Creating and using random encounters

There are several ways to use random encounters. I've tried many, each with its own pros and cons. That’s what we’ll discuss today.

1. 

First, let's start with the traditional method: during the game, you check for an encounter. If there is one, you roll on the random encounter table, then determine number appearing, distance, surprise, reaction, and other details. If often involves page-flipping to even begin describing how many bears the players see (nowadays, most tables say "1d6 bears" instead of "bears", which is the bare minimum IMO).

The advantage is that the game becomes more unpredictable for the GM, which can be fun. For the players, the game gets a feeling of authenticity: they seem the fictional world unfolding WITHOUT much GM input, like if it existed without the GM or players. It feels more "real".

The downside is that rolling each encounter along with all its characteristics can take a long time as it involves half a dozen rolls plus maybe making sense of it all. The fact that the PCs 

Here is one example from AD&D:

2.

My solution to the traditional method, in order to save time, was creating the encounter tables that contained most of the necessary rolls and also some useful information to minimize page-flipping or consulting other tables (for example, NPCs names or activities).

Notice you can still ask the players to roll a random encounter with similar effects as method 1, and the GM will be equally surprised. My tables use even less input form the GM (for example, the GM doesn't need to come up with a name on the spot, or a reason for the results).

Here is one example from my book:

3.

Method 3 is like method 2... only smaller. You can roll a dozen random encounters beforehand, for example, and ask players to roll 1d12 when they have an encounter.

[You need to replace encounters as they are used, but you can do that between sessions].

The GM will not be as surprised during the game, but the players will still get a bit of that authenticity as they roll the d12.

This also allows the GM to add some details that are pertinent to the campaign beforehand. For example, to decide if brigands would be willing to support or fight the usurper king that sent the PCs on a mission, etc. 

One real example I could have tried is making a d12 table with lots of goblin encounters as the PCs entered goblin territory, but I ended up using method 4.

4.

Method 4 gets rid of some or all of the randomness. You can roll some random encounters and choose your favorites, or you can simply pick the from a table or monster manual (so they are not even "random" anymore).

You can add some of the randomness back by taking the encounters you chose and making a d12 list like method 3. 

In conclusion...

Another way to see this is that, even in a simple game like OD&D or B/X, there are thousands of encounter possibilities - only a few dozens monsters but hundreds of circumstances (reaction, surprise, distance, etc.).

If you add your own twist to an encounter (NPC's names, what they were doing, etc.), you have millions of possibilities.

But when the encounter happens, this must be reduced to ONE scenario. 

This process of reducing a million to one involves die rolls (from the GM or players) and GM input. Players usually only participate in choosing the monster indirectly (by rolling dice or by choosing terrain etc., unless they are tracking a monster or something similar).

So there are three aspects to consider here: randomness, GM's fiat and player participation.

Now I notice this reasoning applies to the entire game: you have a set of almost infinite options (which creatures can the DM include in his setting?) and it eventually must be reduced to one ("six goblins attack!"). 

This process always includes GM's fiat, must include player participation (in order for it to be a game and not a monologue) and may include some randomness.

also, in short:

Maximum prep gives you familiarity, coherence and ease of use, but no surprises/excitement* for the GM.

(*Except for PC's actions, and not even this if you railroad.)

Maximum randomness gives surprises but also incoherence and long pauses.

There is a balance to be found IMO.

Which is not much of a conclusion I guess... but that's what I got for today.

The sandbox railroad part 2 (plus ULTRA-LINEAR encounters)

Another take on this post.

---

Important caveat before we begin 

"Railroad" has a negative connotation for some readers. If you dislike my use of this term, I offer an alternative by the end of this post.

I love random encounters and I think they are an important part of the game. No matter if I roll them at the table or half an hour before that, or if I already rolled 100 examples for each terrain. I've tried all of them and each has its pros and cons.

I don't think you can understand this post if you assume I'm criticizing the way you play, which is not my point. I'm just describing how random encounters might work in theory, not how you use them in practice. 

