Odd Implementations of Random Encounters

[vasilidor]

Just because the party has run into random monster X does not mean that they are automatically doomed to try to kill each other. I have used random encounters in many games I have run and one thing I try to do with each is first go and ask "what does this creature want, and how will it try to get this thing?" this has lead the game in some interesting paths before with the group deciding to help the monster or talk it into another way of doing things. other times I drove my players nuts by having the monster simply stare at them from a distance for days on end (one was a blink dog separated from its pack, one was a young dragon looking for wealth that showed up later in the game as an extremely wealthy business tycoon, the last was an aeon whose motivation was to study mortal interactions).
Have any of you had similar experiences with them?

[Koo Rehtorb]

This is what a reaction roll is useful for.

[denthor]

I am a big fan of not every encounter must be kill or be killed.

In 1st level dungeon Medusa has two choices written into the script.

1.) Adventurers are kill everything. She hides in a vase. Hoping they just take the treasure if they try to take the vase it's heavy she looks up to surprise the person if they look inside. If they leave no encounter.

If she does not know she talks to them.

[Mad Nomad]

I had a similar scenario that almost ended in a TPK. It involved a Huge Giant Stag Beetle that was just grazing in a forest near a road.

Despite the creature showing no signs of aggression, and focusing solely on foraging, the party thought it was a good idea to attack it. Bear in mind that this was a "Huge" version of the Giant Stag Beetle, which is normally only "Large" in size.

After the Fighter attacked, and was promptly cut down in two turns by the creature, the party foolishly decided to press the attack. The creature continually tried to retreat through the forest, but was slowed by having to squeeze between trees. Any time a character would get too close, the creature would attack in self defense. They pelted it with ranged attacks, but apparently they were too focused on killing it before it escaped and lost two more characters when they were foolish enough to get within it's movement and reach.

Only one character walked away from that fight.

The real kicker was when the group finally realized that they could have just passed on by, and not stopped to engage the creature at all.

[Rabidmuskrat]

Combat is pretty slow paced in most RPGs, so random encounters do tend to waste a lot of time. By turning a random encounter into a "scripted encounter" like this is definitely a step in the right direction, my problem is figuring it out on the fly. Random Encounters are mostly (in systems I play at least) rolled in the moment when the players try to do something that could result in it. It can be tricky coming up with something more complex than "a goblin walks around the corner. Roll for initiative" in the spur of the moment.

One thing that I've been thinking, is that perhaps it is a good idea to roll up a few random encounters before the game, sequence them, get a general idea for how they occur, then instead of rolling for a random encounter, you just use them in sequence, skipping the ones that don't make sense.

Added bonus, you can reuse the ones that don't end up getting used next session. You will end up just keeping your Random Encounter Queue topped up for the campaign.

[johnbragg]

Combat is pretty slow paced in most RPGs, so random encounters do tend to waste a lot of time. By turning a random encounter into a "scripted encounter" like this is definitely a step in the right direction, my problem is figuring it out on the fly. Random Encounters are mostly (in systems I play at least) rolled in the moment when the players try to do something that could result in it. It can be tricky coming up with something more complex than "a goblin walks around the corner. Roll for initiative" in the spur of the moment.

One thing that I've been thinking, is that perhaps it is a good idea to roll up a few random encounters before the game, sequence them, get a general idea for how they occur, then instead of rolling for a random encounter, you just use them in sequence, skipping the ones that don't make sense.

Added bonus, you can reuse the ones that don't end up getting used next session. You will end up just keeping your Random Encounter Queue topped up for the campaign.

Yes. I'm a big believer in having a limited number of encounters ready, with a fat bell curve. 2d6, with "no encounter" at 7, maybe 6-8.

[Goaty14]

So... if you want players to interact with the encounter, then why are we working off of the assumption that the players *won't* try to recklessly murder whatever monster (they're called monsters for a reason, right?) they happen to run into? IMHO (in D&D, at least), the player mindset is that whatever monster the DM has said that they've encountered, can (and likely will) be killed via violence. Unless the DM comes upfront and changes this perspective (either by humanizing monsters in the campaign setting, clearly indicating/saying that most monsters will be properly equipped to one-shot PCs (and can be bargained with), etc), then you can't really expect anything to change.

Another thing that I'd suggest is to change the encounters listed to not -just- be monsters. Instead of humanizing the monsters (remember the player mindset: monster == kill it), you could instead just use humans (or any other non-monster creature) instead of monsters. Say, the party encounters a crashed airship, a group of lost planar travelers, a caravan for the allied king in a nearby country, or even just a halfling selling dirt! Unlike a monstrous encounter, the players don't necessarily have to stop and do anything (what's the halfling going to do, chase you down on an "advertising campaign" until you buy his dirt?), but I'd vouch that it certainly makes things interesting.

[J-H]

One of my groups just scouted and negotiated a no-fight scenario with three angry Slaad (not angry at the party, but at the situation they were in).

