This is a good idea. A lot of people look negatively on random encounters they feel they are meaningless, only there to waste players resources, slowing the game down. But, random encounters can add a lot of flavor and flair to the game. They can be very flexible as well, you can use them to sow plot hooks, especially if it’s an open world style game, players find treasure map, a letter, a dying NPC feeds players info right before they parish…etc. The more creative the Random Encounter the better your game can become. The DM can always just add the tracks to his narrative while describing the player’s surroundings instead of making it a roll. The lair can also be done without creating an extra roll, just occasionally add it to a normal encounter, because it should be used sparingly. Also random encounters can be anything from finding a monsters lair to coming across a small stone that a certain player finds interesting. I see a lot of use for the tracks and lair scenarios. Very good idea!
🥳🫂👍🏿 One of my favorite ideas about random encounters is described by Baron de Ropp as a 666 table where the creature, action/target and complication are rolled and combined in the moment - each row is a standard encounter (e.g., goblins robbing travelers during flash flood) but shuffling them leads to more interesting outcomes (e.g., goblins helping a lost child during surprise owlbear attack)
Here's two different ways I like to use random encounters. Roll on the encounter chart twice. The PCs find two different whatevers doing X. Fighting, trading, conspiring, etc. Roll on the encounter chart: PCs come across the remains of said encounter. Fresh, gruesome - "what happened here,?! What if whatever mulled and half ate X, might be close by.
Yeah! I like using "context" rolls to give some detail to my random encounters. Often that involves rolling up a second party (fighting, escorting, prisoners, trading, etc.) I've done a couple of videos on it.
@@Earthmote Every now and then when I have someone in a party who goes 'solo'; wanders off, or is scouting ahead, I have them roll. Something that I don't hear a lot of, are people talking about creating their own encounter charts. I've done this, especially for locations that the PC's will return to. Bake in some rumors (some even true), 'flavor events' (Two old farts wrestling in the mud; a mule with it's head leaning inside a homes window, that sort of thing).
The nice thing about this kinda roll is, just like many other DM tools, you're free to ignore it if it doesn't work. And Lair could be expanded upon, maybe the dragon has 2 nests, maybe its just tracks leading to the lair, maybe the lair has been abandoned and you can search for remnants. It's a good tool to mix things up.
Maybe roll 2d6, one each of two different colors. One determines whether an encounter occurs, and the other determines the encounter type. That would be one die roll for two results, and reduce some of the extra roll concerns you were expressing.
Yeah that's one way to do it! I like the finer granularity of the d100 vs a 2nd d6. But you can roll both at the same time (I do) regardless. But with my way you'd still have to know your encounter/lair/tracks numbers vs a few simple numbers on the d6. So pros and cons to both.
Seems to me tracks should be by far the most common encounter of this type. Basically encountering a monster means you bumped into their location at the exact time they were there, but finding the tracks means you came across any location they were at in _any_ point in quite some time. Tracks don't need to be literal tracks, but any trace of their presence, scavanged remains, scratched walls, etc. I think it's a great way to create a sense of anticipation and foreboding and explore the interactions and lore of these creatures. If this would create to many non-encounters you could always just increase the frequency of the rolls until you reach the expected number of actual encounters, right?
I think it would be cool if the tracks were mostly from "strange" monsters like a monster that turns what it touches into painted landscape or a dead guy floating ib space. To show the monster potential and prepare for a showdown
@@Subject_Keter I think leaving a mark in the world players can follow is also a great way to elevate common monsters. Maybe goblins collect fingers as currency and you find one of them left on the floor, do owlbears spit "owl pellets" full of human remains? Do "common" mystical creatures leave a trace of magic you can detect with "detect magic"? Those are all interesting clues to flesh out the world and engage players.
Yeah I agree tracks should be more frequent if we were playing a simulator. But because its a game, I'm willing to set aside real world probabilities for the fact that its a game and the players should encounter stuff for intrigue, adventure and risk. A high probability of tracks probably de-risks the game too much (if you are tying it into the x-in-6 random encounter rolls). One way you could get around this is just "give" the players some tracks each day as they travel through hexes/areas. That way you can keep up the anticipation of monsters nearby but not bog down your encounter roll with low-risk tracks scenarios. If I did this, I'd just revert the encounter roll to face-to-face encounter and lair-based encounters.
