in it but is mostly friendly folk. That'll take two weeks. Or you can go through the Wicked Woods, where there's all sorts of scary beasts. That'll take four days - if you make it."

Letting players make that choice and know that there's a chance they'll make it through unscathed is a useful tool. It may not be a tool for every game, but I think it's very valuable in some types of games.

[Batcathat]

For me the more important point is that I don’t put drama, conflict, plot points etc in my prep and serve it up to the players. My prep (encounters, random tables and everything else) is one ingredient for making those things. The others are the players’ ideas/actions and the game’s mechanics. We combine them at the table and make the story live.

I guess what I don't understand is what complete randomness adds to the equation that makes it better than just mixing your ideas and your players' ideas.

[kyoryu]

I guess what I don't understand is what complete randomness adds to the equation that makes it better than just mixing your ideas and your players' ideas.

For one thing, it absolves the GM of the responsibility, and makes a "real" risk (vs. what the GM has planned).

In the "Wicked Woods vs. Pleasant Plains" scenario, without random encounters, the decision isn't really "huh, there's risk if we go through the Wicked Woods, do we want to try that?" It's "huh, so how bad is the GM going to throw us to the wolves if we go that way." By removing direct GM choice, it really does become the players gambling on the risk.

Note that most of my examples of good usage are similar "press your luck" situations. I think they can also be used if the GM wants to add some flavor, but doesn't necessarily want to decide everything in advance - random names, tavern generators, even random events on a street can help things feel real while reducing cognitive load on the GM.

[Anonymouswizard]

I guess what I don't understand is what complete randomness adds to the equation that makes it better than just mixing your ideas and your players' ideas.

Except as intended it's not complete randomness. Encounter tables are generally curated, ideally for thematics first and challenge second.

Other than that, everything that Kyoryu says.

[HidesHisEyes]

I guess what I don't understand is what complete randomness adds to the equation that makes it better than just mixing your ideas and your players' ideas.

Well I’m not an especially strong advocate of random encounters, although I use them sometimes. Often I just write down a few potential encounters and intuitively pick which one to deploy when the time comes.

But Koryu’s and Anonymouswizard’s answers are solid reasons to go random imo. I also find that sometimes, without deliberately injecting some randomness, I fall into the trap of over-planning because I’m so enamoured with my own ideas that I don’t leave enough room for the players and the mechanics. I’ve heard a really cool slogan which is “hold on lightly”, ie be willing to let your ideas go if necessary. You don’t *need* random encounters to do that, but they help sometimes.

[ahyangyi]

I guess that even if you do not plan to use random encounters, having a curated random encounter table might also be useful.

Player: "I don't think we can spend more time in this dangerous place, and the village is too far. What if we retreat and travel in that direction?"
DM: *rolls random encounter to see what happens*

There is also an interesting example in a recent AngryGM article where a random encounter turns into a main plot line.

[kyoryu]

Well I’m not an especially strong advocate of random encounters, although I use them sometimes. Often I just write down a few potential encounters and intuitively pick which one to deploy when the time comes.

Same. I'm definitely not in the "RANDOM ENCOUNTERS ARE THE BEST AND A KEYSTONE OF GAMING" camp. They're a tool. They're a tool that has uses, and is useful in some situations. And they're not useful in other situations, and actively harmful in other situations besides.

The interesting thing to me is more "when, why, and how do you use them? When don't you use them? What do they add, and what do they subtract, in various situations?"

[Easy e]

I guess the GM as the arbiter of pace and excitement in the game, if I see we need something to happen, I just make something happen. If something happening gets in the way, why have it happen?

I can see the purpose of a table of encounters that you "go to" if something is needed that is in theme. However, when that something happens is up to me..... the GM. To randomize it seems like it could throw off the flow of the game instead of enhancing it.

[Xervous]

I guess the GM as the arbiter of pace and excitement in the game, if I see we need something to happen, I just make something happen. If something happening gets in the way, why have it happen?

I can see the purpose of a table of encounters that you "go to" if something is needed that is in theme. However, when that something happens is up to me..... the GM. To randomize it seems like it could throw off the flow of the game instead of enhancing it.

Care to provide a valid hypothetical example?

