Random Encounters

[Vamprey]

I use random encounter tables. However I have never used a random encounter table straight from the books. Don't really care for those, for one reason or another. Probably because whenever a party of PCs goes into an area where a pre-generated random encounter table would be useful they are either too low in level or two high in level. Either way I end up with a useless chart that doesn't add anything into the game.

However, since I know my own players and their characters, I have a tendency to create my own random encounter tables. They are handcrafted for the party level, have just the kind of monsters I like to use, don't have any excess material, are custom designed for the campaign setting I'm using and so forth. With these kinds of tables I can roll out a random encounter and expect it to really add something to the session .

<snip>

Not everyone feels the same. If random encounter tables are simply taken out of the books without a moments thought and thrown at the players because the DM can't think of anything else, then: yes, it is poor DMing.

This is somwhat similar to what I and the others in our group do when they DM. Random charts are designed for a very specific region, say the common creatures found in a small forest (who knows when that hungry bear is going to rumage through the backpacks at night).

Something that I hate however is setting up anything based upon levels, avoiding encounters that are beyond the abilities of a party is the parties responsibility not the DM's. If a forest is known for the extrodinary number of powerful beasts within and the first level party goes wandering through the forest, gets attacked and killed when they knew this, then they were to stupid to live anyway.

Same holds true for a party following any number of rumours, if the low level party decides to take on the giants in their keep, for example, they deserve anything they get which will most likely be death or a quick lesson on how to run away and then retire.

 

[Raven Crowking]

How many of you, as DM's, use random encounters, especially when your PC's are in the wilderness?

I'm with Crothian here as well, at least as far as wilderness travel goes. Most of my "random" encounters are "planned but not placed" encounters. That is, I have a number of set up encounters that could be dropped into any appropriate location, as needed. I include in these encounters some minor lairs.

In dungeons, I use random encounters, but these come from a set number of potential encounters, and sometimes killing a "random" encounter depopulates a lair in another section of the dungeon. I.e., if you kill the manticore now, then when you reach the manticore's lair, it's not there. I have produced similar tables for wilderness settings, when the setting is limited (i.e., an island).

Sometimes I also use things that are designed to seem like random encounters, but are not. I don't want the PCs to easily be able to determine which encounters are significant, and which are not.

Do you enjoy them either way? Or do they bore you and make the game dull?

I skipped the player questions because I never get a chance to play.

If only someone in the Toronto/Scarborough area would offer to run a party through the World's Biggest Dungeon, and invite me to join. I'd even be happy to play online.

In answer to the question, I enjoy them. My players seem to enjoy them.

Do you, as a DM or player, believe that using random encounters makes you or your DM a "bad" DM?

No. Using them slavishly? Yes. Random encounters are one of those few rolls I will "fudge" in order to make the game more fun.

I'm just curious about what type of replies I'll get because I just read a thread where someone said that using random encounters makes a DM a "bad" DM and that random encounters and charts shouldn't be used in the game because they are boring and dull.

Not in my experience. Here are some things to think about, though:

(1) Not all random encounters should be baleful. Try to include a few "interest" random encounters -- noises, smells, piles of dung, and the like -- that the PCs can have, which also act as clues to nearby encounters.

(2) Random encounters should be run as though planned. I.e., all the stats are worked out ahead of time, and some description of creatures as well as what they are carrying (if anything). It should be difficult for the PCs to be certain which encounters are random and which are planned.


RC


EDIT: Honestly, it hadn't even occurred to me that anyone would use random encounter tables straight from the book! Which goes to show that I should have read through the thread before posting.

Random encounter tables should be tailored to the area, and should include enough detail to run a comprehensive encounter.

Example: I made a random encounter table for ships crossing Lake Elidyr in my campaign, because the lake is very large and I wanted it to seem as though things were "going on" in the area that had nothing to do with the PCs or their current adventure.

My encounters list "tribesmen", and go on to describe that these are Lakashi tribesmen in birchbark canoes, who are either travelling or fishing, and are probably not hostile. Roll X for the number of canoes, with 1-3 passengers per canoe on average.

The "lake monster" encounter gives stats for the lake monsters (basically plesiosaurs) and notes that most encounters are simply sightings or soundings. It goes on to describe what lake monsters do in spring and autumn (when they are most likely to be encountered -- my charts are seasonal), and how they react to attacks.

For another area, where lizard folk may be encountered, I have several pregenerated lizard folk groups to be encountered, including classed individuals, treasure, and so on. Then I roll to see which lizard folk band is encountered. The encounter is "random" but it is also thought out.


RC

 

[Telperion]

Something that I hate however is setting up anything based upon levels, avoiding encounters that are beyond the abilities of a party is the parties responsibility not the DM's. If a forest is known for the extrodinary number of powerful beasts within and the first level party goes wandering through the forest, gets attacked and killed when they knew this, then they were to stupid to live anyway.

Actually, I don't use the DMG guidelines when creating random encounter tables. I use the Wilderness & Wasteland: the Scarred Lands Encounters book, which gives a bit of a harsher variation on the core rules.

When selecting creatures for the random encounter table the CR/EL range is from 4 below to 4 above the party level. So, if the PCs average 6th level they can meet a CR 10 creature and at that point they should be smart enough to run away. If not then there is a high probability that more than one PC will get killed.

EDIT: I do get your point, however. Some areas are simply more dangerous than others, and I do reflect that when creating tables for such areas. Lifting the CR range a notch or two to signify a more dangerous area will get the party's attention very quickly .

 

[Sejs]

When I DM, my random encounters arn't all that random.

I plan out a number of encounters for a given area, that are all appropriate to the situation in said area, say around 5 or 6. Then, when it's appropriate to check for a random encounter, eg during a stretch of down-time, such as traveling on the road between cities, at during the night, etc I'll roll a d20 with the target "Hey George, something new!" frequency being determined by local conditions.

 

[the Jester]

I use random encounters occasionally, but less frequently in 3e than ever before. Given the rate of advancement in 3e, it just seems like random encounters exacerbate the problem (that is, the problem of advancement being too quick imho).

I believe that the only other guy in our group who dms these days uses random encounters at least in the wilderness.

I think that random encounters add a certain amount of fun to things. More fun never equals bad dming.

Now a bad dm, on the other hand, might use random encounters very poorly.

 

[iblis]

How many of you, as DM's, use random encounters, especially when your PC's are in the wilderness?

I, as GM, do - but not nearly all the time. When they are used, it's more likely to be when the PCs are in the wilderness though. Most, if not all of the other GMs I know - and that's quite a few - do too.

How many of you, as players, know your DM's use random encounters?

All.

Do you enjoy them either way? Or do they bore you and make the game dull?

Both ways, enjoyable, yes.

Do you, as a DM or player, believe that using random encounters makes you or your DM a "bad" DM?

Not surprisingly, no.

I'm just curious about what type of replies I'll get because I just read a thread where someone said that using random encounters makes a DM a "bad" DM and that random encounters and charts shouldn't be used in the game because they are boring and dull.

I'm sure the same could be said and probably has been said of a great many potential tools in the GM toolkit. Poor GMs, we cop so much flack eh.