Do you use Random encounters?

[Crothian]

Yes, but my random encounters are less randome and more encounter

 

[Goblyn]

Yeah, I do. They're not so random, and if the PCs see it coming, sometimes not encounters.

 

[Psion]

In theory, I would willingly use them. I think they are great tools to both define the campaign by representing what is in the area you are in, and they make great distractions when you don't have the evening's activities totally mapped out.

In practice, I rarely use them. I have much more limited time to play as it is, and I have enough trouble keeping the players on task. I usually have enough campaign-related events to fill the allotted time and usually don't like to squander than having the PCs hack up some random threat unrelated to the evolving campaign circumstances.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Yes, but my random encounters are less randome and more encounter

Yes - this desrcibes it well, traveling from place to place is dangerous, but rarely is there an actuall roll to see what shows up, and never during play. I even occasionally make encounter tables, to remind myself of what encounters are likely in the area. And any asking around will give the PCs info about the creatures on the list.

 

[Gothmog]

It depends. Optimally yes- random encounters can add a lot of depth and plausibility to a game world, and let the characters know they are not the only active participants. In most of my games that last for any amount of time, I use them, and present them as asides to the main plot, which lets the players know that there is no linear path I want the PCs to take. About 50% of my random encounters are immediately hostile, 30% are cautious, and 20% are friendly. I also don't give out XP based on killing stuff, but rather on roleplaying and accomplishing objectives, so throwing out a few random encounters doesn't upset XP progression in the slightest.

However, in short term (less than 6 session) games, I don't tend to use them since they do take up a decent amount of time, and with limited time I'd rather focus on the plot.

 

[The Shaman]

Yep, definitely use them, but not according to RAW.

Me too.

The poll options are too limited.

 

[S'mon]

I basically agree with Psion. In 1e I used them pretty much as per RAW. I do like rolling for them at table, they can add a lot of excitement due to their unexpected nature. In 3e though they do pose problems - the biggest being that 3e doles out so much XP they can easily level up PCs 'too soon'. I recommend giving only 1/2 XP for most random encounters.

 

[Space Coyote]

Although I selected "sometimes" in the poll, I rarely, rarely use random encounters. AND even then, I use the Random Encounter table (in a module for example) as a guide, then select an encounter.

Inside a dungeon, I usually find the number of set encounters to be more than enough. And when travelling, I will usually have pre-set encounters, even if they have no direct bearing on the story.

 

[iwatt]

Me too.

The poll options are too limited.

I considered using more options, but the nuances of the additional choices escaped my poll-building skills .

 

[iwatt]

I basically agree with Psion. In 1e I used them pretty much as per RAW. I do like rolling for them at table, they can add a lot of excitement due to their unexpected nature. In 3e though they do pose problems - the biggest being that 3e doles out so much XP they can easily level up PCs 'too soon'. I recommend giving only 1/2 XP for most random encounters.

Yup, Psion summed up what I believe in a much clearer fashion that I could.

I've used the half xp approach as well. Cutting XP in half helps with the leveling, but it doesn't help me with the issue of bogging down the gaming sometimes due to excessive encounters that aren't plot relevant. But I don't want to "cheapen" the cost of travelling IMC. :\ Anybody else run into this problem?