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:
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.
Does this (I promise it predates your blogpost) avoid your Ultralinearity Critique?
ReplyDelete"Every journey requires one roll on the encounters and events table for each of the following:
if the PCs have never traveled this path before
if traveling to somewhere other than a city, fort, or other highly civilized and friendly and constructed destination. A dungeon doesn’t count.
if the party is traveling while severely burdened or carrying precious cargo
if two factions nearby here are fighting, or the land is otherwise in a state of exceptional political chaos
if traveling to somewhere especially remote or strange
if the PCs are off-road
if the PCs are impeded by poor visibility
if the PCs are impeded by extreme heat/extreme cold/extreme weather
Double this if any of the party + followers doesn’t have a horse-equivalent mount, cut it in half (round up) if the party + followers all have flying mounts or a giant airship or something else equally fast and awesome.
Each of these E&E table rolls happens after [2d12, drop highest] days of travel, if that matters in some way. If the PCs really need to go faster than this, they can cut that time in half, at the cost of 1d8 HP per E&E check that they’re doing at double time.
The PCs can avoid an E&E table roll BEFORE it has been revealed to them by doing crazy shit like constantly crawling through the undergrowth to avoid being seen or sleeping during the day and moving at night, etc, but this costs everyone 1d8 HP per avoided E&E table roll due to the ridiculous exertion of doing this for potentially weeks.
The PCs can avoid an E&E table roll AFTER it has been revealed to them by going around it – at the risk of adding two more unrevealed future E&E table rolls to their queue, due to them adding distance to their route or going slower due to sneaking or whatever it actually is that they are doing"
Well, I guess the important part is that the PCs have meaningful choices to make, so yes, some of your rules seem to do that.
DeleteI like the ideas that encounters can be circumvented at a cost, for example.
Maybe I´m to stupid for your problem. Rolled out from plenty of options and details the faith of the chars was never clear and still is not. Only thing that became clear is an Ogre, and you seem to be unhappy with how and first over all: WHEN this ogre entered YOUR stage in relation to the players actions. But what if you decide " Damn fuck these ogres again. I´ll just roll something different!" Did you betray the players from their ogre? Did you railrode around it? No. You did not. You just made a decission. Like the players do all the time. You play the game. I mean... do you roll every corridor and room? I hope not. Is that bad because you prepped those in advance? I think its crucial and ads to the expirience. "But But But rooms have to be persistant while random monsters are random" Aha. Not so much as it sounds like. Not the room nore the players care if you switched it on the fly because you found a litle logical error or whatever. I just don´t understand how the time of the Decission wich is relativ and abstract anyway changes anything as long as the long set criteria for this outcome ocure.. You can role the second they open a door and you prepped 300 possible outcomes Or decide 1 year in advance- There is an ogre. And even if I miss someting crucial here, IT CAN NOT BE A RAILRODE. Those need an agenda. But you never decided for anything of this and you do not even care for it. You would have gone with anything. A railroad needs the DM to have a goal, and a quantum ogre to have an not discussable element.contained for whatever reason. All that is missing. You just saw the actors dress up before entering the stage and say "there was no choice"anymore. Is it meaningfull choice? Sadly no, but anyway there has to be some point where there is no other choice anymore, only difference with RL is where this point is set. And because we don t know that for real life, it bothers you to know it in the game it seems. Or maybe: I´m realy just to stupid. Wouldnt be the first time
ReplyDeleteAs I've mentioned, I'm not saying there is a problem, necessarily.
DeleteI'm just analyzing the shape of random encounters in a flowchart; doesn't mean the way you play is right or wrong.
quantum ogre =indiscussable inavoidable element I wanted to write. Bad mistake.
ReplyDelete