Do you use Random encounters?

[Kid Socrates]

I voted never -- I don't run standard D&D (homebrew here) so I may be a little different than the standard results.

I do lesser encounters, but not random encounters. I don't think a battle on the way from one town to the next with 8 kobolds or 3 otyughs would be very rewarding, short of "I got a critical hit with my rapier!" However, I think an equally challenging encounter with flunkies of the main villain or members of a rival guild or creatures they set loose could be rewarding. So I could see myself using a random encounter if I could take that encounter and make it tie into the plots, or possibly start a brand new one.

That said, again, I run a game that's incredibly plot and character heavy, and therefore my settings really suffer as a result. I don't have anything awesome like the Mournland or a cursed forest or anything. If I had something like that, sure, pile 'em on!

 

[Immak Antunel]

I think they come in pretty handy... that six miles of underdark tunnel seems awful bare without something to at least spook the PCs. Also, I just bought the Mother of all Encounter Tables, so I kinda have to use it. Fun so far, though an index woulda helped.

 

[3d6]

I use random encounters, but only for large, dangerous areas without many cites or other population centers, like the Astral Plane or various parts of the Abyss.

 

[S'mon]

So what are we left with? Random encounters do not reinforce the reality of the trip, nor do they serve the fantasy of the trip. They do not move the story forward, nor do they provide a sense of depth of the setting. So, random encounters are unrelated side-trips which stall the story, wrecking both the perceived reality of the story and the fantasy archetypes it aspires to at the same time. This is their purpose. So why would I want this in my game?

For those of us who don't see the game as a (bad?) high fantasy novel, this criticism doesn't really apply, because we're not using the game to write a story. "Perceived reality of the story" simply isn't a factor. Obviously your mileage varies, but I find truly random encounters create a sense of danger & excitement no truly planned encounter can, because both players & GMs _know_ that this is not planned, that anything can happen in the next half hour... As GM I find them exciting, not knowing what's going to happen next, and this excitement feeds on through to the players' experience. Eg I rolled up an ecounter with 3 Worgs vs the 1st-2nd level PCs, I had the genuine fear of a TPK, I watched the PCs dispatch the Worgs with good tactics, team work & rolls, and breathed a sigh of relief (as presumably did the players). It definitely jazzed up the session.

 

[megamania]

IMC campaign the PCs must travel large distances between adventure locations. I've used the random encounter tables as written, and it has led to a lot of "filler" encounters that end up giving more XP (and Leveling up) than I had planned. I don't set them all up as combat (I have them see a Dragon flying overhead, or overhear a pack of ogres foraging for berries, etc..). But I still have them fight them once in a while. And then my carfully balanced adventure must be tweaked up since they gained a level. So now I just don't use random encounters anymore. I set up the encounters I want. I might use the table to give me ideas of what to use, but I'm not a slave to the randome encounter table anymore.

I ran into this with my Darksun games a lot. What I did was figure a good estimate of days to travel from point to point. Then roll for random encounters per day. This allowed me to better prepare the "random" encounter and when possible allow it to add to the game. (rumors and/or equipment the PCs may need) This also allowed me a general idea of level for the true planned adventure.

Worked very well but requires a lot of pregame work.