@@Earthmote upon reflection, tracks are LITERALLY plot hooks being dangled in front of the players. It would almost be insane to not have them, and you could Call of Cthulu the hell out of the horror aspect by presenting unknown tracks constantly. Goddammit, I'm IN💪
I think track-type encounters, or other "flavor encounters" like say a weird sound way ahead, a flock of bats or birds flying by or maybe a rock falling, these could happen on a roll of 6 on the encounter d6, in addition to normal encounters on a 1. Also, in oldschool D&D there is a separate chance for any given overland encounter to be in a lair, decided by monster type. So overall its not needed to dilute the "face-to-face" percentage or add extra rolls.
Awesome video. I had an article publsihed in early EN5ider on this very topic. Just a big chart to roll on alongside random encounters to see what they are doing.
Interesting, this is similar to how I've spiced up the ToA exploration: +20% chance of arriving before the encounter (the goblin ambush is still being prepared, or the PCs have an opportunity to sense the approaching creatures before they arrive, etc. +20% chance of arriving after the encounter (there are tracks or bodies. Traps are set off. The victors of a skirmish are resting nearby, nursing their wounds, etc.) Likewise, there's a 2% chance of finding the lair of a legendary creature appropriate to the biome/terrain, and 2% of finding the entrance to a dungeon. Finally, I've added a chance to find shrines that can be interacted with to get short term buffs (usually until the next combat).
That thumbnail looks like what happens when i ask my friend to slightly decide what TTRPG class or archetype he wants to do. Instant retreat into the shadows 😂
I personally love when each dungeon has unique things that happen in it that can be boons and banes. I really want to work it into that game I want to make since thr random events just like ooze out
I haven't played it! But I know its one of the only (official) 5e products with a hexcrawl component. Even if it is still mainly an adventure path module.
In ye olden days, monster stats in D&D came with a percentage chance of the encounter taking place at its lair. I think I'll like to implement lairs and tracks, but I'll tie it to the encounter distance roll (I'm running Shadowdark). I'll make 1 an encounter at a lair if appropriate, and 6 tracks/evidence.
what are your thoughts on the necropraxis overloaded dice concept? The one that on each round you roll a d6, with 1 being an encounter, 2 consuming torches or rations, and so on? I think one of those results is "signs of the next encounter"
I haven't used it personally! I haven't felt the need to change it at this point. But its an idea that gets circulated in the community frequently cause of its popularity.
Because encounters at least often start as non-hostile, do players who are aware of those sorts of reaction rolls maybe think there isn't a significant risk increase when random encounters are there? Like there's a chance for hostile reactions but a lot of it is just "there are other beings here" with the off chance of things going wrong. One of the revival things people seem to generally embrace is the reaction roll, but at the same time the same genre of TTRPG is often talked about in terms of combat. Maybe it's just an old habit, since a lot of the systems are there to resolve combat if it comes up. I'm not sure.
Well, reaction rolls are an optional choice of the DM. If your party has made enemies with a certain faction, and they get rolled up, they aren't going to be friendly, we don't need the reaction roll. You could still roll, but the result should probably be under the pretext that the faction does not like the party. Likewise there are certain monsters that might just attack on sight (most undead as an example). So I think its important the people know random encounters have risk. But in my mind not everything should devolve into combat. Especially with OSR PCs being somewhat fragile, its better to give them the benefit of the doubt of using other means of avoiding conflict if the party wants.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
This is a good idea. A lot of people look negatively on random encounters they feel they are meaningless, only there to waste players resources, slowing the game down. But, random encounters can add a lot of flavor and flair to the game. They can be very flexible as well, you can use them to sow plot hooks, especially if it’s an open world style game, players find treasure map, a letter, a dying NPC feeds players info right before they parish…etc. The more creative the Random Encounter the better your game can become. The DM can always just add the tracks to his narrative while describing the player’s surroundings instead of making it a roll. The lair can also be done without creating an extra roll, just occasionally add it to a normal encounter, because it should be used sparingly. Also random encounters can be anything from finding a monsters lair to coming across a small stone that a certain player finds interesting. I see a lot of use for the tracks and lair scenarios. Very good idea!