[kyoryu]

Honestly, Easy e - you seem very much invested in the idea that railroads are inherently good and that it's the job of a GM to curate the whole play experience.

Random encounters move away from that, so from that POV, yeah, they're unnecessary. The point here is that not everyone agrees with the idea that it's the GM's job to curate the entire play experience.

[Atranen]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is that the *speed* of combat plays a huge role in whether random encounters are worth it or not.

If you have a small group with a fast combat system and an encounter takes 10 minutes, they can be great.

If you're a large group and each encounter takes an hour of game time, you should avoid them.

[HidesHisEyes]

I guess the GM as the arbiter of pace and excitement in the game, if I see we need something to happen, I just make something happen. If something happening gets in the way, why have it happen?

I can see the purpose of a table of encounters that you "go to" if something is needed that is in theme. However, when that something happens is up to me..... the GM. To randomize it seems like it could throw off the flow of the game instead of enhancing it.

Well, gets in the way of what, you know? To me the game is whatever happens at the table. Sure as GM I have more authority over more aspects of that than the other players, but that doesn’t mean I want to curate it 100% all the time. I want to be surprised too, and I want to be creative at the table not just in prep. Again, random tables aren’t required for this approach, but they can help.

[Xervous]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is that the *speed* of combat plays a huge role in whether random encounters are worth it or not.

If you have a small group with a fast combat system and an encounter takes 10 minutes, they can be great.

If you're a large group and each encounter takes an hour of game time, you should avoid them.

“Mr GM stop putting these obnoxious moral appeal random encounters in or you’ll regret it.”

“Or what?”

“I’ll roll initiative.”

[Easy e]

Honestly, Easy e - you seem very much invested in the idea that railroads are inherently good and that it's the job of a GM to curate the whole play experience.

Random encounters move away from that, so from that POV, yeah, they're unnecessary. The point here is that not everyone agrees with the idea that it's the GM's job to curate the entire play experience.

As I say upfront. I prefer a more narrative structure at a high level, with a Hook, some potential signposts/encounters to the finale, and then the big finale. Again, the connective tissue and order in the middle doesn't matter. Everything is improved for the most part.

I use this approach because I frequently play games that have a finite amount of time and will not be ongoing week-after-week sessions. They are typically 1-3 sessions over a short period of time with a group of players who are not hardcore RPGers. Prep time is minimal, and the main focus of the time is typically not to play RPGs. Think, "what's something fun to do at this dinner party? Easy E, why don't we play D&D*?" So, I agree and literally make up something on the spot, help them make characters in 30 minutes or less, and start playing with between 6 and 10 players at a pop.

They have one to three sessions to have a compelling adventure. The easiest way to do this is to reduce the paradox of choice, let them guide the adventure direction via choices, improv alot, move the spotlight around alot, and use narrative conventions they are familiar with to provide a satisfying conclusion. Since they keep asking me to play "D&D" and GM for them, I must be doing something they like.

I fully agree that my style has HUGE blind-spots because my GMing was developed in a unique crucible and experience that others probably have not experienced. However, I also think many of us have strong D&D-centric formative blind-spots and tend to think in terms set by D&D. The discussion helps me challenge my preconceived ideas about GMing.

My posts may come off as argumentative or contrarian, and they are often more strident then I actually feel. However, bland statements like "Everyone do what they like best" leads to some really boring threads. As some one once told me, "To have a useful discussion, you need to mine conflict otherwise why bother having the discussion if everyone agrees?"



*= Note, we never play Dungeons and Dragons. Instead, we play an RPG game, as we have played fantasy, sci-fi, pulp, horror, etc. The system is a generic dice pool game based off of West End Games D6 Star Wars 2nd Edition for mechanics. They just use D&D as short hand for an RPG/Storytelling game.

[Xervous]

How does this distaste for randomness apply to things outside random encounters? What stops the slippery slope down to 100% freeform?

[Easy e]

Care to provide a valid hypothetical example?

I will do my best, but I am sure it will not be enough.

The players are at location x, and decide they want to go to location Y which is 4 days away. If there is nothing particular I need them to know before getting to location Y, we just jump to getting to location Y. No need to RP walking for four days, setting camp, and doing shifts. I will probably ask them what they share with each other, talk about, or do while traveling; and that is about it.

