Properly done random tables of all kinds are the very foundation-stone of sandbox play.

I always thought the very foundation-stone of sandbox play was player choice.

Quote from: Sommerjon;716871I always thought the very foundation-stone of sandbox play was player choice.

That is correct.

Adequate random tables are there to save a buttload of needless prep. If you actually enjoy generating reams of material just for the heck of it, you can get by without random tables.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;716874That is correct.

Adequate random tables are there to save a buttload of needless prep. If you actually enjoy generating reams of material just for the heck of it, you can get by without random tables.

They're also useful tools on the GM side to avoid unconscious railroading, and help maintain impartiality.

Briefly, the way I see it:

Player choice depends on an objective world. Random tables help in preparing an objective world by helping create content without too much reliance on GM decisions.

Now after creation of the setting or adventure, you could have a static world where nothing happens and nobody does anything until the players arrive. It doesn't concern me whether this is called a primitive sandbox or something else. It does offer player choice since the players get to decide when and how to interact with the setting. It's like a dungeon with a room key but no wandering monsters.

Where this static or primitive sandbox falls down is, first, it lacks verisimilitude, and second, it doesn't provide as much choice as it could. It's also vulnerable to false choice, where players are given to think a choice matters in a certain way, when it doesn't really.

The ideal in terms of verisimilitude and likely player expectations is a dynamic sandbox or at the extreme what I used to call a clockwork world. It's important to understand that this is not a random world! Rather, it's the impossible case where the world is a kind of highly-articulated and detailed automaton which runs deterministically, subject only to occasional inputs by the players. (Conceivably there are random functions somewhere in the automaton's algorithms, for example in the behavior of subatomic particles, but I think most people overestimate the importance of these effects in the real world.)

In a clockwork world, when PCs decide to go through the mountains to save time, the question of whether they'll run into orcs can be determined by examining the movement of all the orcs over time--which can be calculated precisely--and seeing if that collides with the movement of the party.

In practice, this kind of tracking of all the moving parts of a setting is impossible. You might want to do it for a few things, sometimes, but you can't do it for everything all the time. So the trick is to capture the effect by abstract means. One of the best ways to emulate the effects of a complex system which is practically unpredictable is to use randomness. So that's where random encounters come in.

You can get away without randomness in limited situations. For example, the players only know there's a risk of running into orcs if they cross the mountains. As a one-time thing, this risk can be modeled by the GM deciding beforehand that if you enter hex ZZ, you'll run into orcs--or not. This can be fine in a single run of a sort of CYOA-style adventure, but it doesn't work so well for repeated instances of similar risks, or for modeling the dynamic effects of information-gathering and scouting. I.e. at some point the players have a right to believe that certain actions can modify risk. For encounters that are anchored to a location, then, I think a good approach is to assign a chance of contact that can be modified up or down, and an output of intensity/range of contact which can mean that instead of running right into the orcs, you might see or hear them from a distance or find some trace of them. However if there are multiple possible encounters in a location (say there are orcs and a troll in ZZ) then the process of iteratively asking if the party runs into each one is algorithmically identical to using a random encounter table!

Quote from: robiswrong;716895They're also useful tools on the GM side to avoid unconscious railroading, and help maintain impartiality.

IDK, I guess that could be.

Quote from: Arminius;716897Briefly, the way I see it:

Player choice depends on an objective world. Random tables help in preparing an objective world by helping create content without too much reliance on GM decisions.

I don't quite follow this.  You're perfectly willing to allow the GM to make the charts, the frequency of rolling, the die to roll, and the magic number(s) needed for an encounter to happen.  Yet you don't want the Gm to make too many decisions?

I get that once these decisions are made that aren't really revisited.  Personally, I have always seen that as a problem.  It has always made me feel that my PCs impact on the world is never felt.  The group launches a full on assault on those orcs in the mountains, wiping them out.  Are we still able to get 'orc' on the encounter chart?

My biggest issue with random encounter/"rpgsite old school play" it has always felt too wargamey to me.  Never been that big of a fan of those styles of games.  Watching and/or helping the players move dozens upon dozens of chits across small acreages of hex maps makes me yawn even now.

Quote from: Sommerjon;716939My biggest issue with random encounter/"rpgsite old school play" it has always felt too wargamey to me.  Never been that big of a fan of those styles of games.  Watching and/or helping the players move dozens upon dozens of chits across small acreages of hex maps makes me yawn even now.

