Quote from: Sommerjon;717369IME, it's a the rare Dm who actually absorbs what the players do/have done into the charts.

I seldom change my actual charts, but I always try to fit chart results into the game as it stands. Encountered monsters might be on their way to a public event, or searching for something the players took, or migrating out of the area because the players killed their leaders, or whatever. I might also change the "type" of a chart that a hex belongs to as a result of player actions in domain management or hexcrawling.

I also love having a special result on the chart, that is where you can fit in area appropriate prepared or unique encounter without too much fuss.

Quote from: Sommerjon;717369IME, it's a the rare Dm who actually absorbs what the players do/have done into the charts.

This is why I keep a campaign journal and make notes about what happens when, some of it involving what the PCs do, and other parts that detail whats happening apart from the PCs that still may be impacted from something they did or didn't do.

Quote from: Sommerjon;717369I 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.

To hexploration is less about wargaming and more like trailblazing. The variety in reactions from people and other creatures discovered while exploring other than combat make actual play very unwargame like. Of course the fighting will feel wargamey. The D&D combat system is abstract and very unit focused. The combat parts feel the way they do because they were meant to be wargamey.

Not everyone enjoys the abstract wargame-like combat of D&D for a roleplaying game and thats cool.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;717397This is why I keep a campaign journal and make notes about what happens when, some of it involving what the PCs do, and other parts that detail whats happening apart from the PCs that still may be impacted from something they did or didn't do.

How did you learn to do this? Is this something you naturally picked up on or was it taught to you by another DM?

I ask this because when I look at most published adventures there is very little guidance on how to incorporate encounter tables. A typical Paizo AP, for example, generally includes an encounter table but it seldom includes any good advice on how to incorporate that table with what is going on in the adventure. I often wonder just how many DMs are brought up on something similar to the Paizo model? If you are not shown how to utilize an encounter table and/or lack the ambition to learn from DMs who do know, then you may end up with experiences like the ones Sommerjon posted.

In my case, I was fairly lucky in that I did have a good DM to learn from.

Quote from: Sommerjon;716939I 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?

this.

your improvised responses basically draw on a mental random encounter table, for heaven's sake. random tables can get you to a place, but it's the place that's important, not whether you attained purity of means or some bullshit.

'stocking a random table' and 'refusing player agency' aren't points on a spectrum -- one is a tool/technique (like 'yes and'), the other is a fuckup that results from not knowing your tools and/or being a choad, &c.

Obviously the opposite of random encounters is scripted, which entirely negate player choice. But I think GMs who improvise encounters (occurrence and nature) based on whim are relatively less likely to satisfy players who enjoy strategizing and balancing risks. Conversely if you rigidly adhere to a random encounter procedure, you're bound to upset players who find themselves in a really bad situation just because they were unlucky.

Talking about "player agency" in a vacuum will only get you so far. After all it can be interpreted as calling for OOC or dissociative mechanics, or doing away entirely with random results. For that matter, the GM should get the boot, too, no? What player agency means historically in RPG debates is "no false choices". Not "you will always be in control." False choices though are relative to expectations, and that gets to the root of why people play RPGs and what they think they're doing. So, again, if the player wants to approach the game from the POV of the character, and there's a decision to be made that involves an element of risk, I don't find relying purely on the GM's whim to be an especially satisfying tool, any more than I'd care for a GM to decide the results of the combats in a dungeon.

In actual play there are ways to mitigate or place bounds on the risk--to whatever degree suits the participants' tastes. Tastes do differ, though. A "mental random encounter table" won't satisfy the same needs as the real thing.

Quote from: Jacob Marley;717404I often wonder just how many DMs are brought up on something similar to the Paizo model? If you are not shown how to utilize an encounter table and/or lack the ambition to learn from DMs who do know, then you may end up with experiences like the ones Sommerjon posted.

You know, there are so many little touches like this which go completely under the radar - good GMs just assume everyone does them, and less experienced GMs just don't know about them. They can make the difference between a mediocre game and a ripping good game.

Quote from: Jacob Marley;717404How did you learn to do this? Is this something you naturally picked up on or was it taught to you by another DM?

I ask this because when I look at most published adventures there is very little guidance on how to incorporate encounter tables. A typical Paizo AP, for example, generally includes an encounter table but it seldom includes any good advice on how to incorporate that table with what is going on in the adventure. I often wonder just how many DMs are brought up on something similar to the Paizo model? If you are not shown how to utilize an encounter table and/or lack the ambition to learn from DMs who do know, then you may end up with experiences like the ones Sommerjon posted.

In my case, I was fairly lucky in that I did have a good DM to learn from.

