There’s a discussion about whether random encounter tables are necessary for a sandbox. People are sometimes distracted by the geographical features of almost all sandbox games, so much so that they believe the defining characteristic of a sandbox is geographical freedom (“We can go to the castle, or we can go to the swamp, or we can go to the desert.”) But having geographical freedom is meaningless if the GM still controls the sequence of encounters. It is absolutely critical in sandbox play that encounters are tied to specific geographical locations beforehand, so that geographical choices matter, or, if the encounter can occur anywhere, the GM’s decision is truly arbitrary.
And if you aren’t using dice or some other randomizer to select what happens next, how do you do that?
You can do it with a fixed list of encounters written up beforehand. When an encounter is needed, the next encounter on the list is used. This does mean that the list can’t be in a logical order, arranged according to plot concerns, increasing/decreasing monster strength, or similar concerns. Alphabetical by landmark, object, class of NPC, or name of monster would be better. Each region can have its own list, perhaps more than one, categorized by season, or by encounter type. For example, in the wilderness, you can travel a road or path, look for shelter, look for food, or look for water, among other things. You could write four lists of things that happen when performing each action. Or, perhaps, eight lists, two for each: one of good results, one of bad results, with the specific list being chosen based on circumstances.
Written with StackEdit.
" having geographical freedom is meaningless if the GM still controls the sequence of encounters"
ReplyDeleteNormally I see this distrust of the GM on RPGNet among the New Schoolers, as a reason to chain down the GM with various restrictions such as Challenge Rating balanced encounters. It's interesting to see it applied to sandboxing.
Can't you see that (a) GM control, deciding the encounter: "They're in the mountains... hm, a hill giant appears!" is not the same as (b) the GM employing Illusionism: "Hm, I have this great hill giant encounter... Wherever they go, a hill giant appears!"?
You read the rest of the paragraph, right?
DeleteApologies if I got you wrong - the last sentence seems ambiguous "or, if the encounter can occur anywhere, the GM’s decision is truly arbitrary" - by 'arbitrary' do you mean my type (a) encounters?
DeleteI had thought you meant 'arbitrary' as in 'evil GM fiat', ie the unchained GM as a bad thing,
Yes, I never use the word "arbitrary" to mean "evil". I mean that the GM's personal preferences (for story, for humor, for pacing, for punishment, etc.) have little or no impact on what comes next.
DeleteI like using random encounters in my campaigns. I tend to roll for them at the beginning of each campaign day and then apply them at times when things seem right. Still a bit arbitrary, but it makes things more interesting for the players.
ReplyDeleteI also like to roll my dice at odd times and consult my notes while shaking my head and muttering darkly about the time tables for poisons. Strangely my players won't eat trail rations unless they prepare them.
Do you say that terrain-based random encounter tables (e.g. the ones in Delving Deeper) do not provide the appropriate amount of agency to make geographical freedom "real"?
ReplyDeleteNope, that's not what I'm saying at all. Maybe I'll write more about this in a couple days?
Delete