Saintheart
2019-01-23, 01:07 AM
Autoresolving Random Encounters in D&D 3.5/Pathfinder
https://is2-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Video118/v4/c6/47/87/c647870a-0eab-42b5-9091-6094657915b6/pr_source.jpg/320x0w.jpg
Overwhelming: Challenge Rating of 5+ levels above party ECL
Introduction:
Random Encounters in 3.5: after the first adventure that a GM runs, they show up a maximum of once on the way to the dungeon and once on the way back. The chief problem with them in FtF is that they are generally perceived as not adding a lot to the game. They're random, ergo they're not related to the story, and therefore are often seen as just an annoying gadfly of an encounter on the way to the next plot marker. It's even worse when you take up random encounters in play-by-post or play-by-forum, where combat can drag on for weeks if it's particularly complicated; and indeed because I GM in PbF, the subject is a dear one to me.
While there are many different approaches to handling random encounters - from ignoring them entirely to retooling them into "downloadable content" - this module allows GMs to offer players an alternative: autoresolving a random encounter that the party comes across.
The Solution:
This module gives GMs an autoresolve function for random encounters for exploration or travel in 3.5 or Pathfinder -- an optional mechanic that the players can go with if they don't want to play out a random encounter.
In strategy videogames like Total War or similar, this function should be familiar: the enemy has shown up, here are your rough odds of success, click this button if you'd rather not command this battle personally, and out comes the result ... which in most courses is as you expected, but in some instances causes you instead to swear very loudly at the cheating computer.
This course leaves the DM being able to roll up random encounters thus contributing to the party's progress in levels and wealth by level, and holding more verisimilitude for wilderness travel or exploration, but the players don't have to run through the encounters if they don't want to. It hopefully eases the pressure on the DM somewhat, and allows the players to "grind" an area if they really wish to.
The Procedure:
If a party comes up against a random combat encounter (and it's one they want to fight), they can ask for the option to autoresolve it.
The DM then tells the players whether the EL of the encounter is lower than party level, at party level, 1-4 higher than party level, or 5+ above party level, but nothing else.
The players may then choose to autoresolve if they wish, or play the encounter out as normal.
If the players then vote to autoresolve, each player commits a resource. Each player nominates a resource held by the PC to be consumed:
- Two memorised spells or spell slots (of the DM’s choice)
- One consumable item, e.g. potion or scroll
- Two charges of a charged item (e.g. Wand, Rod, or Staff)
- Two uses of a nominated spell-like ability with limited daily uses
- Two uses of a nominated ability with limited daily uses (e.g. Rage, Bardic Music)
- Two uses of a nominated item with daily usages
- One quarter of their maximum hitpoints (regardless of what their current hitpoint total is).
- 2 points of ability damage to a stat of the DM’s choice
(Ammunition in general cannot be used as a resource to sacrifice; it is trivial or impractical to calculate. However, the DM may opt to permit use of ammunition as a resource to be consumed where the quantity held is small and/or of significant expense to the player. In these cases the maximum amount to be committed should be no more than one quarter of the total ammunition held by the PC.)
If none of these items are available, the player may choose to give up a permanent item they hold – a weapon, shield, set of armour, or magic item. These items are deemed destroyed during the combat.
These sacrificed resources represent the resources that a random encounter is meant to consume; they need not have been exhausted in combat, they can be deemed to have been broken or smashed or burned up or torn or ripped in the fighting.
The encounter is then resolved according to a percentage roll as follows:
If EL is lower than party level:
- 00-89:Good outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive, resource consumption normal.
- 90-99: Bad outcome! Enemy is defeated, but a PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption normal.
If EL is at party level (or an “Easy if handled properly” encounter):
- 00-49: Good outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive, resource consumption normal.
- 50-59: Okay outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive, resource consumption doubled.
- 60-69: No outcome! Enemy is undefeated and all PCs survive; resource consumption doubled.
- 70-79: Annoying outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive; resource consumption tripled.
- 80-89: Bad outcome! Enemy is defeated, but a PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption normal
- 90-94: Terrible outcome! Enemy is undefeated, and a PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption doubled.
- 95-99: Horrible outcome! Enemy is defeated, but a PC at random dies. Resource consumption doubled.
