D&D 5E Random Encounters in 5E

[CleverNickName]

Want to know one of my favorite things about the BECM rules? Random enocounters. And do you know what has been mysteriously missing from the more recent editions of the game? Yep, random encounters.

I miss the Random Encounter Tables. In adventure modules, the RETs were the first thing I read, and the things that I flipped to the most often. When I created adventures from scratch, they were created right behind the maps. And I've shoehorned them into every 3.X game I've run. Remember "The Isle of Dread," and how some of the encounter key locations were "RANDOM ENCOUNTER: For every day the party spends within two hexes of this location, they will encounter one wandering monster from table #3. If possible, the encounter should occur in or near the monster's lair." I use that all the time.

I for one would like to see random encounters make a prominent return to the game...but I realize I might be really outnumbered on this issue. Thus, the poll.

So tell us: how do you feel about random encounters?

 

[Tom Servo]

A reluctant yes from me.

When done well they are a great bit of unexpected excitement and can even spin off into other story lines and side quests.

When it's just filler and nonsensical, ugh.

 

[CleverNickName]

When it's just filler and nonsensical, ugh.

This is my opinion on just about every rule and game element, not just random encounters. I don't mind having a large selection of creatures in the Monster Manual to choose from, but there comes a point where you have to sit back and ask yourself, "did they really need to put six different goblins in here?" But I digress.

I agree that some random encounter tables are better than others. And there is a time and a place for everything...the DM should always exercise judgment when running any encounter, random or otherwise. Wandering vampires in the middle of the day? Roll again, buddy.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I like random encounters for variety.

However, in some editions they result in meta-game considerations and in others they eat up time that I'd rather use for plot-driving encounters.

Meta-game - as in, "let's wander around until we can kill something because I'm 10xp from level 5" or "let's hole up here until we hit level 6 on random encounters".

It's like playing Rogue or Moria (early computer games based on random dungeons and random encounters) but much slower.

 

[Li Shenron]

I voted yes because I like random encounters as a player, and as a DM I like letting my players know that the wilderness are generally dangerous.

But I have to say that I don't strictly need random encounter tables, I can make my own. In fact that's what I do, for a couple of reasons: tables in the books always include monsters I dislike, and OTOH I'd like to combine monsters from different books into the same table, but books don't assume you have anything else beside the MM1 (and perhaps the campaign setting corebook).

Still, I'd be nice if the DMG or MM had tables by terrain type, at least as an example.

 

[CleverNickName]

Meta-game - as in, "let's wander around until we can kill something because I'm 10xp from level 5" or "let's hole up here until we hit level 6 on random encounters".

Wow, I've never even thought of that. I suppose that would create a wide avenue for player abuse. Has this ever happened to anyone at the game table?

That would be a risky thing to do, given some of the random encounter tables I've seen. Most random encounters are easy, sure, but usually there is at least one or two "gotcha" monsters on there that you really don't want to tangle with very often.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

[MENTION=5590]jodyjohnson[/MENTION], good takes all.

My main problem: the time they take away from the story in 3.x and 4e. Back when an encounter could be resolved in a few minutes, having 3 or 4 random encounters in a session was no big deal. Now, if the PCs run into a "level appropriate" encounter of bugbears it's a 30 - 45 minute time sink for nothing gained except a bit of XP, some resource draining, etc.

I have random encounter tables for wilderness travel that I refer to occassionally, but usually it's something more like: well, they've been in the Wood of the Fey for a couple of days, they should probably meet some faeries occassionally. So, it's less random, and more planned, but not really sure what the plan is. I think.

 

[Yora]

I vote lemon curry, because random encounter have nothing to do with the rules.

 

[CleverNickName]

I vote lemon curry, because random encounter have nothing to do with the rules.

You mean, apart from them being published in the Dungeonmaster's RULEbook? Usually under a chapter or section with "Rules" in the title? I'm only looking at the Expert RULEs here, but I'm sure it's in other books as well...