🥳🫂👍🏿
One of my favorite ideas about random encounters is described by Baron de Ropp as a 666 table where the creature, action/target and complication are rolled and combined in the moment - each row is a standard encounter (e.g., goblins robbing travelers during flash flood) but shuffling them leads to more interesting outcomes (e.g., goblins helping a lost child during surprise owlbear attack)
Sounds like a good way to add some intriguing outcomes to your random encounters!
Here's two different ways I like to use random encounters.
Roll on the encounter chart twice. The PCs find two different whatevers doing X. Fighting, trading, conspiring, etc.
Roll on the encounter chart: PCs come across the remains of said encounter. Fresh, gruesome - "what happened here,?! What if whatever mulled and half ate X, might be close by.
Yeah! I like using "context" rolls to give some detail to my random encounters. Often that involves rolling up a second party (fighting, escorting, prisoners, trading, etc.) I've done a couple of videos on it.
@@Earthmote Every now and then when I have someone in a party who goes 'solo'; wanders off, or is scouting ahead, I have them roll.
Something that I don't hear a lot of, are people talking about creating their own encounter charts. I've done this, especially for locations that the PC's will return to. Bake in some rumors (some even true), 'flavor events' (Two old farts wrestling in the mud; a mule with it's head leaning inside a homes window, that sort of thing).
The nice thing about this kinda roll is, just like many other DM tools, you're free to ignore it if it doesn't work. And Lair could be expanded upon, maybe the dragon has 2 nests, maybe its just tracks leading to the lair, maybe the lair has been abandoned and you can search for remnants. It's a good tool to mix things up.
Yeah exactly, use what works and discard the rest!
Commenting to show appreciation. More GMs should know about your channel.
Just wanted to say love the videos, man. You deserve many more subscribers in my opinion
Thank you!
Maybe roll 2d6, one each of two different colors. One determines whether an encounter occurs, and the other determines the encounter type. That would be one die roll for two results, and reduce some of the extra roll concerns you were expressing.
Yeah that's one way to do it! I like the finer granularity of the d100 vs a 2nd d6. But you can roll both at the same time (I do) regardless. But with my way you'd still have to know your encounter/lair/tracks numbers vs a few simple numbers on the d6. So pros and cons to both.
Seems to me tracks should be by far the most common encounter of this type. Basically encountering a monster means you bumped into their location at the exact time they were there, but finding the tracks means you came across any location they were at in _any_ point in quite some time. Tracks don't need to be literal tracks, but any trace of their presence, scavanged remains, scratched walls, etc. I think it's a great way to create a sense of anticipation and foreboding and explore the interactions and lore of these creatures. If this would create to many non-encounters you could always just increase the frequency of the rolls until you reach the expected number of actual encounters, right?
Depends if you want a monster hunter game or not. I like this idea a lot.
I think it would be cool if the tracks were mostly from "strange" monsters like a monster that turns what it touches into painted landscape or a dead guy floating ib space.
To show the monster potential and prepare for a showdown
@@Subject_Keter I think leaving a mark in the world players can follow is also a great way to elevate common monsters. Maybe goblins collect fingers as currency and you find one of them left on the floor, do owlbears spit "owl pellets" full of human remains? Do "common" mystical creatures leave a trace of magic you can detect with "detect magic"? Those are all interesting clues to flesh out the world and engage players.
Yeah I agree tracks should be more frequent if we were playing a simulator. But because its a game, I'm willing to set aside real world probabilities for the fact that its a game and the players should encounter stuff for intrigue, adventure and risk. A high probability of tracks probably de-risks the game too much (if you are tying it into the x-in-6 random encounter rolls).
One way you could get around this is just "give" the players some tracks each day as they travel through hexes/areas. That way you can keep up the anticipation of monsters nearby but not bog down your encounter roll with low-risk tracks scenarios. If I did this, I'd just revert the encounter roll to face-to-face encounter and lair-based encounters.