If EL is 1-4 higher than party level:
- 00-14: Good outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive and enemy is defeated; resource consumption normal
- 15-44: Taxing outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive; resource consumption doubled
- 45-74: Bad outcome! Enemy is defeated and a PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption doubled
- 75-99: Terrible outcome! Enemy is undefeated and a PC at random dies; resource consumption tripled
If EL is 5+ higher than party level:
- 00-04: Great outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive; resource consumption normal
- 05-39: Bad outcome! Enemy is defeated and a PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption doubled
- 40-69: Expensive outcome! Enemy is defeated and a PC dies; resource consumption doubled
- 70-94: Dreadful outcome! Enemy is undefeated and entire party bar 1 PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption doubled.
- 95-99: Total Party Kill! Entire party dies and enemy is undefeated; resource consumption doubled.
Definitions:
“Incapacitated” = deemed to be at -5 hitpoints and stabilised, having been dragged out of the action by one of his comrades or similar.
“Resource consumption normal” = the sacrifice of resources specified at the start of the encounter is unaffected.
“Resource consumption doubled” = the sacrifice of resources specified at the start of the encounter is multiplied by 2 for all players, e.g. 4 spell slots instead of 2, 4 ability points of damage instead of 2.
“Resource consumption tripled” = the sacrifice of resources specified at the start of the encounter is multiplied by 3 for all players, e.g. 6 spell slots instead of 2, 6 ability points of damage instead of 2.
“Enemy is defeated” = Full XP and applicable treasure for the encounter is awarded, the enemy is dead or fled.
“Enemy is undefeated” = No XP or applicable treasure for the encounter. The enemy is either still where the PCs first encountered it, or fled (at the DM’s discretion). The enemy is deemed to still have all its hitpoints and use of all abilities intact.
If a PC is deemed dead or incapacitated on these results, the DM chooses the PC at random. If the party is deemed to have been defeated on these outcomes, they typically reassemble a short distance from where the encounter took place (representing them fleeing.) These results are not intended to conform precisely with objective reality; they are an abstract representation of how things turned out, bearing in mind the primary focus of a random encounter is to consume some of the party's resources.
Death or Incapacitation Results:
If a PC is deemed dead or incapacitated on these results, they may freely accept that outcome. Adventuring is a dangerous business.
However, should they wish to defy the Random Number God, they may do so as follows:
If a PC is incapacitated on these results, it is optional for the player to reverse fate’s judgment by increasing their resource consumption by a multiple of one. For example, if the results dictated that the party spends normal resource consumption, the PC may reverse incapacitation by sacrificing double the resources they pledged to sacrifice – 4 spell slots rather than the 2 they pledged, 2 ammunition rather than 1, and so on. The player’s hitpoints remain what they were prior to the encounter.
If a PC is dead on these results, again fate’s judgment can be reversed by the PC increasing their resource consumption by a multiple of two: e.g. from normal to triple resource consumption, or from double to four times. So for example, 6 spell slots in place of 2; or 8 spell slots in place of 4.
If, as a result of increase in multiplier, a player doesn’t have enough resources in the category they picked to pay the full price, then the original resource consumption applies – applied to a number of consumable resource categories equal to the total of the multiples.
For example: Jozan has been killed in an encounter where the resource consumption is doubled. His original resource commitment was 2 spell slots. He elects to reverse fate’s judgment, which means he must spend 8 spell slots instead (Doubled resource consumption plus a multiplier of two). Lacking 8 spell slots to sacrifice, he instead pays 2 spell slots, 2 Turn Undead uses, half his maximum hitpoint total, and 2 points of WIS damage.
If the player cannot pay for the resource consumption by these means, he may instead sacrifice a permanent item he carries – a weapon, shield, set of armour, or magic item.
In the case of a Total Party Kill, there are special rules. If the entire party wishes to truly defy the fates at once, the entire party must spend all of its consumable spell slots, all daily-use item charges, all daily (Su), (Sp), and (Ex) abilities, and one quarter of all charges in all charged items. All PCs’ hitpoint totals are set to one quarter of their maximum hitpoint count and the party is left a short distance from the encounter that caused the TPK. This approach does not rule out the alternative, i.e. one player electing to reverse the death result on expenditure of resources and then moving to resurrect or raise the remainder of the party.
I realise there are various approaches that different GMs have used to try and ameliorate the problem of random encounters. At one end, and simplest, is to simply not have any random encounters at all. Just do the equivalent of a pretty cutscene and teleport the party to its next location. Which is entirely valid.