I started doing this after running lots of modules soon after learning to play. The modules were fun but jumping from module to module didn't provide that living world feeling. Once I started using mostly my own material I had to keep things organized.

The first step was simply a few rough notes about where the PCs went and what they did each session. It was easier to correctly pick up where we had left off. Once more of the game world had been experienced by the players it made sense to keep at least sketchy notes about what was going on elsewhere. Since the players weren't involved with these other locations I just made up whatever stuff I wanted. If the players wandered into an area then I had at least an idea of some stuff for them to do. For example if the players were currently exploring a cavern complex in the mountains and were gone for months of game time, perhaps the settled lowland got invaded by hobgoblins while they were gone. So when they returned, there was a major issue and something for them to do.

It wasn't until a bit later that I started applying that principle on a smaller scale to individual communities and npcs. It really helps that certain things happen that are noticeable and make the world come alive. That old innkeeper that the PCs have become friends with? Perhaps the players are away from town for a couple years and when they get back, he's dead and his daughter is running the inn. No sinister plot needs to be at fault. He was an old man and he passed away. New folks are born and others die every day. Natural population turnover is a fact of life. Little things like this help the world seem less static and more alive.

So what I do is put the world in motion in layers. Globally, only major events/changes are tracked. The more local to the PCs things get, the more detail is tracked. One thing that helps is to track the players movements and keep world motion going wherever they have visited. The effects of successful adventures can go well beyond loot and and hearty thank-you's from the locals. That little village that was being extorted by a bandit lord that the PCs killed 3 years ago? Thanks to them the village has grown and is now a thriving small town. The players can now hang out in a fancy new inn that only exists because of something they did as a little side adventure a few years ago. How cool is that?

This might seem like a lot of work, and it can be at times. System can matter a whole lot here. If you have to spend all of your game prep time statting up npcs & monsters to exhaustion then adding this stuff to your workload is too much. You have to learn to spend your prep time on what makes your players happy.  Some players really couldn't give a rat's ass about a living world. They just want shit to fight and goodies to collect. Know your players and prep accordingly. I have found that some players didn't even know they would like a living world campaign until they got to play in one.

To me, random encounters represent activity and change in areas. You never know who might be traveling through an area.

Thanks for the post everyone. I have been reading along.

So to throw out a slightly different idea, but still related.

Could you instead of having a specific encounter table like

1d6 orcs
1d12 bandits
small hunting party


etc . . .

do one that is situational

Small hostile group
Friendly native to area
deadly territorial beast
magical terrain/event


Would that work to serve the same purposes as a more traditional random encounter chart. And yes I know everyone has different ideas on the "Purposes" of the chart hence this discussion. And if it did how would you build it/get ideas to flesh it out.

I guess the question is really is the situation more important than the participants/protagonist?

Sigh, in this day and age it's important to preface everything with "whatever makes your group happy", so if you can figure that out you've all but won the battle.

Of course your approach can work. It's not going to make everyone happy, though. As I think you recognize, it makes the encounters less about the setting than about the characters. Unless--and it's not hard to do--you allow leeway to modify the encounter depending on circumstance. Why would a native be friendly if the PCs are just returning from raiding the native clan's camp? There are ways to justify it retroactively (maybe the native is an outcast) but that kind of inflexibility skews the game into implausibility in the long run.

No time ATM but I'd suggest looking at Black Vulmea's blog and/or investing a few dollars in Mythic GM Emulator.

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;717585Thanks for the post everyone. I have been reading along.

So to throw out a slightly different idea, but still related.

Could you instead of having a specific encounter table like

1d6 orcs
1d12 bandits
small hunting party


etc . . .

do one that is situational

Small hostile group
Friendly native to area
deadly territorial beast
magical terrain/event


Would that work to serve the same purposes as a more traditional random encounter chart. And yes I know everyone has different ideas on the "Purposes" of the chart hence this discussion. And if it did how would you build it/get ideas to flesh it out.

The particulars are stated so that what is encounted remains logical to the area.  Likewise friendliness/hostility is something that may depend largely on the actions of the group.

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;717585I guess the question is really is the situation more important than the participants/protagonist?

Yes. The situation and how the players respond to it is the heart of play. If gameplay doesn't come first then you don't have much of a game.

Instead of adventures or monsters, you can try populating your world with interesting questions.

"What lies hidden at the heart of the forest?"

"What threat from beyond endangers the coastal town?"

"What's wrong with the ruling class in the Capital?"

"What did the thief steal from the local Lord?"

"What did the fighter break or destroy last time they were here?"

"What secrets does the Wizard desperately want to uncover about the Sages of the Temple?"

"What corruption does the Druid wish to cleanse from the river?"