Not flaming, but your biggest issue is that you are creating the construct {random encounter/"rpgsite old school play"} in your head.  The majority of TheRPGSite self-identified old-schoolers may support random encounters, but random encounters are useful in a variety of ways, and there is nothing about old-school play that demands static encounter tables that cannot be modified by player action.

As Elliot said, random tables are a good mathematical approximation to actually charting the passage of every possible encounter for an area in real time.  You kill the ogres, of course you wipe them off the table, or at least reduce the chance they appear if you kill a certain amount of them, otherwise you don't have a "World in Motion" type setting, which is really much more important to a "TheRPGSite Old Schooler" then random encounters are.

Quote from: Sommerjon;716939I get that once these decisions are made that aren't really revisited.  Personally, I have always seen that as a problem.  It has always made me feel that my PCs impact on the world is never felt.  The group launches a full on assault on those orcs in the mountains, wiping them out.  Are we still able to get 'orc' on the encounter chart?

My biggest issue with random encounter/"rpgsite old school play" it has always felt too wargamey to me.  Never been that big of a fan of those styles of games.  Watching and/or helping the players move dozens upon dozens of chits across small acreages of hex maps makes me yawn even now.

I do like random encounter tables but I think it is important to remember not everyone uses them the same and people have very different reasons for leaning on them. In my case, I feel it adds a sense of life to the game. I also find it helps nudge me in directions I might not go. Finally it allows for me, the GM, to also be surprised and have to incorporate that into the flow of things.

I use them as an abstraction, when the players are passing through large areas. And when I construct them, I try to get a sense of what entries mean. So I may tier the table, so the first section reflects things that are there in sizeable numbers and can easily replenish (i.e. there are a bunch of orc tribes in this area of the setting). The second tier will usually be smaller groups (ones whose population size the PCs could more reasonably impact) and the third might be unique monsters. I like to update my tables frequently. I also think encounter tables are a tool that you don't want to chain yourself to. If the result doesn't make sense, you can roll again or pick something that does make sense. It is just a tool.

So in your example where the players pretty much wiped out the mountain orcs, it might make sense to remove them from the table or place them on another section of the table where they are less likely to come up.

I should say, I was once very anti-encounter table. I started out GMing ravenloft and random encounters were discouraged by the books and I took that to heart. But I loosened up over time, and started using them. I found for my style, they added a lot to the game. Especially if the players are just travelling or wandering an area, it can give things a real sense of action and it can also lead to adventures (when something pops up on the chart, I always ask myself, why is this person/creature/etc showing up, is there a reason or do they have a bigger goal).

Also, not all encounters are combat or monsters. I include beggars, monks, pilgrims, wildlife, etc.

Quote from: Sommerjon;716939IDK, I guess that could be.

I don't quite follow this.  You're perfectly willing to allow the GM to make the charts, the frequency of rolling, the die to roll, and the magic number(s) needed for an encounter to happen.  Yet you don't want the Gm to make too many decisions?

I get that once these decisions are made that aren't really revisited.  Personally, I have always seen that as a problem.  It has always made me feel that my PCs impact on the world is never felt.  The group launches a full on assault on those orcs in the mountains, wiping them out.  Are we still able to get 'orc' on the encounter chart?

My biggest issue with random encounter/"rpgsite old school play" it has always felt too wargamey to me.  Never been that big of a fan of those styles of games.  Watching and/or helping the players move dozens upon dozens of chits across small acreages of hex maps makes me yawn even now.

In the case of orcs appearing on encounter charts after a severe orc massacre, I would say that a possible orc encounter in that general region might still be possible. The nature of that orc encounter might change drastically. The odds of such an encounter will be reduced greatly and if by chance, orcs DO come up, the group encountered will more likely be tribe elders, too old to fight effectively, perhaps with some very young whelps in tow. An encounter with orc refugees instead of a patrol or hunting party.

That sort of orc encounter reinforces the players impact on the area rather than discounting it.

I agree on the wargaming thing. In most rpg play I don't favor a lot of table time taken up on large skirmishes. The exception to that is when the players have reached name level and are leading their troops. In that case there are important geo-political assets in play and there may be a lot more going on than just a fight.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;717047In the case of orcs appearing on encounter charts after a severe orc massacre, I would say that a possible orc encounter in that general region might still be possible. The nature of that orc encounter might change drastically. The odds of such an encounter will be reduced greatly and if by chance, orcs DO come up, the group encountered will more likely be tribe elders, too old to fight effectively, perhaps with some very young whelps in tow. An encounter with orc refugees instead of a patrol or hunting party.