For me though, and I suspect maybe other GMs, this is just ... unsubtle. Unpretty. Doesn't promote verisimilitude; you can trudge through the spooky mountains to Sour Ron's fortress, and for all the fearsome reputation of the place and its surrounds, you don't run into one guard or threat on the way. One does not simply walk into Mordor ... well, with no random encounters, at least partially you can do precisely that. On top of that -- in my view -- it rests a hand on the scales of system balance because random encounters are baked into the assumptions 3.5 uses when designing adventures, particularly when attempting to assign difficulty levels to the "real" encounters of an adventure. The DMG assumes a given number of encounters for levels, and those encounters include random encounters. The much-maligned 15 minute adventuring day effect is magnified when you don't have random encounters with which to introduce an element of uncertainty to the players' strategy of resting and going back at Sour Ron again the next morning with full resources.
At the other end, and a system I do like a lot better, is in essence to reduce the variety of random encounters, tailor them so they form a sort of sidequest, give the players a clear indication that the longer they pussyfoot around in the wilds the bigger the chance a random encounter is going to trigger, and then have your fun as a DM in seeing when they show up. This is basically the Angry GM's philosophy, and it does have a lot to recommend itself. In essence, the reasoning is that the main thing a random encounter does is introduce suspense for the players: they don't know when one is going to show up or what's going to be in it, so there's no real need to use the 8-or-9-random-creatures tables. Just make four or five that are tangentially related to the plot in some way. Your suspense as a GM is best found in not knowing when or which of the random encounters you've put together is going to show up, and that likewise doesn't need 8 or 9 separate creatures. Like I said, it's a really nice way to do it.
The problem is that neither of these approaches works out exactly right in PbF games where the dominant focus is exploration or sandboxing.
In Kingmaker, hanging around in the wilderness mapping it out is a pretty decent component of the game, something that will take you literally months of in-game time to survey areas properly. In these cases it's tricky or getting a bit cheesy to have random encounters that are all in some way tied to the overall plot, or deprives the game of its focus ... and in particular, it blows out a PbF game to literally years of time without really getting anywhere. This is particularly so if you include a bunch of encounters per the DMG's dictum of about 10-30% of encounters that are easy (and therefore cakewalks). Conversely, removing all random encounters doesn't work either, because there is then no element of uncertainty or danger in the exploration, no tradeoff for just putzing around the backblocks; exploration becomes a straight transaction of in-universe time (which is essentially limitless, even on Kingmaker's explicit instructions) in exchange for modest XP and identifying minor adventure sites.
(Bonus points: I like the sound and look of The One Ring's travel system, which basically assigns lasting benefits or hindrances depending on how the trip to the adventure area went, making the journey a mini-adventure in itself and very Tolkienesque as a result, but that's beyond the scope of this homebrew.)
The Assumptions and Presumptions:
To figure out what an autoresolution mechanic should look like, I asked myself a few questions and came up with the following hypotheses:
What is the intent of a random encounter in 3.5?
- It drains party resources. I'd call this the primary intent: it's meant to keep the party from bringing their full A-Game against the planned encounters.
- It permits a decent chance of death or incapacitation if the encounter is challenging enough. This is partly the random element, evidenced by the fact a percentage of encounters a party 'should' run into on DMG standards is "Overwhelming" or "Very Difficult"; the DMG itself says in very difficult encounters there should be a decent chance a character will die. Random encounters form part of the total of encounters in an adventure.
- It provides encounters (XP haul) and treasure. As said, whether it's random or not, an encounter is an encounter. Some GMs don't award XP for random encounters, but to remove all benefits for fighting a random encounter isn't going to encourage people to participate in them. And we want a certain level of participation.
- It provides suspense for party in that they don’t know when it will happen. This is preserved because we're not touching whether the encounter occurs or not, just whether the party wants to actively fight it or not.
- Ideally, it provides agency for the party in that if they keep hanging around in Sour Ron's neighbourhood, the odds of the encounter grow higher.
What does autoresolving do?
- Saves time for both players and DMs. This is important for PbF or PbP in my view.
- Would allow party to judge whether the fight is a worthwhile one. If you have an idea whether the fight is going to be a TPK, then you won't autoresolve, you'll command personally and try and survive it. If you can see the fight is a curbstomper (for the monsters), then you'll be more likely to not fight it or trust your unpossessed PCs to do their jobs.
