Love the show and am glad I have caught up enough to be able to comment on episodes that weren't well out of date.

I noticed in the last couple of episodes there was a lot of negative criticism of Random Encounters. I just thought I would add a couple of counter points. I guess it depends how they're used. Are they just a punishment for players who waste time dawdling? Are they just a filler?

I prefer to think of them being a way to remind players that their's is not the only story. Their character exists in a world of creatures and beings who each have their own path to follow. A lot was made about whether an encounter advances the plot. I would say they can makes the world more real. It's not just about the characters story, it's about the world's story that the characters story is part of.

The challenge is making the encounter part of the story without spoiling it. The example was given of a group of characters, injured and low on spells and hit points and the random encounter throws up a Black Dragon (I think, or something similar). So I thought how would you run with that. I came up with 2 idea's.

1. The characters are limping home when suddenly some animals run past them fleeing something. Perhaps they hear the beating of powerful wings, perhaps they see a black shape flying in the distance. What do they do? They're in no condition to fight so they have to hide. Perhaps they have to calm their horses, find a chasm or cave to hide in. A few nervous dice rolls, the danger passes and they continue on their way. Where did it come from, where was it going? They might never find out. Perhaps they will meet it again some day when they aren't so injured.

2. Feeling more generous, perhaps they spot vultures circling in the distance. As they get closer the smell of rotting flesh reaches their nostrils. In a clearing of broken trees they find the decaying carcass of a Black Dragon. On of them slices open its bloated belly and the body of a half-eaten Knight falls out, his hand still clutching a potion of healing. Searching what remains of the corpse reveals X amounts of unused ones. Who was the brave Knight? Was it him who killed the Dragon?

Did either encounter advance the plot. Maybe, maybe not. But I think it makes the world a more believable place, one where it's not always just about the characters. Just some thoughts...

I'm goig to phrase this in a strictly D&D sense, although much of it is true in other games.

In D&D 3&4 (and Pathfinder) balance is a going concern. A good encounter, whether amidst civilized city folk, wandering lonely lforest roads, or spelunking through monster-filled dungeons, is balanced. Maybe it's a little easy. Maybe it's really tough. But it is predicated on the abilities of the players' characters. And balanced is planned. Random and planned ... well, they dont' really go together.

This certainly wasn't an alien concept in OD&D or AD&D 1st & 2nd. Even back then a well-crafted encounter would challenge the characters commensurate with their abilities.

But "balance" wasn't such a big thing back then. There were random encounters, in the first DMG, that would keep any 5th lvl party off the city streets at night, out of forests, or swamps, and keep them in the only place they new was safe. The Dungeon. With it's level-appropriate encounter tables, you were fairly safe. And if your resources were depleted? Well, find a room, spike the door (that's why we carried iron spikes, after all), put the fighters and thieves on guard and set the clerics and magi to praying, studying, sleeping, and so forth.

On the other hand, although there were some great stories told back then (The Balrog and the FInger of Death, etc) "story" wasn't a huge consideration. Certainly in my experience, the relationship between the DM and the players was more adversarial in nature. These days a TPK is seen as a failure on the DM's part. In the eighties? It was often lauded as a victory.

But for me, my first "strike" against random encounters was "Dragons of Despair", the first Dragonlance module, in 1984. It really doesn't deserve it's reputation as a great module. It's not just linear, it's a bloody 4-6-2 Pacific hauling you through the story whether you want to go or not. And it was tough, especially since no clerics meant no healing magics.

But the worst part about it were the random encounters. The players' characters' resources were already stretched thin. And Draconians aren't kobolds. And they turn to stone, acid, or even explode when killed, in a painful retribution for the player's character successes.

With the addition of just two or three random encounters "Dragons of Despair" became a killer module. And despite a somewhat adversarial stance, I failed to see the point of that.

So. Random encounters. I'm not a fan. I'd far rather give them planned encounters that seem random.

Doug.

As a side note, why? Why does every encounter have to be perfectly balanced for the party? The real world doesn't work that way. Sometimes the players need to haul ass and not engage an enemy. Or plan smarter and ambush them.

Waiwode is actually mistaken here.