However, before they get to location Y, I decide I need them to note that it is being controlled by BBEG A. Therefore, on the way to Location Y they encounter a group of refugees fleeing from location Y who tell them the story of BBEG A.

However, if they need a challenge to overcome because they are getting restless, I might decide it isn't so easy to get into location Y and describe an obstacle that allows me to put the spotlight on a character that has not been doing much yet. This could be combat, social, or a puzzle obstacles. It depends on who I want to shift the spotlight to and how.

I pace the level of encounter and challenge based on what the party seems to engage with, and to move the spotlight around so everyone gets a chance to be the star for a moment or two. A couple just want to slice and dice things, a few want to talk things out, some just want shenanigans; and I see it is my job to give them a set-up for all of these things during the course of the adventure.

Nothing in my game is random. It is there for a reason, even if the reason is really stupid and ill-thought out. LOL!

[Easy e]

How does this distaste for randomness apply to things outside random encounters? What stops the slippery slope down to 100% freeform?

The only "randomness" is when players need to test to see if they were successful or not. That is about it.

[Xervous]

The only "randomness" is when players need to test to see if they were successful or not. That is about it.

And can that randomness throw off the flow of the game rather than enhancing it? What makes uncertain events from players acceptable, but uncertain events from GM not?

[Easy e]

And can that randomness throw off the flow of the game rather than enhancing it? What makes uncertain events from players acceptable, but uncertain events from GM not?

That's the game. As I have said in other places, the rules are there to put limitations and decision points on the players. Not the GM.

The GMs limitations are placed on them by the players reactions to what the GM is doing, and therefore by the players; not the rules.

[Pauly]

Random does not mean unplanned.

If I’m using REs in an adventure I will roll them up prior to the party encountering them. I will also do some light editing to make them thematic. For example if I roll bandits, orcs, orcs, bugbears I might change them all to orcs and have an orc lair in the vicinity of where the party is traveling. I’ve had situations where the players mistook the REs for their mission and the party returning expecting to be treated like conquering heroes only for the Duke to say we knew about those orcs and I was sending a patrol to deal with them, now turn around and go do the job I gave you.

Having the DM roll up the encounter at the table removes versimiltude.

If you look at LotR there are a whole bunch of REs that happen. Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wrights are all effectively REs. What they do for the plot is establish that Middle Earth is a dangerous place to be running around in, but there are also allies who will help them. In the book version Faramir is another RE for Sam and Frodo, although in the movie version it is more tightly sewn into the main plot. Merry and Pippin meeting Treebeard is another RE, which gets tied into the Saruman subplot.

REs are not bad when done properly. They establish what the world is like. They can be tied into the main plot or a subplot. They can be used to punish bad decisions and reward good ones.

[Thrudd]

REs are not bad when done properly. They establish what the world is like. They can be tied into the main plot or a subplot. They can be used to punish bad decisions and reward good ones.

I don't see the RE as a punishment or reward. They are just the world existing, the consequence of a living world. I don't see how rolling at the table for an RE removes verisimilitude, any more than anyone rolling dice for anything does. I guess it signals to the players that the subsequent encounter might be from a table. But it could also be a perception check or a stealth roll for something you planned. Or figuring out the weather for tomorrow, or whether the party has gone off course in the woods. Or deciding anything or nothing at all- the GM rolling dice without telling the players anything and making them paranoid is a time honored tradition.

Prerolling some potential REs is ok and saves you some brain work during the game, but it doesn't always work because you don't always know where the players will decide to go or how many REs you might potentially need. But yes, the GM should be able to adjust the RE result on the fly, the table result can be seen as inspiration. You use dice to help you improvise as well as to simulate the happenings of the world.

The RE is a particularly important tool for a game that is about simulating and exploring a world. It is true that it might not be necessary or appropriate for a game that is about telling a particular story or simulating a film, tv show or novel with a tightly constructed plot. People should not assume all RPGs are about the latter and not the former.

[Forum Explorer]

My problem with Random Encounters is the chart. There's a lot of cool monsters and the like that don't get to be on the chart. So sticking to the encounter chart feels like a lost opportunity. I much prefer being able to pick and choose what is an appropriate monster, and retain a wide variety of every monster in the book.

