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.

Undead types and NPCs

I recently remembered the similarities between death knights and skeleton warriors. Both are powerful undead creatures, clad in decayed flesh and ruined armor, big swords, with ominous red dots for eyes.

[Wraiths also have red dots for eyes in their descriptions. And decaying flesh. Wights are similar].

One major distinction is that skeleton warriors are typically enslaved by a wizard, compelled to serve without autonomy. Death knights retain their will and intelligence—although, theoretically, they could be bound by a powerful spellcaster, like ANY undead could.

[I'm remined of "The Empire of the Necromancers" by Clark Ashton Smit. Go read it, it is awesome. Some undead retain some memories by accident, not because a wizard decided to create a specific "type" of undead].

So they look similar and serve similar purposes. It is unlikely that PCs would be able to tell them apart.

This speaks to a broader Dungeons & Dragons trend: the proliferation of nearly identical monsters.

Personally, I’d prefer a “powerful undead” template with variations instead of dozens of creatures that mostly feel the same. Imagine, for example, a system where magical users become liches, warriors evolve into death knights, and thieves fade into shadows or something similar.

Maybe they can keep (some of) their levels, so you'd have undead of all levels of power. These can be individuals, not simply monster types. Whether they are enslaved or not, or if they lead other undead, or if they wear armor or carry a sword, depends on their circumstances.

Not all liches must be super powerful! Some minor wizards could take a chance and botch the process a bit. Same goes for other types of undead.

In my book, Teratogenicon, I describe three fundamental types of undead:

• Mindless – Purely animated bodies, like zombies and skeletons. These do not need personalities or many details.

• Bodyless – Entities of mind and soul, but no physical form (ghosts, wraiths). Some will have interesting personalities and traits.

• Soulless – Powerful creatures like vampires, liches, and death knights. While they retain their physical and mental abilities, they are somehow estranged from their souls. Maybe it is stored somewhere safe, maybe it is lost, or maybe just forgotten and they could be redeemed (but that'd probably cause their physical/mental demise). "Soulless" is a more poetic than practical description. They definitely deserve some history, personality an and traits!

This categorization offers a simple and effective way classify undead though a body/mind/soul divide. Undeath creates a fissure—some beings lose their autonomy, some exist only in spirit, and some are something else entirely.

Of course, there could still be liminal undead: creatures that keep some of their mental faculties, like ghouls, or protoplasmic shapes that are just echoes of souls and no actual souls, poltergeists that can affect the physical world up to a point, or dead bodies inhabited by spirits that belong somewhere else.

As you can see, I have nothing against undead types; in fact, I wrote a PDF with one hundred of them and ideas on how to create even more ("glowing red eyes" are there, but there are more than 100 traits to choose from!) . 

But I think some types of undead, specially the most powerful ones, should be seen as individuals (NPCs) rather than monster types.

Should you PAY your GM?

Let's start with the conclusion: GM-for-pay is okay.

In other words: there is nothing wrong with paying someone to run a game for you, or charging people for a game you're running.

I say that with some certainty but little experience: I always GM for free. 

I GM for my friends, on my schedule, using the system and adventures of my choice (always with some player input). I buy the books I want, and everyone in my group helps me as needed. 

On the other hand, a GM-for-pay typically runs games for strangers, often using the most popular system (like D&D 5e) and well-known settings. A group of friends can often negotiate a situation in which they can all play together with a stranger DM.

I think GM-for-pay makes sense for several reasons. 

Preparing a module like Tomb of Annihilation or Curse of Strahd takes considerable effort. There is an important distinction here: I think learning settings and modules takes work. It can be fun, but the real fun as a GM, at least for me, is running the game with the players.

[And I found running ToA way more fun that just generating a dungeon randomly or whatever. It was worth the effort. But there was an effort].

Once a GM learns the material, they can run it countless times. While it remains exciting for new players every time, the GM might lose some of the fun because there is no sense of discovery that comes with experiencing it for the first time.

And, in a way, I feel bad that some of this effort is wasted: all the unexplored rooms, all the things that could have gone differently, etc. Running the same thing multiple times is interesting, It is just not as fun as doing something new. And, since you can't usually run the same module to the same people twice, you have the additional effort of finding new people if you want to do that.

There are also practical matters, such as buying setting books, paying for subscription apps, etc. These responsibilities usually fall on the shoulders of the GM. At the very least, it is fair to expect the players to contribute.

In short, given the effort involved, it’s completely fair for someone to charge for GM services if there's demand.

I see this as a win-win. More players can experience various systems, settings, and adventures without needing to invest heavily in preparation. You could do the same without touching money: a group interested in trying multiple systems could take turns GMing for each other. Being able to do it for money just makes the process easier in some circumstances. It also allows people who really like to GM to be able to get some money so can dedicate more time to this, do this a lot, and get better at it.