When you approach an area that you can relate a question to, pose it to the table or just ask yourself and start riffing on it. discover the adventure and let it develop through play. Asking players about their characters' pasts, and their connections to a place can immediately build interesting things that you and your players want to know about and explore together. Hell, you can leave huge swaths of the map blank and unexplored, and fill them in during play. "Ranger, you've travelled far and wide, what strange land have you heard is west of the dark woods?"

(This will work better with some systems than others, of course. Systems where NPC and monster creation is just a small stat block and some simple instructions will be fine, but if encounters are this huge complex mechanism, it will stall.)

Sandbox can also mean that you have factions and threats roughly planned out, and they will cause conflicts your players can influence with their actions to tip the scales of power. How will group A react when the players kill the leader of Group B? You can prepare these factions, and their members, and then their goals, and then just react to how the players mess with the world.

(The downside of this method is that you may do a whole bunch of prep that never sees the light of play, but in more complex systems, it will feel more seamless when you need to present enemies to your players.)

I often GM in systems where you can play a game with absolutely zero prep, I sit down to the table knowing as little about the setting as my players, we start with a blank slate, and build the setting up with questions about the characters, the world they're in, and interesting things they've done. Then I ask them why they're in trouble right now. It's incredibly liberating to be able to start a fresh game with no prep in about 20 minutes and get straight into the action - no awkward, slow tavern scene, just starting with the action.

Sandboxes don't need to start huge, you can start small, on one single exciting event, and slowly expand your map as your players branch out and explore.

As for what the players are likely to run into in any given area, I use 2 methods with a great deal of success.

1: I ask the characters. "Cleric, what abomination is said to wander the desolate streets of the ruined city?" "Paladin, what have you heard of the terrible curse that haunts the beast?"

2: I just choose from available monsters or make something up. "A huge towering creature looms up out of the ruins of the city. It seems to be made of rubble from buildings, and loosely resembles a lion, the icon for the ancient city."

There's not really anything wrong with rolling on a random encounter table, especially if you're hurting for inspiration. I just think that when trouble shows up, it's a chance for you or your group to say something interesting about the world.

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;717585Thanks for the post everyone. I have been reading along.

So to throw out a slightly different idea, but still related.

Could you instead of having a specific encounter table like

1d6 orcs
1d12 bandits
small hunting party


etc . . .

do one that is situational

Small hostile group
Friendly native to area
deadly territorial beast
magical terrain/event


Would that work to serve the same purposes as a more traditional random encounter chart. And yes I know everyone has different ideas on the "Purposes" of the chart hence this discussion. And if it did how would you build it/get ideas to flesh it out.

I guess the question is really is the situation more important than the participants/protagonist?

Yes that would work just fine.

Personally I never use encounter charts, I use an event chart.
In my Earthdawn game, the players were traveling from city to city, a 6 day journey by wagon(one of the players is a Merchant, so they carry goods with them for him to sell).
By the time they reached the city, the Merchant who had been marked for death by a Cult(when he was marked for death was a d6 roll)Sending 12 'Hounds' after him(when and how many would get to him was a roll), a severe thunderstorm rolled in on them,(an event was rolled) when the Merchant was unconscious from damage, they took shelter(the other players have little or no skill in survival and botched the roll) in a dry riverbed + flashflood = bad times for them.

Yes I knew the cult was targeting them, I knew the Hounds would come after them.  I didn't know when either was going to happen, nor did I know the Weather was going to play such a factor.

Quote from: Sommerjon;717369I 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.

More broadly, those are "simulation game" roots. Rail Baron, Source of the Nile, Outreach, Statis Pro Baseball, etc., made up most of the non-war portion of the "hobby gaming" scene of which RPGs were an outgrowth. Highly abstract games (e.g., Cosmic Encounter) were more often on the frontier with the mass market, or even very much a part of it.

The main thing, though, in relation to the matter at hand, is impartiality. The expectation is not peculiar to old-school RPGs and simulation games. It's common to board, card, dice, sports and video games.

If you're the dealer in a card game, and instead of dealing off the top of a shuffled deck, what you want to do is choose who gets what cards, then why?

There might be rationales for "fudging" in an RPG that are compatible with wanting a very sandbox-campaign game, but the more it comes up I'd say the more likely it is that one's desire is veering away from the center of that portion of the spectrum.

Three people might not agree on where to draw the line between bluish-green and greenish-blue, but the difference between deep sandbox green and deep story path blue is not so hard to tell.

If people think there's a fundamental difference between an encounter roll, on one hand, and a skill or attack or saving throw on the other, then I'm curious to learn. Advocates of fudging tend to be pretty eclectic, since the motive for fudging one thing is likely sooner or later to apply to others.