What is the purpose of random encounters?

[GloatingSwine]

That's because most RPG games do, in fact, have relatively trivial stealth rules and this is a thread about random encounters in an otherwise generalist RPG, not one with a deeply developed stealth subsystem.

[Jay R]

So what actual purpose do random encounters, particularly powerful ones, serve on either a mechanical or narrative level?

I gave an answer on the mechanical level earlier. ["Wandering monsters exist to prevent the game from bogging down. If the players spend over five real minutes in useless discussion, then it's ghoul o'clock."]

I also gave an answer on the narrative level. ["There should be encounters that have nothing to do with the main quest, or there is no world – just a party and a quest."]

But here's the real narrative level answer: The DM can give it a narrative purpose. Nobody else can. The rulebook can't. The table can't. Only the DM can do that.

A random encounter isn't just somebody who magically appears on the road in front of the party, weapons drawn, preparing to fight and die. Why is that monster there? What is its current motivation?

Is it eating? Caught in a trap? Trying to reach something that fell down a well? Setting up an ambush for the ogres that are due any minute? Is its child injured? Does it need to know if there is a cleric of Tiamat in the town the party just left? Does it know the clue the party needs? Does it have a magic item to trade that it can't use but the party can? What does it need that the party can do?

Like everything else in the game, it has only the narrative purpose that the DM gives it. The DM is, after all, the narrator.

Finally, one more consideration: even when you're using a random encounter table, the table isn't the final authority; the DM is. From my "Rules for DMs" document:

11. The DM can change, annul, or overrule any rule in the rulebook. This is not a toy or free privilege to change the game at whim. It’s a heavy responsibility to make the game go right, and to be fair to the players, even when the rules aren’t right for a specific moment.

a. Printed rules should be the standard. Rules changes should be the exception.
b. Never ignore the rules. When you change or make exceptions to the rules you should be most focused on the written rule, its intent, and its effects.
c. Applying the published rules is like eating food. That should always happen. Changing the rules is like taking medicine; it's only a good idea if something is wrong, you know how it’s wrong, and you know how to fix it.
d. Never change a rule unless you know why it was written.

So roll on the table -- then apply a judgment call. Can you use this roll to create a good encounter for these characters played by these players at this moment in the game?

If not, either roll again, or make something up, or don't have an encounter. You know the state of your game and your players right now, and the random encounter table doesn't.

The published rules are not the final authority (just like my "Rules for DMs" are merely suggestions). Your game is your responsibility.

Neither having random monsters, nor not having them, will improve the game. DM judgment calls make a superior game.

[KorvinStarmast]

[QUOTE=Fable Wright;25914155]*facedesk*

The initial inspiration for random encounters was Wandering Monsters. They fit into the initial design of the game; you are playing a small, elite fighting force entering a hostile dungeon. Your goal is to get as much treasure as possible and get out, whether by combat, magic, or stealth.

Yep. Clever play was rewarded.

For large-scale exploration games, most random encounters should probably not be combat encounters, but be more like Oregon Trail. You're running out of water, and people want to refill from the river? Dysentery time. This made sense in the old AD&D design where it could take the spellcasters days to restock on spell slots. You'll have a certain number of random event rolls to be resolved by combat, magic, or skill, before even getting to the dungeon. Or you're forced to retreat because of an overwhelming encounter, and have to eat a large loss by giving the dragon your horses and treasure as you flee on foot. This is resources spent before reaching a location, and function like Wandering Monsters within the dungeon, except for geographic barriers.

And then WotC bought it.

In a game designed for their use, there needs to be an understanding of said random encounters.

They can have a use as an unnecessary roadblock if they're designed for establishing the threat level of a new geographic zone for later, but they need to be a resource for players to ration and make decisions around for them to be meaningful.

yes. And discussing this approach at Session Zero won't hurt. Need to understand player expectations, and DM expectations.

Eh, I would suggest that in the kind of classic game where you have random encounters and it's all about resource management, you're in the wilderness anyway, so there's no walking between villages. You're six days beyond the borders of civilization.

Yes. Monsters that dangerous do not have villages next to them, or, they extort the villages in some way (sacrifice, grain, livestock, what have you)

Spoiler: Good stuff

Show

Some of the answers have been addressed above me, but I'd like to touch on a few more points:
# Their main role is to enhance danger- If you mess around too much/ Waste time- You might draw danger. Note that the time to roll for wandering monsters in dungeons was decided both on time spent, but also if the party made a lot of noise/ tarried too long in one space. It was one of the reasons that parties couldn't just rest anywhere they wanted.

# Note that most published adventures/ modules who use random encounters have a tighter "CR range" in their tables (Usually up to -3/+3 of the PCs group), with encounters that fit much more the nature of the adventure and region. This is an application of the suggested Random Encounters rules in the DM guide, put into actual context.