 

[Yora]

Yes, they are in the books, but they are 100% optional and don't interact with anything on the character sheets or the monster stat blocks. They are only a tool to aide the DM in deciding what situations to throw at the PCs.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, they are in the books, but they are 100% optional and don't interact with anything on the character sheets or the monster stat blocks. They are only a tool to aide the DM in deciding what situations to throw at the PCs.

Ah, okay. Still...optional rules are rules nonetheless.

I have no problem with keeping them optional. But they were completely missing from 3.x, apart from a couple of third-party adventure modules. We had a list of monsters organized by CR, and it was definitely useful. But as others have said, it is nice to have a regional list as well. Add a blurb or two on how to create your own lists and how to use them in the game, and I would be a happy nerd.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I've gone back and forth about REs in my years of gaming. When they're good, they're good, when they're lame, they're lame.

One thing that I think they can do very, very well, is create distance and a feeling of place. I had a DM many, many years ago, and he mostly DMed from a random encounter table he build for his game -- a very involved table with plot and story events built into it on multiple plotlines. But the one impression I remember most from playing his game, as a player, was looking at the map of his world, and a place we needed to reach from where we were, counting up the days of travel it would take to get there, and how many random encounter rolls that would mean.

The game's story moved kinda slowly, which was a drag, but you sure felt the distances. So, I think there's room in the game for REs, but I think they need to be used sparingly and used well.

-rg

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Just to pimp my own post, I threw this up the other day to present an alternative to simple random encounters -- using. It's probably a terrible idea...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...-sounds-dumb-but-its-working.html#post5826708

-rg

 

[kitsune9]

Yes, I'm very much into random encounters.

 

[OnlineDM]

I don't like random encounters. Of course, I've really only played 4e, and tossing in an extra, random, meaningless fight is a recipe for unhappiness as the game grinds to a halt during combat.

If I were playing an edition where a random combat might be done in 10-15 minutes, then I might be more amenable to having random encounters.

Also, I should note that I don't mean "every encounter should be precisely scripted." I'm definitely a fan of having "drop-in encounters" that will probably occur sometime over the course of an adventure, but it's up to the DM to decide the most appropriate time for that wandering band of orcs to come across the party. It's still planned in advance, but the particular timing and location of the encounter is very flexible.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I'm definitely a fan of having "drop-in encounters" that will probably occur sometime over the course of an adventure, but it's up to the DM to decide the most appropriate time for that wandering band of orcs to come across the party. It's still planned in advance, but the particular timing and location of the encounter is very flexible.

As a 4e DM I'm with you on the desire to not waste a "whole encounter" (probably an hour or more) on something that, because it's "random", isn't going to advance the story. At the same time, part of me misses that feeling of chance playing a part -- will the PCs have an encounter overnight? Will they manage to finally get an extended rest even though they're sleeping in the open in wild territory?

If you could have a happy medium, maybe -- some sort of random chance of a prepared encounter -- that might work to scratch that itch. I've tried that. I've tried using skill challenges to represent travel (to convey the feeling of distance and the flavor of a part of the setting), and that kinda works, but the PCs seem to appreciate the scenery best when they're splattering it with gore. Go figure.

-rg

 

[billd91]

I like random encounters. But I can see why they don't work for games like 4e. Games with long combats aren't amenable to random encounters. So find a way for combat encounters to not be slog fests and I think random encounters will work great.

 

[Dice4Hire]

If combats are fast enough, and it is hard enough to heal (or regain other resources) between fights, I am all for random encounters.

I did not like random encounters in 4E as fights took too long and it was hard to get the players to expend enough resources to make the encounter worth the time.

In my Labyrinth Lord game, random encounters are working well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Random is good. Yes please.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Seriously, what is a "random encounter"? I don't think I've ever seen such a thing in over 10 years of gaming.

Okay, I'm aware of the concept and I like the verisimilitude it implies, but it just seems completely impractical and time-consuming. I would never use any rules like that.