[Lapak]

So... if you want players to interact with the encounter, then why are we working off of the assumption that the players *won't* try to recklessly murder whatever monster (they're called monsters for a reason, right?) they happen to run into? IMHO (in D&D, at least), the player mindset is that whatever monster the DM has said that they've encountered, can (and likely will) be killed via violence. Unless the DM comes upfront and changes this perspective (either by humanizing monsters in the campaign setting, clearly indicating/saying that most monsters will be properly equipped to one-shot PCs (and can be bargained with), etc), then you can't really expect anything to change.

Well, another approach to adjusting behavior is changing the risk-to-reward ratio. OD&D had the whole GP=XP thing to make fighting monsters much less inherently rewarding; if you could sneak or negotiate or intimidate or bluff your way past monsters and get 90% of the experience with zero risk of death (and much less table time invested) you wanted to.

That may not be the exact path to take, but the principle applies: make random combats less inherently rewarding and players will start looking for other solutions.

That said, the rest of your post is entirely true: not all random encounters should be hostile or combat-focused even assuming the players mow down everything they see as a monster.

[RazorChain]

I don't use random encounters and haven't done so for 25 years after I stopped DMing D&D.

IMO random encounters don't bring much to the table and at worst are just a waste of time.

[Kaptin Keen]

I also don't use random encounters. Combat encounters are planned, and generally have a story - either they are part of the main plot, or they are the start of a side plot. Encounters with bandits or similar 'random encounter' stuff I storytell.

Since I also don't do xp for anything other than completing chapters, it all sort of fits together nicely, and there wouldn't be any real point in random encounters.

[RazorChain]

I also don't use random encounters. Combat encounters are planned, and generally have a story - either they are part of the main plot, or they are the start of a side plot. Encounters with bandits or similar 'random encounter' stuff I storytell.

Since I also don't do xp for anything other than completing chapters, it all sort of fits together nicely, and there wouldn't be any real point in random encounters.

I run a game where there is no xp awarded for killing things or overcoming obstacles so the is no incentive to kill things anyway. It can be discussed what random encounters add to the game.

[Erloas]

I think the use of random encounters should come down to what purpose they're serving for your game. If you're in a more sandbox game where exploring and surviving are the main aspects of the game then having random encounters probably fits very well. Now exactly how "random" they really are is up to you, from "a roll on a chart" to "a planned encounter that doesn't add anything to the story" could both be seen as "random" to the players.

Are you using them so the players don't get complacent? No need to guard at night or find an inn or a good place to camp because we've never had anything attack us when we're resting. Seemingly random serve a purpose in that case. Or they like to burn all their spells on every encounter and then rest for 8 hours so they're always at peak shape for every fight, if nothing ever happens unless they're looking for it there is no reason not to.
They also do a lot to set the mood and tone for an area, between a heavily traveled and guarded road compared to an almost unknown path through the woods in areas known to have orcs, or beasts, or the like.

Not all random encounters need to be combat either. There are plenty of pre-built NPCs with built in-non combat options. Traveling merchants, beggars, scholars, etc. Even a "bandit" might trade information for food or coin or supplies, especially if they're only taken up banditry because their farm burnt down and they need to feed their family.

[Jay R]

My usual reason for a random encounter is to get the game going again. Once most of the players are bored with what two of them keep talking about, it's time to roll initiative.

[J-H]

I use random encounters because otherwise the party is going straight from plot point to plot point with nothing going on in between. I put together a quick encounter table (10-20 entries) for a given area, and just work off of that. Encounters vary wildly by areas, and "Nothing" is usually a valid encounter table entry.

[Quertus]

So, I suppose I prefer random encounters in a Sandbox, Exploration style of game. I also prefer random encounters to include anything from monsters to environmental conditions (landslides, forest fires) to bandits / remains from previous bandit attacks to fellow adventurers to pretty flowers. A "random encounter" should, IMO, just be one more tool that the PCs can add to their toolkit of "things to use in the sandbox".

A "random encounter" isn't a distraction from the adventure, it's something that can be used in the adventure, or it can even be the adventure. It just is a "random" encounter because it doesn't have a pre-set home. Note that the party once encountered "the BBEG" as a random encounter, because he traveled.

[vasilidor]

as far as experience goes, i tend to reward for surviving hazards or being smart and bypassing them.
things that people have encountered and survived as level 1 characters in my games (some by running away, some by talking, some by taking the long way around) a group of 500 goblins and hobgoblins bent on raiding the town they were in, a napping hydra, a very old dragon, a flumph and a level 7 evil wizard.
level 7 evil wizards make for great antagonist.

[mephnick]

I feel like a game that was purely "story" encounters (according to the laughable notion that story is something that should be designed instead of reflected on) would be tiring. Random encounters also tell a story and provide a platform for characters to let loose instead of constantly worrying about consequences.