# Also as mentioned above, the wider range random encounters are used for a more sandbox/ free exploration style of game, where there is no (Or very little) plot, and a lot of content is randomised to an extent, but you can somewhat prepare in advance. (If we plan to go to the spidery woods, we better carry anti venom and means to free ourselves of webs. If we go into the region controlled by a known red dragon, we better prepare accordingly, if we happen to encounter it).

# But far more importantly- they are a tool, not a hard rule.

Spoiler: More good stuff

Show

You use them when they fit, and a lot of the basic encounter tables in DM guides and the like are supposed to inspire the DM to create his own tables, to suit his adventure design, and not to force him to use them. If they don't fit the adventure, campaign, or gaming group- Don't use them. Like any tool- they are great if they fill a role or a need, and used porperly (More on that soon enough), but if used just because "it's a rule" then they will suck.

# Note also that to encounter a monster, does not necessarily mean an immediate combat encounter. In fact, in one of the older DM guides, the "High end of the table dragon encounter" is specifically addressed, and it is suggested that if the dragon may be too powerful, the party might glimpse it flying overhead, and sense it's aura of fear. If they don't try to hide quickly, they may encounter it, but the main idea is that the encounters don't HAVE TO start with fight.

# More modern games expand on that, and include other variables , such as attitude/ motive/ desire of the encountered creatures, situation (hunting/ hunted/ tending to it's offsprings/ wounded after a fight and more) and sometimes- another hazard, such as avalanches, forest fire, magical storm, and more. Many more modern random encounters also include opportunities, such as wandering merchants, a meeting with a neutral/ beneficial NPCs, finding a natural special resource, or even just specific thematic scenery. These latter additions also help shape and enhance the nature of the world.

# I personally really like them, as player and DM. They can really add to a game. The thing is to first make sure what you are going to use them for, what is their purpose, and plan them accordingly. For simple adventures I usually have no more than 6 types of random encounters, and they are used to reflect the adventure site/ travel, add tensions and complications. For broader uses (such as a region that will host many adventures), I dedicate more effort, and it can pay dividends! The players start understanding and planning according to what they have learned. "Look, of we DO decide to go through the dark forest, we better get really fast mounts, and do it while there is light. You remember that comes at night, don't you? But I suggest we ride the river. We can get some small gems if we meet the water fey again to distract them, and we might meet the smugglers again. I have an idea on how they might help us..." (True story)

To sum it up:
---------------------
# It's a tool. Learn what it is for, what it isn't for, and how to use it.
# Fine tune it to your needs.
# Include more than just a monster name and number (Though this isn't a must if you improvise well). Consider natural hazards, magical phenomenas, scene/ atmosphere/ region enhancers, and opportunities.
# Put some thought and effort to make them interesting, and contributing to the game experience.

That's a great post, and good GM/DM advice.

Spoiler: Evben more good stuff

Show

Not everything exists in the world as a fair and balanced encounter for your PCs to fight and beat. Sometimes you meet something way too powerful and sometimes something completely beneath you. In either case combat is not how you handle it.

Neither does everything have to be plot relevant to the PCs concerns
As the GM your world probably does resolve around the PCs; that doesn't mean that the world ceases to exist when the PCs aren't looking at it.

The wilderness is supposed to be a dangerous place, not a skip in the flowers to the dungeon
If you can't survive the trip to the dungeon and back, maybe you shouldn't be out there in the first place

Some GMs and Players like the verisimilitude of all that, but players who are used to everything revolving around the PCs and solving everything with violence may have a hard time with that.

So I will add a 5th option:

1: They are there to add a horror element of the game to placate the small minority of players who enjoy horror at the expense of normal players who are there for fantasies or power and control.
2: The original designers are trolls, and later designers are just aping them.
3: They are there as a crutch for new GMs who don't actually know how to build or balance an encounter on their own.
4: They are included as a warning system for players; any GM who uses random encounter tables by the book is clearly incompetent and you should leave their game.

5: Your players are munchkins and you've been coddling them.

Not sure about the blue text there.

This is just what encounters do.

Nope. (See various other answers by other posters for more details). In the past year, I have had a host of random encounters in the two games that I run. In each case, the party had a choice to avoid, parley, or engage and it was interesting to see what kinds of responses the party opted for in each case. In two particular cases that come to mind, the encounters ended up with the NPCs in that encounter becoming NPCs that I kept track of and whom the party interacted with in future sessions based on how the players made those choices. Which means that a random encounter can enhance world building also.

It's a tool that you can use to great benefit if you (1) use your imagination and (2) don't treat a TTRPG as a video game /CRPG~ARPG.