- Locks off interesting pieces of information. This is the cost of autoresolving: autoresolve doesn't deny you plot-crucial pieces of intelligence, but it might cost you the opportunity of exploring "additional content" which makes things a bit more interesting and which the random encounter might have unlocked.
What should autoresolving cost to the party?
- Should still drain party resources. That's the entire point of a random encounter, it forces the party to use resources up so they don't come in at full power into the "plot critical" encounters. It shouldn't drain the party's entire resources, but should cost them something to fight it.
- Should still impose chance of critical injury or death. This is a possibility in all encounters, especially those where the encounters are at a high EL.
- Should cost time on your journey, if the outcome is bad. This is one of the drawbacks to autoresolving: you can choose not to fight the battle, but if it comes out badly for you, it should hinder you in terms of not getting you closer to your destination.
- Should cost a percentage of XP and treasure out of what would otherwise be granted. I'm undecided on this, because it disincentives parties to autoresolve, which is sort of not the point.
What is a party resource?
To my mind, a party resource is anything that is not renewable, or has a delay on being renewable. Thus:
- Ammunition
- Daily spell slots (more valuable in early day encounters than late)
- Consumable Items (Scrolls, Potions, etc.)
- Uses of per-day special abilities (eg Barbarian Rage, Bardic Music)
- Hitpoints (say one quarter total hitpoints if we assume 4 encounters per day), which then must be healed out of combat.
I'm open to other suggestions as well.
The last assumption we have to work with is 3.5's balance of encounters in an adventure. Reason being is that the frequency and EL levels give us some indicators for what outcomes we expect from autoresolved encounters under each heading.
10% Easy (EL lower than party level)
20% Easy if handled properly (EL is at party level but the enemy has a fatal flaw, e.g. dispel invisibility and the enemy is weak otherwise. If not handled properly, encounter is Challenging or Very Difficult.)
50% Challenging (EL equals that of party level)
15% Very Difficult (EL 1-4 higher than party level)
5% Overpowering (EL 5+ higher than party level)
It seems relatively logical, then, given the descriptions in the DM guide, that the odds of getting killed in easy encounters ought to be pretty low to zero. I tried matching the odds of living or dying by the frequency different categories of encounter show up: if 5% of encounters are overpowering, the odds of death or bad outcomes should be very high, and so on.
https://is2-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Video118/v4/c6/47/87/c647870a-0eab-42b5-9091-6094657915b6/pr_source.jpg/320x0w.jpg
Overwhelming: Challenge Rating of 5+ levels above party ECL
Introduction:
Random Encounters in 3.5: after the first adventure that a GM runs, they show up a maximum of once on the way to the dungeon and once on the way back. The chief problem with them in FtF is that they are generally perceived as not adding a lot to the game. They're random, ergo they're not related to the story, and therefore are often seen as just an annoying gadfly of an encounter on the way to the next plot marker. It's even worse when you take up random encounters in play-by-post or play-by-forum, where combat can drag on for weeks if it's particularly complicated; and indeed because I GM in PbF, the subject is a dear one to me.
While there are many different approaches to handling random encounters - from ignoring them entirely to retooling them into "downloadable content" - this module allows GMs to offer players an alternative: autoresolving a random encounter that the party comes across.
The Solution:
This module gives GMs an autoresolve function for random encounters for exploration or travel in 3.5 or Pathfinder -- an optional mechanic that the players can go with if they don't want to play out a random encounter.
In strategy videogames like Total War or similar, this function should be familiar: the enemy has shown up, here are your rough odds of success, click this button if you'd rather not command this battle personally, and out comes the result ... which in most courses is as you expected, but in some instances causes you instead to swear very loudly at the cheating computer.
This course leaves the DM being able to roll up random encounters thus contributing to the party's progress in levels and wealth by level, and holding more verisimilitude for wilderness travel or exploration, but the players don't have to run through the encounters if they don't want to. It hopefully eases the pressure on the DM somewhat, and allows the players to "grind" an area if they really wish to.
The Procedure:
If a party comes up against a random combat encounter (and it's one they want to fight), they can ask for the option to autoresolve it.
The DM then tells the players whether the EL of the encounter is lower than party level, at party level, 1-4 higher than party level, or 5+ above party level, but nothing else.
The players may then choose to autoresolve if they wish, or play the encounter out as normal.