My second problem is resource usage. There's kinda an expectation of each encounter using up a certain amount of resources. A random encounter might break that in either direction.

So if I were to use them, I would either build the chart myself, or more likely, have 1 encounter in mind, and a % chance of you hitting that encounter if you are traveling in that region. Then after clearing that encounter, I'd build a new 'random' encounter for the next time you get unlucky.

[MrZJunior]

One of the things I most enjoy about being a GM is seeing totally unexpected things happen and having to think on my feet. I think improvisation is a ton of fun and random encounters add to that.

For instance, a while ago I rolled a goblin encounter. The party's thief was examining a room by himself while the rest of the party was off doing something else. He had just found some treasure when the goblins walked in, held him at knife point, and carried it off. He then followed them to their hideout. I had to think of a hideout for them on the spot, so I said they retreated to a ruined Roman style bath. In between sessions I fleshed out the baths, and the party had a good time crawling through it for the next few sessions. Not every encounter is going to grow as big as this one, but I like having the possibility.

[Thrudd]

My problem with Random Encounters is the chart. There's a lot of cool monsters and the like that don't get to be on the chart. So sticking to the encounter chart feels like a lost opportunity. I much prefer being able to pick and choose what is an appropriate monster, and retain a wide variety of every monster in the book.

My second problem is resource usage. There's kinda an expectation of each encounter using up a certain amount of resources. A random encounter might break that in either direction.

So if I were to use them, I would either build the chart myself, or more likely, have 1 encounter in mind, and a % chance of you hitting that encounter if you are traveling in that region. Then after clearing that encounter, I'd build a new 'random' encounter for the next time you get unlucky.

Well yeah, it goes without saying you make your own charts, unless you're running a module with pre-made charts (that you can still modify). You could even pick off the top of your head instead of rolling, if variety is that big an issue. Concerns about resource usage is only a thing in the newer games that assume you are running a plotted narrative where you need to meet certain set pieces in each game session and have a specified number of rests. In a more open game, players can use as many or as few resources as they want in any encounter. When they get low on resources, they will be vulnerable and need to find a way to replenish them. You don't need to worry about how many times they need to rest, that's on them. You should have some form of ticking clock on any important quests, so that long resting too often will not be a good idea. That is what the modules are/should be. A quest that players can win or lose. If they lose and the bad guys complete their ritual, everything goes bad for a while, until the players figure out how to make it good again. Or everyone dies and the next batch of characters can try to make it good again.

[Batcathat]

If you look at LotR there are a whole bunch of REs that happen. Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wrights are all effectively REs. What they do for the plot is establish that Middle Earth is a dangerous place to be running around in, but there are also allies who will help them. In the book version Faramir is another RE for Sam and Frodo, although in the movie version it is more tightly sewn into the main plot. Merry and Pippin meeting Treebeard is another RE, which gets tied into the Saruman subplot.

Right, but I'm fairly sure Tolkien didn't roll dice to decide what should happen. Rather, he probably created those encounters for a specific purpose. I'm not saying that everything the party encounters need to be tied to the main plot, just that I don't see what the random element brings.

[HidesHisEyes]

As I say upfront. I prefer a more narrative structure at a high level, with a Hook, some potential signposts/encounters to the finale, and then the big finale. Again, the connective tissue and order in the middle doesn't matter. Everything is improved for the most part.

I use this approach because I frequently play games that have a finite amount of time and will not be ongoing week-after-week sessions. They are typically 1-3 sessions over a short period of time with a group of players who are not hardcore RPGers. Prep time is minimal, and the main focus of the time is typically not to play RPGs. Think, "what's something fun to do at this dinner party? Easy E, why don't we play D&D*?" So, I agree and literally make up something on the spot, help them make characters in 30 minutes or less, and start playing with between 6 and 10 players at a pop. …


That makes sense. I quite often run sessions a bit like that as well. Not quite entirely on the spur of the moment, but casual one-shots or short campaigns, often with groups of beginners, and usually a very beer-and-pretzels feel.