Back when I finally got talked into DMing again (I had only agreed to play in the 5e campaign on the promise that someone else is the DM) I had a random encounter that resulted in the defeat the party. ("They chose poorly" was an understatement). In an older edition this would have TPK'd them, but this was 5e and death saves are a thing.
They all ended up unconscious and stable for 1d4 hours. (And one had rolled a 20 and woke up wth 1 HP.).
They ended up naked and in chains in a cave. The next scenario was roughly Jailbreak after they finished complaining about it. It was a fun session, and their growth in teamwork was a joy to behold.

Okay, so. Let me describe an encounter with a randomly rolled dragon I had. This was early in my RPG career, with an older and very much old school DM.

Spoiler: great example

Show

THe party was low level, on their way to the dungeon of whatever. As we walked through the forest, we increasingly saw signs of a fearsome battle. A shattered lance. Trees on fire. Arrows stuck everywhere. Eventually, there was a giant swathe of forest where all the trees had been mowed down by something crashing into them. And at the end, on a forest clearing, a gigantic dragon, lying on its side, lances stuck in its neck, several dead knights and horses at its feet.

After some deliberation, we decided to wait and see if it would die, so maybe we could then loot the knights. We made several stealth checks and eventually failed one, just as night fell. The dragon, still alive, cast a mind control spell and compelled two of the party to show themselves.

The dragon was indeed dying and could not heal itself. But it was willing to negotiate with the party cleric. It swore an oath to spare us and share gold from its horde, if we pulled the lances out and healed it. We did, we got some gold, and, later in the campaign, a very useful friend when we needed some muscle and had money to bribe it.

Totally random encounter. Awesome story.

Warms the cockles of my heart.

[Talakeal]

Thanks for the responses. This is giving me a much better understanding on the issue.

On a related topic, what do people think about literal wandering monsters? Ones that have a concrete existence, but move around.

The actual event in game that prompted this discussion wasn't about a monster generated from a table, rather a monster that patrolled its territory and came up behind the PCs while they were exploring, blocking them off from the exit while they were already beat up and not in a good position to actually fight it.

[Vahnavoi]

Non-random wandering monsters work fine if you have a small number of them. Having a map or game board and tokens to follow their movements helps. The design space for them covers several entire genres of subgames, including all the best Hide & Seek variants.

[kyoryu]

Random encounters were designed in no small part because of the initial skirmish game design of Dungeons and Dragons.

All of this.

They're a constant pressure to keep moving and not be overly cautious.

It's also worth noting that in early D&D, the intention was never "encounter = combat". That's why it's an encounter. Encountering a dragon in the wild could mean that it's flying overhead, or that you stumble upon it. It doesn't have to mean "roll initiative". So tough encounters weren't meant to be party-wipers - they were meant to disrupt plans. You were gonna go this way, but now you'd better think of something else...

Keep in mind that a lot of the old-school megadungeon games were designed around the idea of going to the same dungeon repeatedly, so people would start to learn routes and plan their route in advance.

[wilphe]

The best analogy I have heard for this is that early D&D is a heist movie

Your objective is to get out of there with the treasure, you may not even get XP for fighting and being in combat at all is a fail state

Later editions are a martial arts movie, combat is the primary way you interact with the environment


++++++++++++

This also ties in with how early editions didn't really have classed monsters, so players could accurately evaluate encounter threat by where the enemy came on the:

Kobold-Goblin-Orc-Troll-Giant

continuum


3E made it a lot easier to have advanced monsters, even ones with classes; on one level this was great, on another players lost a lot of ability to eyeball if an encounter was level appropriate for them and a lot of them would just trust that it was a challenge they were "supposed" to beat because that was how they had been trained

[wilphe]

On a related topic, what do people think about literal wandering monsters? Ones that have a concrete existence, but move around.

Having watched a lot of "Cave diving gone horribly wrong" videos

When you are going into a very hostile environment you have to have a plan and stick to it. Even if that is "if something comes up we haven't thought about we should GTFO"

2 hours from the entrance #in a flooded cave is a lousy time to have a all hands staff meeting about what to do next

Same is true for dungeons

The actual event in game that prompted this discussion wasn't about a monster generated from a table, rather a monster that patrolled its territory and came up behind the PCs while they were exploring, blocking them off from the exit while they were already beat up and not in a good position to actually fight it.

Maxim VIII. A general-in-chief should ask himself frequently in the day, "What should I do if the enemy's army appeared now in my front, or on my right, or my left?" If he have any difficulty in answering these questions, his position is bad, and he should seek to remedy it. Napoleon.

This is the sort of thing they should consider before continuing to explore

Now if their previous experience has been monsters that only stay rigidly within their assigned 10x10 room with no obvious access to food or water no matter how little sense that makes, I can understand it a little better

[kyoryu]

The best analogy I have heard for this is that early D&D is a heist movie

Your objective is to get out of there with the treasure, you may not even get XP for fighting and being in combat at all is a fail state

Yeah, exactly. You know the dungeon, you're hitting a target. You figure out how you're getting there, and go do it, trying to minimize friction.

