[DM Topic] How detailed are your "encounters"?

[dreaded_beast]

In a past thread, I asked how detailed do DM's make their adventures.

In this thread, I get more specific and go to the individual encounters that make up an adventure; in addition I am targetting the "random encounter".

In my opinion, I see 2 extremes of detail in regards to encounters. In published modules, if the encounter deals specifically with the adventure, there is in-depth information on how to run that particular encounter. On the other hand, random encounters in published modules I see, are usually composed of a simple stat block and sometimes 1 sentence describing the purpose of the encounter.

How detailed are your encounters and what works best for you?

 

[Sammael]

I usually create a stat-block and write down a few sentences (paragraphs, if needed) detailing the encounter tactics, purpose, monster personalities, etc. In general, I don't use random encounters except as a means of pulling the party together after an inter-party argument (though not all the time).

For major encounters (BBEGs and assorted higher-level henchmen), I write out full NPC stats (the only thing I don't detail fully is skills, except relevant skills for the ecnounter), and sketch out the encounter location.

 

[diaglo]

visit this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82261

 

[dreaded_beast]

visit this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82261

I like!

 

[kigmatzomat]

In a past thread, I asked how detailed do DM's make their adventures.
How detailed are your encounters and what works best for you?

I've got little on paper other than stat blocks unless it's a major battle. In my head I tend to know how the first 3 rounds of combat are going to go, as well as the likely contigency plans of the creatures.

Major battles I might make a round-by-round chart where different forces' movements, attacks, and spells are listed in order they should occur and a mark of when they shold end.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

For combat encounters, I have to do a ton of preparation. I grab a legal pad and put down all the major combatants, all their stats, all their cool combat tricks, quick page references for weird stuff they can do, notes about what their spells and items do, and so on. I even go so far as to have space set aside for marking off hit points and initiative orders. It's almost ridiculously anal.

For encounters that have more to do with exploration, conversations, or basically anything that's not fighting, I generally just have a few notes scribbled on the legal pad; generally just some random names and space left next to them so I can make a note of which NPC ended up having that name.


Which makes perfect sense, if I stop to think about it. I'm very familiar and comfortable with non-combat encounters (I've been having them all my life!), so I don't need to plan them out in excruciating detail. In fact, I enjoy it more if I can go into a particular section of the game and not have any rigidly preconceived notions about what's going to happen; I can think about what the NPC they're dealing with knows and wants, and then just wing it from there and it all works.

But combat...ugh. If I try winging that, I inevitably short-change at least 3/4 of the NPCs by completely ignoring tactical options (and sometimes common sense) during the middle of the fight. Obsessively prepping for the fights and forcing myself to get everything the combatants can do listed in one place means I can actually come close to doing justice to them.

--
excessive preparation is how i try to cover up the things i really suck at
ryan

 

[el-remmen]

I am of the philosophy that there is no such thing as a random encounter.

It only seems random to the PCs because they are not involved in the thread of events that led to the encounter.

So for my own need for verismilitude, I always make careful note about wher the creature or people come from, what led them there, what their motivations are, what is their story? Etc. . .

In a truly open campaign with no rail-roading whatsoever - you have to be prepared to improvise if the PCs become enamoured of what was nothing more than a "random" encounter and start following up on it.

 

[Berandor]

I am of the philosophy that there is no such thing as a random encounter.

It only seems random to the PCs because they are not involved in the thread of events that led to the encounter.

So for my own need for verismilitude, I always make careful note about wher the creature or people come from, what led them there, what their motivations are, what is their story? Etc. . .

In a truly open campaign with no rail-roading whatsoever - you have to be prepared to improvise if the PCs become enamoured of what was nothing more than a "random" encounter and start following up on it.

I wanted to post some explanation, but you took the words right out of my mouth, Nem!

(It must have been while you were kissing me )