I also don’t run D&D and I think you’re spot on about blind spots and assumptions that come from only playing D&D. My favourite RPG to run is Dungeon World, and it’s great for those short, casual games with minimal prep. It’s also integral to DW that you don’t prep any predetermined events beyond the minimal setup of a scenario (and the players are involved in putting that together). The appeal of this, for me, is that a) it takes the pressure off me if I don’t feel it’s my job to provide an engaging story, and more importantly b) it is just such a thrill to come to the end of that three hour session and realise we’ve created a story together, organically, out of nothing, while we sat around playing a game and drinking beer.

Anyway no worries about the argumentativeness - I love getting into all this theoretical stuff and hashing out disagreements.

[HidesHisEyes]

That's the game. As I have said in other places, the rules are there to put limitations and decision points on the players. Not the GM.

The GMs limitations are placed on them by the players reactions to what the GM is doing, and therefore by the players; not the rules.

Sorry to double post, just saw this and have to respond. This is a brilliant example of one of those blind spots that D&D conditions in us. There are many RPGs where the GM doesn’t have unlimited power at all, and is very rigidly constrained by the rules in certain ways.

[Tanarii]

Random encounters, or at least random events, are an important game structure. They make time a meaningful resource.

Also, if you start thinking in terms of GM designed-plot, there's a danger of thinking in terms of GM-designed story. And down that path GM madness and railroading lies.

[Vahnavoi]

You don't need random encounters to make time a resource. If you're willing to count game turns or track real time, you can have deterministic events tied to time just fine, for the same effect.

The point of random generation is, more often than not, just to generate the initial position. For example, you know there's a dragon which basks in its lair every third day and is out hunting on the other days. But because the dragon hasn't entered the game before and you don't remember (or haven't kept track of) where it was or how many days have passed in the game since it started, instead of spending a lot of time figuring those out, you just roll a die for 1/3 chance of the dragon being there right now.

Same applies to wandering encounters. The point to wandering encounters being random encounters is that the monsters aren't supposed to always be there - they wander, they move around, they might be elsewhere when the players get in their domain. So, instead of spending a lot of time tracking how each wandering encounter moves individually, you roll dice to check.

[KorvinStarmast]

How is that for an inflammatory title intended to create discussion? Lame.

As background, I am strongly in favor of placing narrative structures on my gaming sessions.
Railroad conductor, I do have my ticket. :smallwink:

There needs to be a "goal" or "theme" to the session and the adventures. While I usually have a theme for a series of sessions (that are part of an adventure) and a few related aims for Adventures, a given session's goals and aims are squarely in the hands of the players. What are they seeking to do/achieve/find/accomplish.

Therefore, no encounter should be random and should instead meet the needs of the game
Your thoughts? Your false dichotomy is false in a general sense.
Mind you, if what you propose works for your table, keep doing it!

Random encounters work when they are reflective of player choice - Mostly yes, I've found that to be true across multiple editions. There is also an element of "the world is a dangerous and interesting place" added when things crop unexpectedly, both good and bad. Some random encounters are, for example, a wagon train of pilgrims headed into the nearby mountains for a retreat ...

As had been said, the point of random encounters in early D&D was to have consequences for risky actions, particularly in dungeon or hex crawls. Remember that in 0e-2e exploration was conducted in turns, so a monster wandering into the dungeon room the players are in if they spend sixteen turns looking everything with ten foot poles in case they're mimics is the game's easy of making them move on and keep finding new sources of treasure. The time pressure element was a part of that, yes, which seems to have been somewhat lost in the current edition unless you plug them in as a DM. .

Also note that random encounters are meant to have their tables weighted t a particular level of challenge Yes; the monster level tables were the precursor to CR but served the same general purpose.

But then again, how often are random encounters in dungeon crawls actually random?
Rarely.

[Zhorn]

I enjoy random encounters to break up the scripted-single-plot feel of the campaign.

But I also use them as a challenge for me as a DM. Suddenly there's this other thing in the game. Where did it come from? Where is it going? I tend to use them to link into other story lines from things like player backstory, or foreshadowing things that will be later in the adventure. If not that, then I'll at least start whipping up a small sidequest or arc linked around it so it feels less random, and more the main quest is interesting with one of many other arcs going on in the world at the same time. The world is bigger than just the one adventure the party is on.
Rarely do I every leave them as a 'you fought a thing for no reason that will never come up again'. They are random only in terms of I didn't plan on it ahead of time, but now it is there, I'll do something with it.