Like, spell memorization works well in this scenario becuase at some level you know at least a reasonable amount of what you're going through, for the route to the target, even if your knowledge may not be 100%. You're not just going in blind, so more specialized spells can become viable.

[KorvinStarmast]

The best analogy I have heard for this is that early D&D is a heist movie
===
Later editions are a martial arts movie

not a bad comparison.

[Fable Wright]

Thanks for the responses. This is giving me a much better understanding on the issue.

On a related topic, what do people think about literal wandering monsters? Ones that have a concrete existence, but move around.

The actual event in game that prompted this discussion wasn't about a monster generated from a table, rather a monster that patrolled its territory and came up behind the PCs while they were exploring, blocking them off from the exit while they were already beat up and not in a good position to actually fight it.

Excellent as long as they're foreshadowed. If you give players foreknowledge of 'it looks like this enemy has been wandering the area' at the start of the dungeon, and occasionally refrain it as they enter new wandering monster territories, you can give them pause on burning everything they have in the 'final' fight because they need to deal with their exit strategy. Or they go in with the idea of 'find the wandering monster before the boss fight to decide we're in shape for the boss fight'. Or 'have an exit strategy prepared if it's blocking the exit.' If it's an obstacle to plan around, it's generally in a good place.

[gbaji]

If the only reason the players are hiding is "it's game over if they don't" then the answer to that is almost always that it won't, because the only thing they get from hiding is the same thing they would have got if there hadn't been a random encounter at all. They get to continue playing the game as if the entire thing hadn't happened. Maybe there was a tense "do they find us" moment where nobody's sure how good their successes are, maybe everyone rolled 1s and failure was obvious so the dragon ate their level 2 party and everyone agrees to crack open a beer and watch TV for the rest of the evening because the game is over now, right?

Except that this is only addressing the mechanical/resource aspect of the game. If you want to create a game setting that "feels real" and is "filled in with stuff", then having things happen (including "random encounters") outside of what you have written on specific spots on the map actually is useful. The value for encountering something and then avoiding it, versus not encountering it at all, is that the PCs know that this encounter exists in the area. If they see a wandering band of orcs, out in the distance, and decide to avoid them, they now know there are wandering orcs in the area. If they see a dragon flying by, high overhead, then they know there is a dragon nesting somewhere in the area, and to maintain a lookout for that.

A lot of this is about setting the... well... setting. Um... I also don't really do "random" encounters either though. I do "random seeming" encounters. Typically, I flesh out the area the party is traveling through, and determine what types of things are in the area (and I make sure that they make sense, so no random dragons on a cart path from the town to a nearby village). I write up a handful of these and have them available to run. Often, I already have an idea in mind for the encounter. Some will occur during the day, some at night (if they are traveling outdoors of course). Then yeah, some die rolls to see where/when exactly these things may show up.

This is not at all about resource expenditure (though it may cause a bit of that), but about "filling in the gaps" in the game world. And sometimes, it's about "filling in the gaps" in the time available in game night. I may know (from my game notes), that the next thing they're going to encounter on the map is something major to deal with, and maybe we're already 2/3rds of the way through the game session time. I might decide I don't have time to do that, and don't want to stop mid-scene somewhere, so I'll look at my writeups for "random encounters" in the area, and drop one on the party.

But yeah. I don't use random encounter tables. Ever. I pre-determine what sort of things may "wander" in the area, and then have those show up periodically. Keeps the players on their toes if nothing else.

It's a tool that you can use to great benefit if you (1) use your imagination and (2) don't treat a TTRPG as a video game /CRPG~ARPG.

Yup. This x1000. If you treat random encounters just as formulaically as you might treat on-map encounters, then it's going to be received just as poorly. If instead, everything feels like it fits into the ecosystem of the area the party is exploring, then it will work. And yes, often what makes up the random encounters is an offshoot of what is on the map. If there's an orc fort in location X (with an entrance to an old mine, which is maybe the object of the adventure), and an orc village at location Y, it's a good bet that there will be some wandering orcs in the area as well. And there may be some roaming enemies of the orcs about as well. Wild animals/monsters are always decent bets, but again, should be something that "fits" with the area.


I will also comment on the wandering monster scenario Talakeal mentioned (was from another thread). The issue with that was not that it was a wandering monster, but with the sheer power level of it. Most random/wandering encounters should be somewhat less tough than the things that are intended to be combat encounters drawn in on the map (obviously, there can also be non-combat encounters on the map as well). If you've put something in that is a combat encounter, and is wandering, it should be weaker relatively speaking (usually). And the more powerful said wandering monster is, the easier it should be to avoid. The dragon flying overhead, should be something the party sees from 10s of miles away, and maybe decides to just hide while it passes. The large orc warband should similarly be able to be avoided if the party so wishes. Smaller or more stealthy things might get the drop on the party (or they just stunmble on something). But very rarely should something really powerful and dangerous just randomly happen to wander into the party, with no chance of avoiding it.