I'm not saying there is a problem, necessarily. If you seems random encounters rolls as simple suggestions, this is definitely not what I'm discussing here. I'm assuming you're using a table and sticking to the rules and the results you rolled].

---

I called "random wilderness encounters" a railroad because if the PCs are in the middle of a forest and the next encounter is an ogre, there is no choice but to see the ogre - no matter if they go North, South, etc.

[Assume the GM has already rolled the next encounter].

Usually, it doesn't even matter if they stop and rest, because then the next random encounter (ogre) will happen as they make camp.

Think of a dungeon where you have 4 doors and the module says "the ogre is behind whatever door the PCs choose first; if PCs decide to rest here, the ogre will enter the room they are in".

It would be obvious to everyone this is a railroad/"quantum ogre" situation.

Of course, while the encounter is presented in a linear fashion (you WILL see the ogre), they way you choose to deal with it is not linear.

You could even have the possibility of AVOIDING the encounter altogether.

But the same is true of the dungeon described above.

And, no matter what you do, you face the next encounter.

[Again, assume the GM has already rolled the next encounter: 2d6 goblins].

The ORDER of encounters remains linear - or even "ULTRA-LINEAR".

In a dungeon with 3 linear rooms (say, ogre-goblin-skeleton), you can avoid the next room by turning back or simply not opening the next door.

In the middle of the forest, turning back or stopping usually leads to next encounter!

This is not necessarily a PROBLEM; this is how random wilderness encounters work.

To add CHOICE to the next encounter, you'd need PCs to have some knowledge in advance.

For example, they'd have to be able to look for tracks or see foes at a distance.

This is not impossible to do, but requires you to MARK some hexes. 

For example, if they avoided the ogre, now they know that they are likely to meet him again if they enter that same hex (instead of just rolling the next encounter).

Filling all hexes is tiresome. 

In practice, you can use your memory; if the PCs avoided an encounter yesterday, going back might trigger the encounter.

If they go back there after a week the ogre is probably gone and forgotten.

This entire thread is descriptive and not prescriptive.

I'm not complaining or giving advice, other than, maybe: if you want to avoid railroads, give the players some options BEFORE the encounter begins.

But the PC's entered the forest and put themselves in this situation!

I agree. Although they might not have an option (if the starting point is surrounded by forests for example).

But I don't roll my random encounters in advance!

I don't think rolling in advance makes any difference here.

Because the roll is not affected by the PC's decisions.

If I rolled 39 before the game begins or if I roll 39 when the PCs say "we go North", the result is the same, not any more or less organic IMO.

I still don't see why this is railroading, or this is not what I call railroading, because the PCs can talk to the ogre etc.

I think the best way to understand my point is comparing the wilderness encounter to the dungeon with four doors, described above. 

Or think of it this way: "no matter what the PCs do or where they go, they'll find an ogre tomorrow because I rolled it".

This is not a problem, necessarily: most people would be fine if I said  "no matter what the PCs do or where they go, they see rain tomorrow because I rolled it", or "they'll see the ghost that is haunting them".

But if you don't want to call it "railroading" maybe "ultra-linear" would be a better description.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/railroading-in-space-and-time-and.html
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36982/roleplaying-games/railroading-manifesto-addendum-random-railroads

NOTE: The Alexandrian has a good definition of railroading in the second post above. Random encounters do not seem to fit, at first. HOWEVER the last post above indicates that the CAN be railroading, in the exact same way I discussed today:

The core distinction here is whether or not the players are making a meaningful choice. In this hypothetical hexcrawl scenario, the choice of direction has been rendered meaningless (since you’ll have the same experience regardless of which direction you go). [...] This taught me a really important lesson as a GM: In order for an exploration scenario to work, there has to actually be something to explore. If all choices are equally likely to get you to your goal (because your discoveries are being randomly generated or because the GM has predetermined their sequence), then your choices become meaningless. And meaningless choices are boring and frustrating.