If the players then vote to autoresolve, each player commits a resource. Each player nominates a resource held by the PC to be consumed:
- Two memorised spells or spell slots (of the DM’s choice)
- One consumable item, e.g. potion or scroll
- Two charges of a charged item (e.g. Wand, Rod, or Staff)
- Two uses of a nominated spell-like ability with limited daily uses
- Two uses of a nominated ability with limited daily uses (e.g. Rage, Bardic Music)
- Two uses of a nominated item with daily usages
- One quarter of their maximum hitpoints (regardless of what their current hitpoint total is).
- 2 points of ability damage to a stat of the DM’s choice
(Ammunition in general cannot be used as a resource to sacrifice; it is trivial or impractical to calculate. However, the DM may opt to permit use of ammunition as a resource to be consumed where the quantity held is small and/or of significant expense to the player. In these cases the maximum amount to be committed should be no more than one quarter of the total ammunition held by the PC.)
If none of these items are available, the player may choose to give up a permanent item they hold – a weapon, shield, set of armour, or magic item. These items are deemed destroyed during the combat.
These sacrificed resources represent the resources that a random encounter is meant to consume; they need not have been exhausted in combat, they can be deemed to have been broken or smashed or burned up or torn or ripped in the fighting.
The encounter is then resolved according to a percentage roll as follows:
If EL is lower than party level:
- 00-89:Good outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive, resource consumption normal.
- 90-99: Bad outcome! Enemy is defeated, but a PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption normal.
If EL is at party level (or an “Easy if handled properly” encounter):
- 00-49: Good outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive, resource consumption normal.
- 50-59: Okay outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive, resource consumption doubled.
- 60-69: No outcome! Enemy is undefeated and all PCs survive; resource consumption doubled.
- 70-79: Annoying outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive; resource consumption tripled.
- 80-89: Bad outcome! Enemy is defeated, but a PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption normal
- 90-94: Terrible outcome! Enemy is undefeated, and a PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption doubled.
- 95-99: Horrible outcome! Enemy is defeated, but a PC at random dies. Resource consumption doubled.
If EL is 1-4 higher than party level:
- 00-14: Good outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive and enemy is defeated; resource consumption normal
- 15-44: Taxing outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive; resource consumption doubled
- 45-74: Bad outcome! Enemy is defeated and a PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption doubled
- 75-99: Terrible outcome! Enemy is undefeated and a PC at random dies; resource consumption tripled
If EL is 5+ higher than party level:
- 00-04: Great outcome! Enemy is defeated and all PCs survive; resource consumption normal
- 05-39: Bad outcome! Enemy is defeated and a PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption doubled
- 40-69: Expensive outcome! Enemy is defeated and a PC dies; resource consumption doubled
- 70-94: Dreadful outcome! Enemy is undefeated and entire party bar 1 PC at random is incapacitated; resource consumption doubled.
- 95-99: Total Party Kill! Entire party dies and enemy is undefeated; resource consumption doubled.
Definitions:
“Incapacitated” = deemed to be at -5 hitpoints and stabilised, having been dragged out of the action by one of his comrades or similar.
“Resource consumption normal” = the sacrifice of resources specified at the start of the encounter is unaffected.
“Resource consumption doubled” = the sacrifice of resources specified at the start of the encounter is multiplied by 2 for all players, e.g. 4 spell slots instead of 2, 4 ability points of damage instead of 2.
“Resource consumption tripled” = the sacrifice of resources specified at the start of the encounter is multiplied by 3 for all players, e.g. 6 spell slots instead of 2, 6 ability points of damage instead of 2.
“Enemy is defeated” = Full XP and applicable treasure for the encounter is awarded, the enemy is dead or fled.
“Enemy is undefeated” = No XP or applicable treasure for the encounter. The enemy is either still where the PCs first encountered it, or fled (at the DM’s discretion). The enemy is deemed to still have all its hitpoints and use of all abilities intact.
If a PC is deemed dead or incapacitated on these results, the DM chooses the PC at random. If the party is deemed to have been defeated on these outcomes, they typically reassemble a short distance from where the encounter took place (representing them fleeing.) These results are not intended to conform precisely with objective reality; they are an abstract representation of how things turned out, bearing in mind the primary focus of a random encounter is to consume some of the party's resources.
Death or Incapacitation Results:
If a PC is deemed dead or incapacitated on these results, they may freely accept that outcome. Adventuring is a dangerous business.