3.5 D&D (I can't speak to Pathfinder) actually tells you that about 10% of encounters should be beyond the party's capabilities and only about 50% of all encounters should be at a par Encounter Level. The idea that all encounters have to be balanced is a persistent meme that is solidly debunked by reading the section in the DMG about encounter design.

Never minding the fact that in the very next section of the DMG, there's a fairly lengthy description of how to run a status quo campaign where encounters are mapped out before play begins and it's up to the players to determine what is doable or not.

On another note, who claims that "Dragons of Despair" is a great module? It's pretty resoundingly criticized as a terrible railroad. And, I'm fairly certain that Waiwode is misreading the module since the only draconians you can meet in DL1 are Bozaks (turn to stone) and Kapaks (turn to a puddle of acid). The asplody ones are Auraks and they're way beyond the scope of this module.

On the plus side, the module has GORGEOUS production values, and the dungeon of Xak Tsaroth is actually a damn fun dungeon crawl.

But, yeah, it's Dragonlance - all aboard the choo choo.

It's fine in moderation. But it grows incredibly tiring if it's done too much, especially if it's done just because the dice say so or the GM decrees it Just Makes Sense (tm). I don't like railroading in purely RP scenes, so why should I enjoy it in combat?

It still tends to form a bell curve. If 50% are X, and the rest are greater than or less than X ... things work out pretty close to X. Those balancing tools (CR, ECL, etc) were never really present in the earlier iterations of the game.

Additionally, mapped out or not, debunked or not, encounter design has seen a lot of print-space, and most of it has been focused on how to balance, create tempo, give the characters breathing room, and so-forth.

Bozaks explode as well. A d6 damage in a 10' radius, with a save. Bozaks normally appear as "leaders" or solos in DL1, or as a possible random encounter .. but there is a group of them if you wander too far north.

One thing we can agree on. Great production values. The maps in the first five or six modules are all fantastic (this is true of most H&W modules).

Doug.

If you were around back then, you were astounded at the production value of the DL modules and before that, the original Ravenloft module. They really upped the bar in that respect.

DL was linear because it was supposed to be following the books. Play book 1, then play book 2.... IIRC, part of book 2 was left out of the book and only hinted at in dialog, but what actually happened is part the DL2 module - or perhaps all of it. I can't quite remember. It was 25 years ago.

As for Random Encounters:
I long ago stopped rolling encounters at game time. If I wanted the party to have an encounter when they were exploring the Forest of Instadeth, I made a few in advance and picked the one I thought was best to use at the time.
Random is really the wrong word. Incidental maybe?
Those type of encounters can be useful in a game for several reasons.
1) Not everyone is like Chad. Some people enjoy combat. Just make it interesting.
2) If every encounter is an important part of the plot, it makes the game seem like it's on a rail. It takes away from the feeling of discovery.
3) They can help establish mood and setting. You can have an NPC tell the party that the Forest of Instadeth is dangerous or you can have them get ambushed by goblins - and show them.
4) Even though an encounter might not be strong enough to threaten the party, it can use up some of their resources. That makes them matter in the long run without causing any PC death.

I would also add that I think making deadly incidental encounters is bad idea.
Pointless death is pointless.

This reminds me of a rant by Blackjack about players and Dragons.

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/he ... tterGM.htm

A lot of players get in the mindset that they must attack everything, and that the GM sucks if they're not able to kill it.

Absolutely ... except DL1 was published eight months before the book (bit of a spoiler, that) and DL2 & 3 followed quickly after. We knew they skipped over a module, because we had already played through it.

Doug.

Heh, well, the mass of draconians you meet if you wander too far afield aren't really a random encounter - they're the walls of the box canyon.

It's interesting to note that the DL modules, Ravenloft and I3 Pharoah all come from Hickman and Weiss. All of them feature this gorgeous production value that was just head and shoulders above anything else out at the time.

I owned all the DL modules, although never managed to play through them. Facinating stuff to look back on though. In the series of modules, they actually give you a board game that you can play out the War of the Lance that has pretty much nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons. And the fold out maps really are just drool worthy stunning. The High Clerists Tower still stands as one of the best out there.

But, yeah, if they were going to do it again, I'm thinking there would be some significant changes. I tend to cut them a lot of slack considering how much they were going against the grain and trail blazing new territory for the time. Story? In D&D? What's that? :p