@@Earthmote upon reflection, tracks are LITERALLY plot hooks being dangled in front of the players. It would almost be insane to not have them, and you could Call of Cthulu the hell out of the horror aspect by presenting unknown tracks constantly.
Goddammit, I'm IN💪
I think track-type encounters, or other "flavor encounters" like say a weird sound way ahead, a flock of bats or birds flying by or maybe a rock falling, these could happen on a roll of 6 on the encounter d6, in addition to normal encounters on a 1. Also, in oldschool D&D there is a separate chance for any given overland encounter to be in a lair, decided by monster type. So overall its not needed to dilute the "face-to-face" percentage or add extra rolls.
That's a good way to include tracks!
Awesome video. I had an article publsihed in early EN5ider on this very topic. Just a big chart to roll on alongside random encounters to see what they are doing.
Interesting, this is similar to how I've spiced up the ToA exploration:
+20% chance of arriving before the encounter (the goblin ambush is still being prepared, or the PCs have an opportunity to sense the approaching creatures before they arrive, etc.
+20% chance of arriving after the encounter (there are tracks or bodies. Traps are set off. The victors of a skirmish are resting nearby, nursing their wounds, etc.)
Likewise, there's a 2% chance of finding the lair of a legendary creature appropriate to the biome/terrain, and 2% of finding the entrance to a dungeon.
Finally, I've added a chance to find shrines that can be interacted with to get short term buffs (usually until the next combat).
That thumbnail looks like what happens when i ask my friend to slightly decide what TTRPG class or archetype he wants to do.
Instant retreat into the shadows 😂
I found hints of the encounter first is a good method. Dead animals, prints, scratchings, shed scales, etc.
I personally love when each dungeon has unique things that happen in it that can be boons and banes. I really want to work it into that game I want to make since thr random events just like ooze out
Yeah, its a nice way to give locations their own flavor, rather than entering in dark dungeon #32.
Tomb of Annihilation did a good job of 'mixing up' random encounters.
I haven't played it! But I know its one of the only (official) 5e products with a hexcrawl component. Even if it is still mainly an adventure path module.
In ye olden days, monster stats in D&D came with a percentage chance of the encounter taking place at its lair.
I think I'll like to implement lairs and tracks, but I'll tie it to the encounter distance roll (I'm running Shadowdark). I'll make 1 an encounter at a lair if appropriate, and 6 tracks/evidence.
If you use an online tool that lets you make custom roll tables the rolling can all be done fairly quickly and painlessly.
Try NBOS's Inspiration Pad Pro.
what are your thoughts on the necropraxis overloaded dice concept? The one that on each round you roll a d6, with 1 being an encounter, 2 consuming torches or rations, and so on? I think one of those results is "signs of the next encounter"
I haven't used it personally! I haven't felt the need to change it at this point. But its an idea that gets circulated in the community frequently cause of its popularity.
I plan the majority of my encounters. I use random encounters if I see board looks on my players or if they take forever to decide what to do.
Because encounters at least often start as non-hostile, do players who are aware of those sorts of reaction rolls maybe think there isn't a significant risk increase when random encounters are there? Like there's a chance for hostile reactions but a lot of it is just "there are other beings here" with the off chance of things going wrong. One of the revival things people seem to generally embrace is the reaction roll, but at the same time the same genre of TTRPG is often talked about in terms of combat. Maybe it's just an old habit, since a lot of the systems are there to resolve combat if it comes up. I'm not sure.
Well, reaction rolls are an optional choice of the DM. If your party has made enemies with a certain faction, and they get rolled up, they aren't going to be friendly, we don't need the reaction roll. You could still roll, but the result should probably be under the pretext that the faction does not like the party. Likewise there are certain monsters that might just attack on sight (most undead as an example).
So I think its important the people know random encounters have risk. But in my mind not everything should devolve into combat. Especially with OSR PCs being somewhat fragile, its better to give them the benefit of the doubt of using other means of avoiding conflict if the party wants.
@@Earthmote Yeah, I guess it's good for me to keep in mind that reaction rolls are just another part of the toolkit and not destined to happen