However, should they wish to defy the Random Number God, they may do so as follows:
If a PC is incapacitated on these results, it is optional for the player to reverse fate’s judgment by increasing their resource consumption by a multiple of one. For example, if the results dictated that the party spends normal resource consumption, the PC may reverse incapacitation by sacrificing double the resources they pledged to sacrifice – 4 spell slots rather than the 2 they pledged, 2 ammunition rather than 1, and so on. The player’s hitpoints remain what they were prior to the encounter.
If a PC is dead on these results, again fate’s judgment can be reversed by the PC increasing their resource consumption by a multiple of two: e.g. from normal to triple resource consumption, or from double to four times. So for example, 6 spell slots in place of 2; or 8 spell slots in place of 4.
If, as a result of increase in multiplier, a player doesn’t have enough resources in the category they picked to pay the full price, then the original resource consumption applies – applied to a number of consumable resource categories equal to the total of the multiples.
For example: Jozan has been killed in an encounter where the resource consumption is doubled. His original resource commitment was 2 spell slots. He elects to reverse fate’s judgment, which means he must spend 8 spell slots instead (Doubled resource consumption plus a multiplier of two). Lacking 8 spell slots to sacrifice, he instead pays 2 spell slots, 2 Turn Undead uses, half his maximum hitpoint total, and 2 points of WIS damage.
If the player cannot pay for the resource consumption by these means, he may instead sacrifice a permanent item he carries – a weapon, shield, set of armour, or magic item.
In the case of a Total Party Kill, there are special rules. If the entire party wishes to truly defy the fates at once, the entire party must spend all of its consumable spell slots, all daily-use item charges, all daily (Su), (Sp), and (Ex) abilities, and one quarter of all charges in all charged items. All PCs’ hitpoint totals are set to one quarter of their maximum hitpoint count and the party is left a short distance from the encounter that caused the TPK. This approach does not rule out the alternative, i.e. one player electing to reverse the death result on expenditure of resources and then moving to resurrect or raise the remainder of the party.
I realise there are various approaches that different GMs have used to try and ameliorate the problem of random encounters. At one end, and simplest, is to simply not have any random encounters at all. Just do the equivalent of a pretty cutscene and teleport the party to its next location. Which is entirely valid.
For me though, and I suspect maybe other GMs, this is just ... unsubtle. Unpretty. Doesn't promote verisimilitude; you can trudge through the spooky mountains to Sour Ron's fortress, and for all the fearsome reputation of the place and its surrounds, you don't run into one guard or threat on the way. One does not simply walk into Mordor ... well, with no random encounters, at least partially you can do precisely that. On top of that -- in my view -- it rests a hand on the scales of system balance because random encounters are baked into the assumptions 3.5 uses when designing adventures, particularly when attempting to assign difficulty levels to the "real" encounters of an adventure. The DMG assumes a given number of encounters for levels, and those encounters include random encounters. The much-maligned 15 minute adventuring day effect is magnified when you don't have random encounters with which to introduce an element of uncertainty to the players' strategy of resting and going back at Sour Ron again the next morning with full resources.
At the other end, and a system I do like a lot better, is in essence to reduce the variety of random encounters, tailor them so they form a sort of sidequest, give the players a clear indication that the longer they pussyfoot around in the wilds the bigger the chance a random encounter is going to trigger, and then have your fun as a DM in seeing when they show up. This is basically the Angry GM's philosophy, and it does have a lot to recommend itself. In essence, the reasoning is that the main thing a random encounter does is introduce suspense for the players: they don't know when one is going to show up or what's going to be in it, so there's no real need to use the 8-or-9-random-creatures tables. Just make four or five that are tangentially related to the plot in some way. Your suspense as a GM is best found in not knowing when or which of the random encounters you've put together is going to show up, and that likewise doesn't need 8 or 9 separate creatures. Like I said, it's a really nice way to do it.
The problem is that neither of these approaches works out exactly right in PbF games where the dominant focus is exploration or sandboxing.
In Kingmaker, hanging around in the wilderness mapping it out is a pretty decent component of the game, something that will take you literally months of in-game time to survey areas properly. In these cases it's tricky or getting a bit cheesy to have random encounters that are all in some way tied to the overall plot, or deprives the game of its focus ... and in particular, it blows out a PbF game to literally years of time without really getting anywhere. This is particularly so if you include a bunch of encounters per the DMG's dictum of about 10-30% of encounters that are easy (and therefore cakewalks). Conversely, removing all random encounters doesn't work either, because there is then no element of uncertainty or danger in the exploration, no tradeoff for just putzing around the backblocks; exploration becomes a straight transaction of in-universe time (which is essentially limitless, even on Kingmaker's explicit instructions) in exchange for modest XP and identifying minor adventure sites.