A while ago, we were adventuring in an ancient fallen dwarven mine complex (dwarves had been wiped out and enslaved, their city abandoned, and other bad things had happened long long ago). At one point we heard some loud irregular clanking noises. Turned out it was a pretty powerful iron golem, left over from when the dwarves were in control of the area. It was damaged (was limping on one leg terminator style), but still continuing its programming of "patrol the mines". This thing had literally been wandering around for thousands of years, just continuing to do its thing. Everything just got out of its way though, since you could hear it long before it got close, and it didn't actually move that fast. When we first encountered it, we just ducked down a side passage and let it go on by. We did eventually take it on (it had something on it we needed to gain access to a sealed part of the complex), but the "random encounter" allowed us to know this thing was in the area, know it was really tough (cause it really freaking was), and when we later learned that we needed to get this key thing from "the guardian", we knew exactly what that meant, and then had to locate it and plan out an attack to take it down. But this was absolutely not something we wanted to fight without a lot of prep and planning.


Random encounters should be things that enhance the gaming experience. If the players feel like it's just a trap the GM hits them with whenever their resources are low, then they will both not enjoy them and will begin playing that much more cautiously (have to plan for the wandering monster to attack us after we finish clearing the last room/area for the day before resting). What you don't want these to become is just part of the mathmatical calculation players do when exploring. So yeah. Don't make them that. Make them informative and/or fun instead.

[GloatingSwine]

Except that this is only addressing the mechanical/resource aspect of the game. If you want to create a game setting that "feels real" and is "filled in with stuff", then having things happen (including "random encounters") outside of what you have written on specific spots on the map actually is useful. The value for encountering something and then avoiding it, versus not encountering it at all, is that the PCs know that this encounter exists in the area. If they see a wandering band of orcs, out in the distance, and decide to avoid them, they now know there are wandering orcs in the area. If they see a dragon flying by, high overhead, then they know there is a dragon nesting somewhere in the area, and to maintain a lookout for that.

Yes, I agree.

I wasn't talking about the existence of higher level content in general, but the specific case of higher level content in a random encounter only avoidable by the stealth mechanics of the game. Playing hide and seek where the outcomes are "win" and "game over".

There's a difference between a dragon flying high overhead (exists, can't interact with yet), a dragon visibly fighting someone on a hilltop a few hours diversion away (optional interaction), and a dragon cruising low over the road looking to add your meagre level 2 possessions to its hoard (roll 18 for hide or roll a new character Clanky Dave!)

Using the stealth mechanics to avoid a random encounter only has satisfying outcomes where the outcome of success is something more than "didn't have this one encounter" (ticking clock, strategic stealth, etc).

[glass]

I do not use random encounters often, but when I do the reason is one or more of:

1. To simulate movement across a medium/large scale where it would be impractical to actually track the movements of all possible actors.
2. To prevent me from falling into a pattern and thereby making the game too predictable (and therefore boring) for me or the players.
3. I am running a published adventure and it tells me to.

Since I mostly run published adventures these days, 3 is probably the most common (albeit the most prosaic). That is also the reason I don't use them more often - prewritten adventures that do not already have randomness built in generally have more than enough non-random encounters for me to want to add more.

[Mastikator]

Thanks for the responses. This is giving me a much better understanding on the issue.

On a related topic, what do people think about literal wandering monsters? Ones that have a concrete existence, but move around.

The actual event in game that prompted this discussion wasn't about a monster generated from a table, rather a monster that patrolled its territory and came up behind the PCs while they were exploring, blocking them off from the exit while they were already beat up and not in a good position to actually fight it.

IMO I think moving monsters make more sense than ones that sit still, unless you happen to catch them when they're eating or sleeping or something.
It is a thing that people sit around doing nothing, but I don't think it should be the default for most creature types. Undead and constructs are the exception to the rule, wandering is the default behaviour of monsters IMO.

It does suck for the group though, but I think approaching a dungeon like Diablo takes away more than otherwise.

[JellyPooga]

IMO I think moving monsters make more sense than ones that sit still, unless you happen to catch them when they're eating or sleeping or something.
It is a thing that people sit around doing nothing, but I don't think it should be the default for most creature types. Undead and constructs are the exception to the rule, wandering is the default behaviour of monsters IMO.

It does suck for the group though, but I think approaching a dungeon like Diablo takes away more than otherwise.