[Pex]

You are "random encountering" wrong. The random part refers to procedural generation, not how it feels in the game. This can be fixed by tying your random encounter tables more tightly to the game world, randomizing elements (reaction roll, mutual surprise check, etc.) to avoid repetition, and avoiding DM fiat in how the encounter manifests (that is, avoid prescribing any given way the PCs will resolve the encounter).

More broadly, I prefer random encounters as a player because the world feels more real, because they're a fun RP/rationalization challenge, and because they keep me on my toes. If I know the DM has everything planned out in advance, then I have one of two reactions:

1) I check out; the DM's got this and I don't need to pay attention

2) I immediately start ****ing with everything and everyone I can reach.

So, yeah. For further reading, check out the Alexandrian. For further viewing, see WEBDM.

That's a poor way to handle it. You're not caring for a DM's style, so instead of doing the mature thing thanking the DM for the invitation but deciding the game is not for you and depart you ignore the game at the table or actively disrupt the campaign. The DM can't make you play a game you won't like, but that's no excuse to ruin his game.

[Sparky McDibben]

That's a poor way to handle it.

Sorry, I save the mature, thought-out responses for non-clickbait threads. :) I suppose I should say that this is a philosophical difference I try sort out in session zero.

[Tanarii]

That's the subconscious behavior of most players when they feel they are on railroad tracks. Knowing that it's what you'll default to behavior wise is just good self knowledge.

Overriding it is probably character growth. But who needs that? :smallamused:

[Easy e]

That's the subconscious behavior of most players when they feel they are on railroad tracks. Knowing that it's what you'll default to behavior wise is just good self knowledge.

Overriding it is probably character growth. But who needs that? :smallamused:

I am just curious how everyone knows they are actually 'random encounters' and not pre-planned encounters? And vice-versa......

[Tanarii]

I am just curious how everyone knows they are actually 'random encounters' and not pre-planned encounters? And vice-versa......
Fair question. My point was more about seeing railroad tracks, and should really have been in the other thread.

But for random encounters or events to serve their primary purpose, making time a meaningful resource, the players should be aware that their is a random encounter / event mechanism in play. For the secondary purpose of procedural generation of content, it doesn't matter. Either way they don't necessarily need to know the full details of it, nor that a specific encounter is procedural generated.

One of my favorite articles on the importance of time and an in-your-face mechanism with intent to drive the point home to the players
https://theangrygm.com/hacking-time-in-dnd/

[LibraryOgre]

Depends on the game.

In the context of early D&D, random encounters represented a cost/risk of exploration and other time-consuming activities within a dungeon. IN that context, they're great - they give you a tradeoff between continuing to search for things and just going on.

They're absolutely not necessary. I do think that if you remove them (which is fine) you should look at what they're in place to create cost/benefit tradeoffs for, and make sure you do something else to add those back in.

(Note - most games I run don't use random encounters).

I'd also note that random encounters are far less of a waste of time when your combat system is pretty fast... if that encounter with orcs only takes a few minutes, it's a lot different than when it takes a half an hour.

[gijoemike]

I am just curious how everyone knows they are actually 'random encounters' and not pre-planned encounters? And vice-versa......

When done properly you don't know.


First off, random encounters are not all combat encounters.
Secondly, random encounters help build the world with elements that don't immediately matter to the plot. Maybe they get in the way maybe they are ignored but they add more to the scene.

Example scenario and random chart.

Game is Shadowrun, the runners need info from a sleazy street doc concerning an implant they got from a previous encounter.

The previous encounter was planned.
The location of the street doc and what his bride needs to be is planned
How he will react to threats is planned
Who he works for is planned out.
What that implant means is planned out.


