@mozz That chart is a story unto itself. I loved it.
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
36 points (95.0% liked)
rpg
3136 readers
7 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Which is why it is the perfect encounter table 🙂
I think the different opinions stem from how the encounter table is presented.
OP makes a strong argument with a little encounter table with a built-in narrative (bear-hunting goblins, a wounded bear, or the bear king hunting goblins), but the way encounter tables are presented in the DMG is simply "roll for a random animal or monster", with very little correlation between the creature and the setting or location.
But if the DM is willing to put a small ounce of commitment into it, they can turn the random wolf or bandit attack into part of the narrative (the wolves are plaguing the countryside and forcing a small group of would-be honest farmers into banditry to survive).
It's an interesting perspective. I also never considered random encounter tables as anything more than session filler for when I want to throw a quick combat to my players without much prep, but OP makes for a strong case about weaving them into the narrative or using them as plot hooks for small, self-contained subplots.
Also keep in mind that it doesn't always mean combat. With the reaction table, there is only a 28% chance the encounter is hostile. 44% chance it is uncertain and it depends on the players if it will be a combat.
It's interesting seeing "random encounter" coming back in grace, I have the impression that they were universally considered as a "bad practice" for at least 2 decades, and now i see people defending them again. Is it an effect of both the OSR and Rule-light zero-prep ? Or is it that I spend more time on english speaking communities dominated by more "classical D&D perspective"
My issue, and why I (quickly in my GM career) stopped putting "random combat" is that, as a "low combat GM" random combats end-up interrupting the game for no reasons, and end-up being either "clay shooting practice" (So a few easy ennemies to roll some dices without bringing anything to the story) or a "catastrophic event" throwing all the PC plan away as they walked injured out of that fight and will need a lot of in game time to recover which basically breaks the game. If there is a combat, the PC called for it, either by their action or their non action, but not just by "simply existing in the game world"
However, I can totally see how for games with more focus on combat, it can still be interesting, just "not my cup of tea"
@Ziggurat @mozz I also have very little combat in my games, but I use random encounters all the time because they make the setting dynamic.
I don't equate random encounter with random combat, an encounter can be something to interact with, talk to, run from, or plenty of other things.
I also don't equate "random" with "unrelated to the rest of the adventure", part of the fun of random encounters is figuring out why and how an ogre ended up on top of the ruined tower, and building on that.
Yeah. This is why I like his table. I get what @Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works is saying in that random encounters can feel kind of same-y and pointless -- but if there's a little subplot that the encounter is looping the players into, where they can decide for themselves how to react to what happens and how much to involve themselves in it -- then it can form instead a good way to add some grist to the let's-have-fun mill.
Literally every single time I have presented my players with an unaccompanied child who's asking for help, they've believed it to be some treacherous magical creature or illusion designed to lure them into some horrible trap.
It's never been those things. It's always just been a lost child. But every time, without fail, they spring to their guard, they start detecting magic, all kinds of things. I honestly have no idea where they got the idea that that's what lost children mean.
I’d imagine it’s the OSR influence, especially with the more old-school notion that the random encounters are the story.
That is, instead of random encounters being an interruption of the narrative, they’re just as much a part of it as the time your PCs sat in a bar for two hours trying to convince the barmaid to go dungeon-crawling with them.
Especially if random encounters include variation in distance and attitude. Encountering a knight could involve stumbling into a questing hedge knight‘s campsite, or it could involve hiding from the Black Knight after spotting them from a nearby hillside.
And there is also a narrative purpose in having combat start from “just existing in the game world.” Parts of the world are dangerous and deadly to be in, and random encounters are a good way to portray that without elaborately plotting out a sequence of “dangerous events” on a travel timetable.
First thing you need to realise is that's it's random encounters, not random combat.
It's an opportunity for some role play, for establishing the setting, for dishing out adventure related info, etc.
If you're only using the concept for more combat, then yes, I wouldn't see the point either.