Another aspect that is probably overlooked is the idea of "Player systems" and "GM systems". I ran a  D&D 5e campaign a while ago. It was fun, but I'm unlikely to do that again; I find 5e to be too much work for the GM. OSR games are much more fun for me to run.

When you look at GMs-for-pay, D&D 5e is the most common system offered. Of course, "official D&D" is always very popular, but I think the fact OSR games are easier to run also explains why paid GMs are less common (and the whole idea is less popular in OSR circles).

I have never actually paid a GM. But I started playing RPGs in a game store. It was free, but they encouraged me to buy a book; so it was not completely without interest on their part. And it was awesome.

Then I wanted to learn more and more systems. I went to conventions and signed up for tables without considering what the GMs got out of it. Later, I invited strangers to learn RPGs with me. It was fun, but not as fun as learning when I was a novice (and probably not as fun as playing with my friends). And it took time and effort.

I also played several games where the GM was testing his own system or setting. I didn't pay for that, but the GM obviously had an "ulterior motive". Some of these games were awesome, and some even became awesome books eventually.

[I have done the same thing as an author; in fact, nowadays most of the things I publish are specifically made because I want to play then. I play-test stuff with my friends].

In short... one day, I might pay to play a game. I think having the option is good, but it is not necessary. If you have time to spare (maybe a clear schedule or enough time to search for a perfect game in several places), and maybe some social skill, you can play free games endlessly. You can make new friends and rotate the GM role if you want. 

When I was younger I had more time and less money, so the thought of paying for a game would never occur, but maybe I'd have played even more if I knew that existed (at a fair price!).

Paying for a game does not make it better or worse. It is like any other business. 

I have friends who are great professional cooks; they enjoy making food, and cooking to their friends for free, but they also sell food, and it is equally tasty. I enjoy food even more when cooked by someone I like, but not every meal has to be like that.

I think a similar reasoning will apply to most fun activities: boxing, running, playing the guitar, chess, and so on. Sure, you can do it for free, and you can do it for fun; but there is still a place for professionals, experts, teachers, and tutors.

---

P.S.1: On a final note, some people say GM-for-pay is intrinsically good because commerce is intrinsically good, as both the buyer and the seller can hope to be satisfied by the end of a transaction they freely agreed to. While I do see the merit in this argument, one could make a counter-argument talking about cigarettes, alcohol or whatever, which would be beside the point IMO.

P.S.2: There is also the "Critical Role experience" aspect I hadn't considered. Maybe some GMs-for-pay can "put on a show" of sorts, maybe some are even amateur actors. I don't do "voices" in my games often, maybe I'd pay to try that once? Not sure, for me this is not the best part of RPGs, but it can be fun too.

A Farewell to Arms, VALIS, And the Truth Shall Make You Flee, Braving the Wilderness, Psycho-Cybernetics

Here are some very short reviews of some books I've read lately. The one-sentence summaries (in italics) are not entirely mine, but copy-pasted from AI (and edited by me) to save you a few clicks.

I gave each book a rating, but to each might have been influenced by my expectations - so my judgement of Dostoevsky (one of my favorite authors) is probably a lot harsher than an author I haven't read before., and so on. Highly subjective, of course.

I avoided the number 7 because it is too easy to choose 7 when you're unsure, so I forced myself to choose between 6.5 and 7.5 when that was the case.

A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway (rating 8/10): Set during World War I, this novel follows the love story between Frederic Henry, an American ambulance driver in the Italian army, and Catherine Barkley, a British nurse. The story explores themes of love, war, loss, and existential struggles, as Frederic grapples with the chaos of war and the fragility of human connections.

This is a good book, but I found it depressing and soul-crushing, so maybe you should avoid it if this kind of narrative bothers you.

Anyway, I have the impression this is the opposite of a war book, not only because it is anti-war, but also because it subverts many of the usual tropes. There is no heroism, no epic victories, not even dramatic defeats - people are wounded and killed by error or accident, often by their own troops, and most soldiers are uncertain why they're even fighting. In any case, it is still an interesting portrayal of World War I.

Maybe Frederic can leave this war behind one day, but no one can escape the realities of life and death.

VALIS by Philip K. Dick (rating 7.5/10): A semi-autobiographical, philosophical science-fiction work, this novel delves into the mind of Horselover Fat, a character based on the author himself. It explores themes of reality, divinity, and madness as Fat tries to understand the visions of a mysterious entity called VALIS.