Random elements
1. Nothing - it is always important to have an entry for nothing
2. A young girl is selling flowers trying to scrap a few nuyen. She knows the area and the doc. PCs could bribe her for info.
3. The PCs see a pack of wild dogs roaming around at night, a fairly rare sight but they are in the outskirts/slums. Maybe this is a fight most likely ignored. But is a good warning, don't run down dark alleyways. This is foreshadowing.
4. The street doc is busy trying to patch up a ganger who got shot up. 4 of his gang brothers are waiting in the office/nearby. Most likely a fight, tensions are high.
5. There is a strung out druggie who yells and spits at the PCs. Tipping off the doc if they were trying to sneak in/around.
6. A drug dealer offers the PCs some of his products. A stim using PC might buy something. Also dealer could be an info source.
7. There is a Lone Star vehicle in front of the docs place of residence. The PCs aren't' the only ones asking questions. This could go 4 or 5 different ways.
8. There are 8 people in the street and things are getting heated. 2 gangs are about to throw down. This is absolutely a fight and the doc will lock down his services for a while. But the PC's can stay out of it.
9. Friends of the guy from whom the PCs took the implant are watching and waiting in ambush. deadly fight. PCs will realize deep in the muck they really are.
etc.


Not one encounter listed above is necessary.
Not a single encounter is required to tell the story.
Some refer to the plot, others have nothing to do with it.
Most of the encounters waste a bit of time and have little payout.
Every single one builds the world out in special ways.


As a GM i could just choose a single possible outcome of druggie and ambush. Or I let the dice determine how the story plays out. It adds an element of Gaming to a Table Top Roleplaying GAME.

[KorvinStarmast]

When done properly you don't know.
First off, random encounters are not all combat encounters.
A good many people who never played Pre-WoTC D&D do not understand that.

As a complement to that observation, a fair number of players are also not aware that a random encounter is not by default a combat encounter.

Murderhobos, take note! :smallyuk:

[Talwar]

I don't use random encounters in the sense of rolling on a chart while we're all at the table. I do use random encounters in the sense that I pre-plan encounters that aren't, or aren't necessarily, particularly relevant to the ongoing mission or campaign.

Sometimes this is to world-build, to foreshadow, or just to gauge player reaction/interest in those things. If I have a street gang misidentify the party as new street gang, does the party give them a thumping and send them on their way or do they take an interest in local underworld matters?

Sometimes I find these "accidental" encounters to be a more realistic way of imparting some bit of bling or information or a relationship hook than to have the players seek it out. The party killed the hill-giant, and now they have a magical thing that they'd probably never buy and might never have a use for, yet found in the giant's pouch. Will they come up with clever uses for it or sell it for extra coin?

Or sometimes I just figure the encounter will add some variety to a session that I expect will otherwise be focused on one thematic pillar. Throw in a "random" fight between the second and third social interaction scene. Throw in a "random" social interaction scene between the second and third fight. That sort of thing.

[Quertus]

The location of the street doc and what his bride needs to be is planned

2. A young girl is selling flowers trying to scrap a few nuyen. She knows the area and the doc. PCs could bribe her for info.

Can the flower girl be the street doc's bride?

I like your addition of "nothing" (and of course all the flavor that the encounters add).

I'm… on the fence about… some of it, but most importantly the last one. Is that how you always handle someone searching for the PCs? I'm not sure if I love it, or hate it. It's simple, elegant… and divorced from the rest of the game mechanics.

Like, suppose you roll a 9. The PCs realize that they're in trouble, and need to find Joey the Rat fast, before the enemy does.

Do you make Joey the Rat a random encounter at each reasonable place the PCs visit (and put a timer of "attempts before Joey is found")? Do you make both the PCs and the enemy random encounters for Joey? As above, but only for places the given side explicitly thought of?

If you go with the first one, and the PCs split up, and two or more roll Joey as a random encounter, what do you do?


A good many people who never played Pre-WoTC D&D do not understand that.

As a complement to that observation, a fair number of players are also not aware that a random encounter is not by default a combat encounter.

Murderhobos, take note! :smallyuk:

So… what you're saying is… we need to initiate combat ourselves, and shoot the flower girl, if we want the XP?

[KorvinStarmast]

So… what you're saying is… Your words, not mine. I find that "so" construction offensive and dishonest; please don't do that in responses to me. It's a cheap rhetorical device aimed at putting words into someone else's mouth.

