Comments on: Troy’s Crock Pot: In Praise of Random Encounters

By: Bercilac

Bercilac — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:00:02 +0000

I once made a wilderness random encounter table for an adventure set in a swamp. Naturally, it included NPC hunting and fishing parties, crocodiles, a bit of undead (always an unfair association in fantasy; swamps are amazingly lively ecosystems), super-sized snapping turtles, giant insects, etc. What made it fun was that I also included a whole bunch of things that had no mechanical effect. A school of fish, a bird, a rustle in the bushes, and other random things like all of the birds suddenly going silent, the pcs entering an area of blasted and rotting trees, etc. These were useful because the players were keyed to me rolling a die and adding ominous description as signaling an encounter. Sometimes they would stop and do search checks or whatnot in response to my shenanigans. This gave the place a far more alien, dangerous feel, and slightly desensitised them to "dangerous" description.

By: BryanB

BryanB — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:49:34 +0000

@Scott Martin - The Plane of Shadows is a very dangerous place indeed. My only TPK under 3e D&D rules was on the Plane of Shadows. I like random encounters for the most part, but one has to prepare the possible random encounters out ahead of time when they are using certain game systems.

By: outrider11

outrider11 — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:35:55 +0000

I go with prepared random encounters. I make up my encounters and put them on 4x6 cards. They are broken up into general categories like hills, plains, and those that are specific to the adventure. I prepare several of them at a time and then decide which to use and put them in a stack to be used.

By: pseudodragon

pseudodragon — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:38:35 +0000

I concur with Robert's views for the most part. I often set up a table of colorful encounters that I can drop in as the mood hits me. They aren't critical to the success of the dungeon and are used more to challenge the PCs and to provide some flexibility in running the adventure. That way, if the PCs are getting through the adventure much faster than I anticipated, I can add some encounters on the fly without they're seeming to come out of left field. On the other hand, if the adventure is dragging out, I can omit the extra encounters altogether. I don't always select them randomly, rather I pick and choose which ones fit the setting, circumstances, and character mood of the moment. Sometimes, too, they can make for great comic relief or a chance to spotlight a specific PC.

By: umbral.fury

umbral.fury — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:48:05 +0000

I once had an idea for a sand box game that I never ran because of the work involved, where the main encounters, except for certain dungeons, were rough rings of random encounters around major cities. That being said, I like the idea of encounter tables, but I dislike actually sitting down to write them so as to make sense in your game.

By: John Arcadian

John Arcadian — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:11:13 +0000

I tend to use random encounter lists, but with preplanned times or places that the encounter occurs. I don't use them all that often though. Usually I know what is in the Dungeon or area and make it relevant to the PCs when it makes sense, based on the flow of the game.

By: Scott Martin

Scott Martin — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:07:02 +0000

I like your idea for random encounters-- it's a good way to mix good rumors and bad, or important and unimportant in a way that makes the world seem more complex-- and a little less scripted. I recently used them when my PCs wandered across the Plane of Shadows; it did a good job of underscoring how dangerous and alien a place it was.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:31:13 +0000

I prefer to call them “wandering encounters” rather than “random”. While there’s usually a random element to them, they should generally not be entirely random. At a minimum, you’ve chosen a table out of a book based on dungeon level or wilderness terrain type. Ideally, you’re using a table specifically designed for the specific area with some encounters specific to the area. (Check B4: The Lost City as one example.) Wandering encounters may be every much as planned as fixed encounters. The only difference is that they aren’t tied to a specific point on the map but merely the general area. Like fixed encounters, they may end up being friendly or violent or anywhere in between. They can be designed to be every bit as interesting as fixed encounters can. They can contribute to the narrative that comes out of the game every bit as much as fixed encounters can. A world with only fixed encounters would seem a very strange place to me.

By: steamcrow

steamcrow — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:58:47 +0000

Maybe I am completely "old school" myself, but random charts DO make gaming more interesting for the GM, and surprising for everyone around the table. I've even enjoyed a couple random-effects items (like a chaos wand) that had crazy effects that no-one could predict. (Such as growing a full sized apple tree in the middle of the dungeon hall pursuit.) Many of these have created the most memorable adventures of our gaming careers. I also find the list-making (for building the chart) an excellent brainstorming activity, to really think out what one *might* encounter in the environ. It gives us a chance as GMs to really sit back and think about the setting in a full, rich way. Even if you don't like random encounter charts, it's a meaningful exercise, I think.