That sort of orc encounter reinforces the players impact on the area rather than discounting it.

I've experienced middling results as a player when it comes to encounter charts.
I've played in games where it appeared the Dm didn't want to make a decision, whether that was in 'fear' of a railroad or being called impartial or not impartial varied.
I've played in games where the encounter charts were used as justification to be a killer or dick Dm.
I've played in games where the encounter charts have brought the setting alive.
I've played in games where encounter charts made the game feel like pinball, bouncing from randomness to randomness.

IME, it's a the rare Dm who actually absorbs what the players do/have done into the charts.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;717047I agree on the wargaming thing. In most rpg play I don't favor a lot of table time taken up on large skirmishes. The exception to that is when the players have reached name level and are leading their troops. In that case there are important geo-political assets in play and there may be a lot more going on than just a fight.

I was meaning the sameness between the two.  Hex maps, hex crawling, random chart rolling, reaction to encounter rolling, etc.  you definitely feel the war game roots of D&D.

It's a funny thing, at one of the local shops every other week there is a mini history of D&D played out.  There's the wargamers with the 8x8 map wall(behind glass so people can't mess up their chits), game of 3.5, game of PF, game of 1st edition.

Quote from: Sommerjon;717369I've experienced middling results as a player when it comes to encounter charts.
I've played in games where it appeared the Dm didn't want to make a decision, whether that was in 'fear' of a railroad or being called impartial or not impartial varied.
I've played in games where the encounter charts were used as justification to be a killer or dick Dm.
I've played in games where the encounter charts have brought the setting alive.
I've played in games where encounter charts made the game feel like pinball, bouncing from randomness to randomness.

IME, it's a the rare Dm who actually absorbs what the players do/have done into the charts.

.

This makes sense, because they are just tools. People will use them well, misuse them, or lean too heavily on them just like any other. I think your last point is an important one, and it is easy to overlook. You mentioned the orc slaughter, which requires the GM to really pay attention to how player actions affect other parts of the game, but he can fail to absorb this into the campaign whether or not he is using encounter charts. I've been in plenty of games where encounter charts were not used, but the GM still failed to incorporate our actions into shaping the setting events.

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;713777A sandbox, to me, is that I have not prefabricated anything about the world beyond making a map.

If that's intended as a definition, then relevant opinions of what's necessary would seem to be those of folks who share the definition. People who say that random encounters are a necessity might be working with another definition.

I'm more inclined to treat "sandbox" as meaning what "campaign" originally meant in the hobby, a disambiguation device now that "campaign" usually means something quite different.

The key difference is that originally players were free to roam around the world; "adventure" is another word that has shifted meaning, originally an undertaking by players but nowadays more often a series of events arranged by the GM.

There are elements in the old context both of a sense of a dynamic world, and also of a kind of fairness, in setting up probabilities and letting the dice fall as they may. Particular NPCs may indeed be out to get the particular PCs, but the world in general goes about its business for the same sorts of reasons that creatures do in the real world.

Keeping track of the movements of many separate entities -- say, all the goblins in a dungeon, or all the snakes in a jungle -- is a better job for a computer than for a human being. Rather than attempt that, we assign probabilities to encounters.

Yes, of course there's nothing that requires you to incorporate Napoleon at Waterloo with counters and a combat results table into your RPG just because you use random encounters, but the goal (simulation of an objective setting) and methodology come from the same place. The idea is to put the players' decisions into a context that is as analogous as possible to those of the characters they're playing.

In wargames, there's been a strong emphasis on putting the player into the role of an actual commander, with the same limitations of control and intelligence. Not everyone cares for this and I think you can see a bit of a split in the hobby between gamers who want more control and more "fairness", and simulation-fans who want more verisimilitude from the commander's perspective. The former tend to like Euro-games; the latter, not so much.

The term "sandbox" gets used with shades of meaning. I think the OP and some of the follow on discussion got off on the wrong foot since who really cares what you call it, it's the expectations and results that matter.

Cross-posted with Phillip but thumbs-up to his post.

Quote from: robiswrong;716895They're also useful tools on the GM side to avoid unconscious railroading, and help maintain impartiality.

Yes, there is that element of "keeping one honest," and along with that they allow the GM another chance to be surprised.