Do Random Tables Reduce Player Agency?

[Fenris-77]

I agree, but a lot of GM do it.


No. Like all randomness, random table take away player agency.

Take the example:

A player scouts the big bridge and the DM rolls for a random bridge encounter and gets 'none'. So the PC finds nothing on the bridge.

The player happily has their character go back to town, load up their wagon, and in a couple of game hours goes back to the bridge. The DM rolls another random bridge encounter and gets 'hill giant robber'. So the player looses their player agency by the random roll.

It's no different then a DM 'just saying' a troll is 'suddenly' on the bridge.

This is just very odd GMing in my opinion. First off, the encounter should probably be set before something as low res as 'exploring the bridge' happens and this oddity is compounded by doubling down on the party's return. I can't think of a system off the top of my head that slots the 'encounter roll' or equivalent in after a scene has been framed but as a part of the framing process rather than a consequence of time spent. I'll have to chew on this awhile as it's possible this is a failure of my imagination or memory.

 

[bloodtide]

This is just very odd GMing in my opinion. First off, the encounter should probably be set before something as low res as 'exploring the bridge' happens and this oddity is compounded by doubling down on the party's return. I can't think of a system off the top of my head that slots the 'encounter roll' or equivalent in after a scene has been framed but as a part of the framing process rather than a consequence of time spent. I'll have to chew on this awhile as it's possible this is a failure of my imagination or memory.

Well, you understand you don't set random encounters. They are random.

D&D has had a rule like this going back to 1E (maybe 0E):
Frequency: The referee should roll periodically to determine whether a wandering monster is encountered. The frequency of checks depends on the type of area being explored.

Chance: When a wandering monster check is made, the chance of a random encounter is usually 1-in-6.

D&D 5e is surprisingly vague about the entire concept. The guidelines in the DMG (p. 86) say “Consider checking for a random encounter once every hour, once every 4 to 8 hours, or once during the day and once during a long rest-whatever makes the most sense based on how active the area is. "

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, you understand you don't set random encounters. They are random.

D&D has had a rule like this going back to 1E (maybe 0E):
Frequency: The referee should roll periodically to determine whether a wandering monster is encountered. The frequency of checks depends on the type of area being explored.

Chance: When a wandering monster check is made, the chance of a random encounter is usually 1-in-6.

D&D 5e is surprisingly vague about the entire concept. The guidelines in the DMG (p. 86) say “Consider checking for a random encounter once every hour, once every 4 to 8 hours, or once during the day and once during a long rest-whatever makes the most sense based on how active the area is. "

Oh I get all of that. None of those system have you roll randomly for monsters after deciding to explore the bridge in the way described above. In terms of travel the roll would be made and an encounter result might begin the bridge scene, or a wandering monster roll might be made at some point during that scene if the players spend enough time. I'm not denying that people play like this, I'm just struggling to think of game were this process is the same as the one set out in the rules.

 

[bloodtide]

Oh I get all of that. None of those system have you roll randomly for monsters after deciding to explore the bridge in the way described above. In terms of travel the roll would be made and an encounter result might begin the bridge scene, or a wandering monster roll might be made at some point during that scene if the players spend enough time. I'm not denying that people play like this, I'm just struggling to think of game were this process is the same as the one set out in the rules.

So, guess your not counting the 5E "check for a random encounter once and hour". If the bridge is 'about an hour' from the town...that is where the check will be made. And the part about "based on how active the area is"?

And a lot of adventures have rules like "when the PCs approach this area, make a wandering monster check" or something like "there is a 20% chance encounter A is here".

 

[Fenris-77]

So, guess your not counting the 5E "check for a random encounter once and hour". If the bridge is 'about an hour' from the town...that is where the check will be made. And the part about "based on how active the area is"?

Your account of what 5E says about random encounters is somewhat misleading. Consider the following:

Before the part you quote is this, which is very different from what you decribe in your post:

So there's advice and structure at work that is more nuanced than what you describe. Then we get to the part you're directly quoting...

The actual rules are very different than "check once per hour" you describe. On top of that, even if 'check once per hour' is were what you were using the notion that because the bridge is about an hour away that the roll and possible resulting encounter must therefore be at the bridge is, well, at the very least somewhat idiosyncratic. Your suggestion that this is "where the check will be made" is simply incorrect.

 

[bloodtide]

Your account of what 5E says about random encounters

The point is a random roll on a table can limit, reduce or negate player agency. Exactly the same way a DM can on a whim.

 

[Fenris-77]

The point is a random roll on a table can limit, reduce or negate player agency. Exactly the same way a DM can on a whim.

I don't think this is at all obvious. Sure it's possible, I grant that easily, but random rolls are usually nested within rules and guidelines and examples of agency reducing are, like your example above, ones that don't seem to follow those rules and guidelines.

 

[Cadence]

A player scouts the big bridge and the DM rolls for a random bridge encounter and gets 'none'. So the PC finds nothing on the bridge.

The player happily has their character go back to town, load up their wagon, and in a couple of game hours goes back to the bridge. The DM rolls another random bridge encounter and gets 'hill giant robber'. So the player looses their player agency by the random roll.

This strikes me as a bit strange. Why would the PC assume that just because the bridge was empty once it would be empty hours later?

Now if they asked the local guides/guards/scouts if there were any monsters or bad guys spotted within a days travel (or did some other more thorough checking that would actually preclude the monster showing up), then that would feel different to me.

It's no different then a DM 'just saying' a troll is 'suddenly' on the bridge.

If they had checked if there were any bad things within a few hours and were told no, then those feel kind of the same to me.

But otherwise, doesn't bad stuff essentially happen at random in real life the way folks often think about it? (Yes, the road home is usually safe, that's why we drive it. Yes there is sometimes a really unsafe driver on it anyway).

It feels akin to the party seeing if it's raining out right now, and if it isn't expecting the weather to be nice for a few days. That feels like that isn't wanting agency, it's wanting oracle type info for no particular reason.

Now, if they actually consulted an oracle or druid for a weather forecast then it should probably stay clear or there better be a reason it didn't. (Say they're heading towards Saruman on a mountain pass and he has spies there and control weather prepped).

---

If a party knows that goblins are usually easy to beat, is it removing agency from them by allowing the goblins to roll really well and kick their butts if that how it plays out?

And now, I can imagine a non-DnD system where it might be, and I might have just answered my own question.

 

[overgeeked]

It seems like the argument is: either I have perfect knowledge of all possible consequences to all possible actions and can selectively choose which to engage with and which to avoid…or I don’t have agency as a player.

It’s a bollocks argument. But that’s what this all reads like.

 

[Cadence]

It seems like the argument is: either I have perfect knowledge of all possible consequences to all possible actions and can selectively choose which to engage with and which to avoid…or I don’t have agency as a player.

It’s a bollocks argument. But that’s what this all reads like.

I agree making it binary seems bad.

But on the other hand, if agency is anything vaguely like being able to make choices that matter in accomplishing goals, doesn't randomness necessarily decrease agency?

I wonder if the key is that agency isn't necessarily fun. (Is a series of games of chess against a player rated 1200 points different than you any fun in spite of your complete control over getting the pieces to do exactly what you want in a completely reliable way?)