If you like PKD, this is probably a must-read. In a way, it ties together many of the author's ideas about religion, reality (and alternate realities), conscience, and so on. I don't find it as interesting as his short stories but it is still an enjoyable read. 

I started reading without knowing how autobiographical it was. But apparently PKD has been through things that could actually fit some of his outlandish stories.

And the Truth Shall Make You Flee by Daniel C. Jones (rating 8/10): This book examines the psychological and social barriers that prevent people from seeking and accepting truth. It challenges readers to confront their biases and fears, offering insights into how we justify our beliefs rather than genuinely exploring evidence.

I've been obsessed with cognitive biases lately, especially confirmation bias. I've started a new blog discussing some of these ideas, but I'm unsure if I can add much to the discussion.

Anyway, this book was recommended to me by the author, who happens to be connected with me on X - a happy coincidence, since I only use X for RPG talk.

The book is about confirmation bias. I think understanding this bias is an extremely important tool if we hope to have any understanding of reality at all. I think the author manages to explain this bias while giving a fair shake to both theists and atheists, for example.

Braving the Wilderness by Brené Brown (rating 5/10): This non-fiction work examines the concepts of belonging and authenticity. Brené Brown argues that true belonging requires embracing one's vulnerability and individuality, even in moments of solitude. The book inspires readers to find strength in their uniqueness and connect more meaningfully with others.

This reads to me like standard self-help. The core concept is interesting and helped me reflect on being myself while still trying to be belong to something bigger. In short, you can never feel like you belong if you're just pretending to be someone else in order to adapt.

A fairly interesting and useful idea but could probably be explained in a much shorter format.

Psycho-Cybernetics by Maxwell Maltz (rating 8/10): A self-help classic, this book focuses on the power of self-image and how it shapes our behaviors and outcomes. Dr. Maltz combines principles from psychology and cybernetics to teach readers techniques for improving confidence, overcoming negative thought patterns, and achieving personal goals.

This also reads like standard self-help. However, it not only has a better "ideas-per-page" ratio but it was also written in 1960, and I guess it must have inspired several more famous self-help books. 

It could also be shorter, but I found myself writing down at least one central idea from each chapter. If you like self-help stuff, you should read this one.

The most memorable idea for me was that the author, a plastic surgeon, realized that several people traumatized by their own looks (with or without a reason) would still find themselves very ugly after being "fixed" by surgery. I've heard about some experiments with (fake) facial scarring that could confirm these impressions; I think the subject deserves further study.

It makes you think about how much of self-perception - and, well, reality - is just in our minds. Maybe this is a common theme in several books mentioned here.

Minimum viable setting

How to make the "minimum viable setting"? 

What I want to do is create something that leaves almost NO work for the GM.

But writing down every detail of the setting is not only nearly impossible but also mostly useless; the GM will only use a fraction of it, and facing a 1000-page book might be fearsome even in PDF format.

One alternative is creating the entire thing randomly as you go - e.g., using appendix B. 

As you can see in the link, I find it a bad idea. You should know where mountains are, and see them from a long distance. The same goes for the sea, major cities, countries, but... what about small villages, etc?

Well, these could be randomly generated. Maybe you start with a more detailed map of your surroundings, but after a few hexes you're in uncharted territory.

When I think of it, I find that this is exactly what my favorite setting, Dark Sun, is missing. You have a good hex map and a setting description that is detailed enough, but it definitely needs its own appendix B (and C!).

Notice that you cannot just use the existing appendices; you must create new ones that take into account the setting's unique ecology, climate and demography.

Once you have these two (big map plus generator of smaller features and encounters), you are almost good to go.

You'd still need a few random tables of relevant details, so you don't need to keep coming up with new ones on the fly. For example:

- Names.

- Special features (i.e., things that make each village memorable; there are good example in Dark Fantasy Places).

- Relation with existing factions.

The third one deserves further explanation. In some settings, there are important conflicts (e.g., Law vs. Chaos, Magic vs. Religion or Technology, Good vs. Evil, Guelphs vs. Ghibellines) that will affect settlements and NPCs. 

Sometimes they are obvious and generalized: all dwarves hate orcs, etc. You don't even need a table for that. But if you have something more nuanced, you could use a table with results like "strong support for the king", "this village is divided between Guelphs and Ghibellines", or "this town hates elves/magicians/knights/etc.". 

As you can see, even without an overarching conflict, these tables can add flavor to otherwise boring villages.

If your setting has dungeons, you probably need those too. Maybe we can reach a similar compromise here: a few big dungeons (or even a megadungeon) written in advance and a few randomly generated dungeons if you find one by accident. 

Suffice to say, I'm not a big fan of dungeons generated with the appendix A. But maybe you could make different tables (with fewer 45º corridors and more coherent layouts) to create something worthwhile.