[Jay R]

From my Rules for DMs:


28. The purpose of wandering monsters is to prevent the game from bogging down. If the players spend over five real minutes in useless discussion, then it's ghoul o'clock.

a. Be careful with this. Not all discussion is useless.
b. There should be encounters that have nothing to do with the main quest, or there is no world – just a party and a quest.


Further discussion:

Even if there is, in your words, 'a "goal" or "theme" to the session and the adventures", that goal or theme is not all there is. Bilbo and the dwarves encountered trolls, a shape-changer, and other dangers that had nothing to do with the theme of a dragon hoard. In between encounters with orcs and Nazgûl, Frodo and company also encountered an evil willow tree, barrow-wights, and other things that were not connected with the quest to destroy the ring.

When one sails to Byzantium, one encounters sea-creatures with no Byzantine connection.

If a party is traveling through a forest, then they will encounter forest creatures that have no connection to the black castle they seek on the other side. Similarly, on my own hikes, I have dealt with deer, bears, rattlesnakes, copperheads, hog-nosed snakes, scorpions, dogs, other hikers, squirrels, chipmunks, and other possible encounters. These encounters were random. I happened to arrive at the spot at the same time that creature did.

When planning a quest through the forest to the black castle, a DM could easily decide exactly which forest creatures the party encounters or could come up with a table or list of possibilities. Either works fine, and I urge you to run games the way it works for you.

You can do that without speaking against other ideas that work for other DMs.

[Pex]

That's the subconscious behavior of most players when they feel they are on railroad tracks. Knowing that it's what you'll default to behavior wise is just good self knowledge.

Overriding it is probably character growth. But who needs that? :smallamused:

A game without random encounters is not a game of railroad. It just means when players go from Point A to Point B because the whatever needs to be done needs to be done at Point B nothing special happens on the journey. "Three days later you arrive in Adventuretown". "Two hours later you get to the creepy abandoned tower." "Unless there's anything you want to do in the city, like shopping or visit someone, before the evening it's now sundown and you're at the gate of Noble Wants To Speak With You And Invited You For A Dinner mansion."

[Tanarii]

A game without random encounters is not a game of railroad.
Agreed. I was getting railroad from "If I know a DM has everything planned out in advance..."

[Quertus]

Your words, not mine. I find that "so" construction offensive and dishonest; please don't do that in responses to me. It's a cheap rhetorical device aimed at putting words into someone else's mouth.

Of course it's dishonest - blue text is for sarcasm. No offense intended. Just trying to humorously exemplify how, when looked at from a singular PoV, even words with obvious meaning could be misconstrued. Sorry for any confusion there.

[Sparky McDibben]

Agreed. I was getting railroad from "If I know a DM has everything planned out in advance..."

That was my interpretation as well. Also, why the heck would you want to plan everything out in advance? That ruins all the fun!!

[Glorthindel]

I am just curious how everyone knows they are actually 'random encounters' and not pre-planned encounters? And vice-versa......

Does it matter? Is the "random" in the name Random Encounter referring to the chance of it occuring or its relevance to the story? Or a little of both?

Most (if not all) my "random" encounters are pre-written. That's because they form part of the risk-reward balance open to my players. If they have the choice between two missions, one of which is in their base city, and the other is a four-day horse ride / two-day boat ride away, the possibility for random encounters (and the difference in type depending on mode and speed of transport) is part of the decision balance for the party. I know how many encounters will occur on that horse ride (or boat trip) but the party don't, so its frequency may as well be random from their point of view, even when I know the exact frequency (because i have already written them).

And just because I have written the encounters doesn't mean they have anything to do with the ongoing plot - from that point of view they are very definitely "random". But even with seemingly random encounters, they can be used to illustrate the flavour of the surrounding world, and through that you can use them to forshadow future plots (I know an orc raid is going to be a major future plot point, so Orc scouts and outriders make for a useful random encounter, or perhaps a Dragon's arrival is going to be pivotal to a future plot, and the beasts arrival displacing local mid-sized predators to new hunting grounds could provide a wealth of random encounters for a protracted period of time). Just because in hindsight, some levels later, the characters realise that those formerly "random" encounters were caused by the early shockwaves of events they would be involved in, makes them no less "random" to their eyes when they experienced them.

Random is in the eyes of the characters, regardless of what's actually happening behind the screen.