To be fair, outside of military emplacements, it would be unusual to find anyone entirely unoccupied, whether they be taking their leisure (telling stories, eating, playing games or just talking) or engaged with the task of living, such as cooking or attending a profession such as weaving or the like. People don't, generally, just sit around doing nothing, waiting for something eventful to happen. It's likely that such folk would also be unarmed; weapons beyond anything improvised (such as a utility knife) are cumbersome, no matter how militaristic your society, so weapons (and armour) are likely to be in a dedicated place in the room rather than immediately to hand (with the exception of tools that are also improvised weapons suchas a felling axe or kitchen knife).

Anyone found outside of their activity room (whatever their activity) is likely to be alone, moving from one activity to another or moving as part of that activity (e.g. getting meat from a larder to take it to the kitchens). Occasionally, you might find pairs or threes if the activities of the day are group or team focused, but outside of military patrols, caravans/convoys or large scale industrial concerns, it's unlikely to see more than those two or three at a time. As a rule, people tend to stay put unless they need to move, to the extent of people eating and relaxing where they work.

[Jay R]

On a related topic, what do people think about literal wandering monsters? Ones that have a concrete existence, but move around.

No problem. That's part of building a world. A forest might have a specific druid protecting it; there might be a traveling bard you occasionally meet; a dragon might regularly check out a given area looking for food. Their narrative purpose is already established.

Those are all pieces you designed for your world.

Random encounters are there to simulate the 99.999999% of the creatures that the DM never actually designed. The DM has to give them a narrative purpose extemporaneously.

[KaussH]

This was actually what prompted the "horror game" comment above.

My players insist that running away and hiding is not fun for anyone, except for the few weirdos who enjoy "horror games" and that for normal players there is no reason to ever put such an encounter in a game.

I get the feeling your players do not in fact fit the line of "Normal players". Just saying. I know I use random encounters to build the flavor and setting of the world. Stuff you may meet is also stuff you get to experience. What kind of bandits, why is the barge stuck, thats a very strange tree that is now trying to eat the horse, ect.

[Mastikator]

To be fair, outside of military emplacements, it would be unusual to find anyone entirely unoccupied, whether they be taking their leisure (telling stories, eating, playing games or just talking) or engaged with the task of living, such as cooking or attending a profession such as weaving or the like. People don't, generally, just sit around doing nothing, waiting for something eventful to happen. It's likely that such folk would also be unarmed; weapons beyond anything improvised (such as a utility knife) are cumbersome, no matter how militaristic your society, so weapons (and armour) are likely to be in a dedicated place in the room rather than immediately to hand (with the exception of tools that are also improvised weapons suchas a felling axe or kitchen knife).

Anyone found outside of their activity room (whatever their activity) is likely to be alone, moving from one activity to another or moving as part of that activity (e.g. getting meat from a larder to take it to the kitchens). Occasionally, you might find pairs or threes if the activities of the day are group or team focused, but outside of military patrols, caravans/convoys or large scale industrial concerns, it's unlikely to see more than those two or three at a time. As a rule, people tend to stay put unless they need to move, to the extent of people eating and relaxing where they work.

Is that really true? I mean depending on the kind of creature it may be out half of the day looking for its next lunch, ogres, trolls, manticores, bears for instance would be just as likely to be out as in, and may return as the players leave.
Undead may stay put, or wander randomly, a zombie may get trapped by a closed door but a ghost can wander the dungeon freely without caring about silly things like walls and doors.
Constructs are likely to be on automated patrol or just stay put.

I'm not sure I agree that patroling guards in a military encampment wouldn't be armed though. AFAIK human soldiers are armed while on active patrol duty, the same should hold true for goblins, and hobgoblins would probably feel naked without their weapons- bringing them everywhere just cuz. Those are the ones you're likely to run into, but sneaking past the guards and entering a recreational room I agree you're likely to find unarmed creatures. (it's not impossible to imagine there may be shields and spears on the walls, both as decoration and as emergency weapons).

[Pex]

I find them a waste of time. I want to play the adventure, not a table of contents. I accept not every encounter is a combat. I accept not every encounter needs to be related to the current plot. However, there's no real point to them other than filler that don't add anything to the game, more so if it is a combat just for the sake of a combat.

If the DM has an interesting social interaction idea with a quirky NPC, let the party meet the NPC naturally. If the DM found this cool monster he wants to try out in combat put it in the dungeon or as the guardian of the Mcguffin.

As a DM I don't use Random Encounters. The players know this, but that doesn't mean they can rest all they want in the dungeon. There are still consequences for actions. I've had denizens of dungeons take the treasure they could have had when they rest at the wrong time. Bad guys regroup or an environmental hazard takes place if they take too long at something due to an over exertion of caution.

[Lord Torath]

Thanks for the responses. This is giving me a much better understanding on the issue.