Other than Dark Sun, here is how some of my favorite settings deal with this stuff:

Carcosa. The setting is incredibly interesting and detailed. Every time I read it, I want to run a campaign (and it might be my next one). Still, I think it is not quite ready for use.

Some villages/castles are too lean and a bit simplistic/boring. You could easily replace most villages with a random generator that gave you not only color, numbers and alignment, but also some distinctive features.

Or just add such a random table or one line to each village: "this village hates sorcerers", "this village loves fighters and centers around an arena", "this village is built underground", etc. [I'm sorry to sell it gain, but: Dark Fantasy Places is PWYW!]

The map is not great either; I find the positioning of mountainous and rivers a little weird and random. Not a big problem but I'm tempted to create my own.

Qelong: I find this a great example of a setting that is both small and complete. It has hex descriptions, coherent random encounters and a satisfying meta-narrative.

Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation: say what you will about 5e, these are both awesome, well made settings, with detailed places, good encounter tables, and clear factions/conflicts.

What they lack is more organization (as described here) and a few additional random tables. Both have HUGE hex maps but very sparse; most hexes are empty.

Fortunately, there are several 3rd-party product detailing additional dungeons, features, etc.

And I must acknowledge that they got the map almost exactly right:

This means everyone knows the coast, and the mountains are obvious from afar, but the inner area is not known by adventures.

In short, maybe that is all you need to start:

- A good, incomplete map, plus some random tables to add villages, ruins, lairs (geography).

- Random encounter tables (ecology).

- Random villages (demography).

- A few factions/conflicts (history).

What else I'm missing?

DTRPG print costs will increase on April 1

DriveThruRPG is set to significantly raise the cost of print-on-demand products, with an increase ranging from 20% to 80%, as mentioned on Reddit (see below).

This is a good opportunity to get Teratogenicon if you're interested.

This book has impressive art - take a look at the previews to see for yourself! It is a book I enjoy having in print.

I have no idea how much it will it cost after the change.

I will get a few books for myself too, although I'm still not sure what to get. These are all book I already have and recommend:

* Dungeon Master's Guide (1st Edition)

* Monster Manual (1st and 2nd Edition, with 2e being my favorite)

* Fiend Folio

* Rules Cyclopedia

* Dark Sun Boxed Set

These are books I enjoy browsing and referencing. The Dark Sun Boxed Set is probably my favorite to sit down and read, study, etc. 

I don’t want to have any modules because I run games mostly online nowadays, so I’m exploring other settings. (If I were to buy a module, I'd probably get B10, which I'm running now). I don't think I need any more monsters either.

Unfortunately, many books I'd like to own have no POD available, so I must get them elsewhere. This includes Moldvay's Basic and 0D&D, the original D&D.

But I might pick some classics such as: 

* Chainmail: Rules for Medieval Miniatures (0e)

* D&D Expert Set Rulebook (B/X ed.) 

* Hollow World Campaign Setting (Basic)

* Ravenloft Domains of Dread (2e)

* Dark Sun Campaign Setting (4e)

BTW: if you don't want to give money to WotC, I think this is perfectly reasonable. I avoid it nowadays too. There are several good reasons that I won't discuss here.

Other games I might get, based on impressions and recommendations from others, are:

* Tales of Argosa (and you get the PDF for free). 

* ORWELL – Role-Playing in a Dystopian Future (you also get the PDF for free). My impressions here.

* ... and that is what I've got so far.

Do you have any other recommendations? 

Things with good art, price, etc., are preferable, but mainly I just want stuff I can sit down and read.

Anyway, here is the text from DTRPG:

Upcoming Print-on-Demand Book Price Changes – Effective April 1, 2025

We always want to keep print costs as low as possible, and it has been years since we passed any price increases through to our publishing partners.

However, our print supplier, Lightning Source/Ingram, has announced a price adjustment starting April 1, 2025, that will be reflected on DriveThru sites.

Key Changes

Due to increasing supply costs in the US, Black & White print costs in the US will increase significantly, from around 20% for low-pagecount hardcover titles up to about 50% or slightly more for large hardcover books, and with softcover titles seeing an even greater increase.

UK print costs for Black & White books will also increase, but generally only by 3-4%.

Standard Color print costs will increase, by roughly 12-13% for US printing but only around 3% for UK printing.

On the whole, Premium Color print costs will decrease slightly for US printing but increase slightly for UK printing.

Example 1: A 180-page large premium hardcover currently costs $32.10 to print in the US; after April 1, that same title will drop to $27.80.

Example 2: In the UK, the same 180-page book currently costs £20.23, which will increase to £20.93 starting in April.

Contains affiliate links. By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.