(Bonus points: I like the sound and look of The One Ring's travel system, which basically assigns lasting benefits or hindrances depending on how the trip to the adventure area went, making the journey a mini-adventure in itself and very Tolkienesque as a result, but that's beyond the scope of this homebrew.)
The Assumptions and Presumptions:
To figure out what an autoresolution mechanic should look like, I asked myself a few questions and came up with the following hypotheses:
What is the intent of a random encounter in 3.5?
- It drains party resources. I'd call this the primary intent: it's meant to keep the party from bringing their full A-Game against the planned encounters.
- It permits a decent chance of death or incapacitation if the encounter is challenging enough. This is partly the random element, evidenced by the fact a percentage of encounters a party 'should' run into on DMG standards is "Overwhelming" or "Very Difficult"; the DMG itself says in very difficult encounters there should be a decent chance a character will die. Random encounters form part of the total of encounters in an adventure.
- It provides encounters (XP haul) and treasure. As said, whether it's random or not, an encounter is an encounter. Some GMs don't award XP for random encounters, but to remove all benefits for fighting a random encounter isn't going to encourage people to participate in them. And we want a certain level of participation.
- It provides suspense for party in that they don’t know when it will happen. This is preserved because we're not touching whether the encounter occurs or not, just whether the party wants to actively fight it or not.
- Ideally, it provides agency for the party in that if they keep hanging around in Sour Ron's neighbourhood, the odds of the encounter grow higher.
What does autoresolving do?
- Saves time for both players and DMs. This is important for PbF or PbP in my view.
- Would allow party to judge whether the fight is a worthwhile one. If you have an idea whether the fight is going to be a TPK, then you won't autoresolve, you'll command personally and try and survive it. If you can see the fight is a curbstomper (for the monsters), then you'll be more likely to not fight it or trust your unpossessed PCs to do their jobs.
- Locks off interesting pieces of information. This is the cost of autoresolving: autoresolve doesn't deny you plot-crucial pieces of intelligence, but it might cost you the opportunity of exploring "additional content" which makes things a bit more interesting and which the random encounter might have unlocked.
What should autoresolving cost to the party?
- Should still drain party resources. That's the entire point of a random encounter, it forces the party to use resources up so they don't come in at full power into the "plot critical" encounters. It shouldn't drain the party's entire resources, but should cost them something to fight it.
- Should still impose chance of critical injury or death. This is a possibility in all encounters, especially those where the encounters are at a high EL.
- Should cost time on your journey, if the outcome is bad. This is one of the drawbacks to autoresolving: you can choose not to fight the battle, but if it comes out badly for you, it should hinder you in terms of not getting you closer to your destination.
- Should cost a percentage of XP and treasure out of what would otherwise be granted. I'm undecided on this, because it disincentives parties to autoresolve, which is sort of not the point.
What is a party resource?
To my mind, a party resource is anything that is not renewable, or has a delay on being renewable. Thus:
- Ammunition
- Daily spell slots (more valuable in early day encounters than late)
- Consumable Items (Scrolls, Potions, etc.)
- Uses of per-day special abilities (eg Barbarian Rage, Bardic Music)
- Hitpoints (say one quarter total hitpoints if we assume 4 encounters per day), which then must be healed out of combat.
I'm open to other suggestions as well.
The last assumption we have to work with is 3.5's balance of encounters in an adventure. Reason being is that the frequency and EL levels give us some indicators for what outcomes we expect from autoresolved encounters under each heading.
10% Easy (EL lower than party level)
20% Easy if handled properly (EL is at party level but the enemy has a fatal flaw, e.g. dispel invisibility and the enemy is weak otherwise. If not handled properly, encounter is Challenging or Very Difficult.)
50% Challenging (EL equals that of party level)
15% Very Difficult (EL 1-4 higher than party level)
5% Overpowering (EL 5+ higher than party level)
It seems relatively logical, then, given the descriptions in the DM guide, that the odds of getting killed in easy encounters ought to be pretty low to zero. I tried matching the odds of living or dying by the frequency different categories of encounter show up: if 5% of encounters are overpowering, the odds of death or bad outcomes should be very high, and so on.