On a related topic, what do people think about literal wandering monsters? Ones that have a concrete existence, but move around.

The actual event in game that prompted this discussion wasn't about a monster generated from a table, rather a monster that patrolled its territory and came up behind the PCs while they were exploring, blocking them off from the exit while they were already beat up and not in a good position to actually fight it.

Excellent as long as they're foreshadowed. If you give players foreknowledge of 'it looks like this enemy has been wandering the area' at the start of the dungeon, and occasionally refrain it as they enter new wandering monster territories, you can give them pause on burning everything they have in the 'final' fight because they need to deal with their exit strategy. Or they go in with the idea of 'find the wandering monster before the boss fight to decide we're in shape for the boss fight'. Or 'have an exit strategy prepared if it's blocking the exit.' If it's an obstacle to plan around, it's generally in a good place.

Just going to second what Fable Wright said here. As long as you telegraph it well, no problem.

Did you mention things the party would notice that would clue them in? If not, it may feel like more of a 'gotcha!' to them.

[BRC]

Do you mean "What is the purpose of the random encounter table" or "What is the purpose of encounters that don't directly tie into the plot"


The former exists as a quick guide for GMs, either to make something on the fly, or serve as a list of inspirations that happens to have numbers next to it for them to roll on.



For the latter? Random Encounters are often the way to tell the story of the setting, outside the immediate plot the PC's are pursuing. Serving that function, they should be chosen carefully.

If the party travels the roads and is attacked by Bandits, that tells the story that this world is dangerous and unstable, such that gangs of bandits patrol the roads. What's more, these bandits are large and bold enough to go after visibly armed groups of adventurers, rather than waiting for easier prey.

Or, the danger of the roads is well known enough that anybody carrying anything valuable is going to have armed guards, as such these bandits are specifically targeting armed groups, rather than being opportunistic highwaymen. Maybe the Bandits are deserters from a defeated army? Maybe they're self-styled revolutionaries supposedly raising money for a war against an oppressive government.


If the party is traveling through dangerous wilderness, encountering wolves or spiders or what have you tells the story about WHY the wilderness is dangerous.

A "Random" pack of Zombies may indicate something, perhaps a nearby village was wiped out by a supernatural plague, or a local wizard's reckless experiments with necromancy have caused the dead to rise?


Random Encounters can also tie into the main plot, even if they're not strictly part of it. If the Party is on their way to the Storm Wizard's Keep, the "Random Encounter" May be soldiers in the Storm Wizard's Employ, they may be wild elementals spawned by the Storm Wizard's magic, they may be bounty hunters or desperate locals who believe they can win the Storm Wizard's favor by slaying the adventurers, they may be wild beasts displaced by the Storm Wizards burning the local forest to drive out the Elves.



The worst approach to take is to think of Random Encounters in an RPG like ones in an old JRPG (I havn't played enough new JRPGs to comment), "You walk around and then are attacked by Gunfrogs". Those games are not WRONG for doing Random Encounters the way they do, they're trying to fill a lot of gametime, and random encounters take a few minutes at most, they need a lot of them. In a TTRPG, where random encounters take a while, and you'll only have a few of them in a short period, they should feel like they have a place in the world, not just spontaneously appear so that An Encounter can happen.

[JellyPooga]

Is that really true? I mean depending on the kind of creature it may be out half of the day looking for its next lunch, ogres, trolls, manticores, bears for instance would be just as likely to be out as in, and may return as the players leave.
Undead may stay put, or wander randomly, a zombie may get trapped by a closed door but a ghost can wander the dungeon freely without caring about silly things like walls and doors.
Constructs are likely to be on automated patrol or just stay put.

I'm not sure I agree that patroling guards in a military encampment wouldn't be armed though. AFAIK human soldiers are armed while on active patrol duty, the same should hold true for goblins, and hobgoblins would probably feel naked without their weapons- bringing them everywhere just cuz. Those are the ones you're likely to run into, but sneaking past the guards and entering a recreational room I agree you're likely to find unarmed creatures. (it's not impossible to imagine there may be shields and spears on the walls, both as decoration and as emergency weapons).

Oh don't get me wrong; patrols of guards or within areas that have an active military aspect, going armed would be the norm, even while pursuing many "civilian" duties. Such is the nature of a militaristic lifestyle. In addition, it's worth noting that most places PCs are likely to be adventuring in are going to have some kind of military aspect, whether it be a bandit or raiding camp, an actual fortification.

However, all I was noting in my previous post was that outside of that active military aspect, even within a military culture or "off-duty", so to speak, most folk will find arms to be a cumbersome inconvenience, particularly if performing day-to-day "life" activities. An ogre hauling lumber or a gnoll setting up their yurt is likely going to set aside their greatclub or axe while they perform that physical task and the orc shaman probably isn't wearing a sword or holding their totem staff whilst their stirring the tribal stewpot, for example.

[Mr Blobby]

I think a good argument against random encounters is that players can at times be distracted by them. I've seen it myself where an GM has given the party a [non-violent] random encounter with an NPC and they were convinced it was a plot hook and spent some RL time and GM ad-libbing effort to basically, convince them that 'Bob the Farmer' was truly in fact Bob the Farmer and the only quest he was involved in was readying for the harvest.

[Trask]

There are lots of reasons, but some of the best literature on the subject can be found at the Alexandrian here https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...ng-the-dungeon

Basically, random encounters are useful in Exploration based design and not as useful in Encounter based design. In the former, the GM creates a location, typically but not necessarily a dungeon, and creates a random encounter table to create dynamic encounters within the location as it is explored at certain time intervals in-between set piece encounters located within the place being explored. That's all, really. A well designed random encounter table can be a huge asset in such a game, and the more care that is taken in creating it the better it will be.

[The Insanity]

I use them for most of the reasons that were already mentioned, but sometimes the session goes too long without a fight and a plot fights doesn't fit the time and place, so I roll something appropriate.

[Fable Wright]

The worst approach to take is to think of Random Encounters in an RPG like ones in an old JRPG (I havn't played enough new JRPGs to comment), "You walk around and then are attacked by Gunfrogs". Those games are not WRONG for doing Random Encounters the way they do, they're trying to fill a lot of gametime, and random encounters take a few minutes at most, they need a lot of them. In a TTRPG, where random encounters take a while, and you'll only have a few of them in a short period, they should feel like they have a place in the world, not just spontaneously appear so that An Encounter can happen.

...Okay, I know it was a made up example, but I am suddenly filled with a burning desire to know what a gunfrog is and I'm about to spend several fruitless hours thinking about how to bring a gunfrog-based encounter into a game. Is this a gang of three Kermits with bandanas and pistols? Metallic frogs with a gun barrel protruding from their forehead as a wizard's middle finger to the concept of evolution? Are they a normal frog that just developed the magical ability to create a bullet-like projectile through evolution in a high magic environment? Are they a notorious gang of Awakened, thumb-sized tree frogs that got their hands on assault rifles and operate these rifles in groups from ambush like amphibian siege equipment? Are they a species of frog that's naturally really rubbery, and bereft of humans would swallow a large rock that would then protrude from their forehead like a unicorn horn, but this aggressive strand swallows handguns instead? Any answer immediately tells a story that I want in my life.

[Eldan]

I think a good argument against random encounters is that players can at times be distracted by them. I've seen it myself where an GM has given the party a [non-violent] random encounter with an NPC and they were convinced it was a plot hook and spent some RL time and GM ad-libbing effort to basically, convince them that 'Bob the Farmer' was truly in fact Bob the Farmer and the only quest he was involved in was readying for the harvest.

That's when you improvise as a DM.

Always run with it if the players suspect a good plot hook. Also, if they solve a mystery and it's not the solution you thought of, but a better one.

[gbaji]

Just going to second what Fable Wright said here. As long as you telegraph it well, no problem.

Did you mention things the party would notice that would clue them in? If not, it may feel like more of a 'gotcha!' to them.

And I think this is what prompted the thread. Talakeal did have the party scout see a room where they saw a wizard casting a ritual (control spell I think) on a big monster. They decided not to engage with it. Then, later, after exploring a bit more through the dungeon, the same big monster wandered up behind them and they encountered it. I haven't been able to get details as to what degree of "avoid the encounter" was allowed to the party at that point in time, but my understanding is that since this monster was literally just summoned/dominated and sent out to wander the dungeon, there were no signs of it in the area the party was traveling in. It was not a "normal" wandering monster. It was summoned and sent out to patrol the area, and had only just started doing this.

I'm not sure if we consider that sufficient foreshadowing for the party though. In the other thread, I recommended allowing the party to hear the monster coming from some distance away, so that they could choose to head in another direction, or send their scout to check it out, etc. Again though, I'm not clear on the exact details of how the encounter itself was structured.

[Vahnavoi]

I think a good argument against random encounters is that players can at times be distracted by them.

Distracted from what?

Here's the thing: random encounters being filler, "not related to the plot", unplanned, unimportant, etc.., have nothing to do with them being random. If a random encounter has those traits, it's because the game master has preferential non-random content.

But you can just let or design the random encounters to be the game. In that regard, the advice "don't treat a tabletop game like a computer game, blah blah" is actually bad. There are plenty of computer games where entire levels are procedurally generated. The boss you're fighting? Selected from a table by a pseudorandom function. And the kicker? Ur-examples of many such games were based on procedural generation rules in old D&D rules.