We need more advanced random encounter tables. And by more advanced, I mean more suited to telling the kinds of stories we want to play, not the kind with modifiers based on current rainfall. There is not much to work with, as the mechanic has seen little use for rarely-discussed reasons (much like reaction rolls), so our starting point is much more primitive than with other rules design.
Random Encounters are a major facet of the old-style hex crawl and dungeon crawl. The idea is that when travelling, there exists a chance of triggering an encounter. More often than not, this means a fight scene likened to those random fights in CRPGs that use the world map. They are occasionally still seen in gaming products to this day, unceremoniously slapped in the back, rarely much else spoken of them.
Reaction Rolls are an old mechanic, used in place of many social systems, but are primarily seen in OD&D rules. The rundown is that just before rolling initiative, you would decide what how the NPC or monster would feel about the party. Whether they be hostile, neutral, or welcome to join in making friendship bracelets, would be decided on a random roll. Originally, it would be slightly influenced by the Charisma of one or more members of the party, but there are obviously more complex variations on this mechanic.
Both are signs of an older era, and both have been wordlessly dropped from the scene. Many other mechanics have been dropped from the old days, but their exclusion came with much discussion. THAC0 is one of the more infamous examples of a game rule whose removal had discussions (largely in favour).
As they're not built into the rules anymore, asking someone why they don't use reaction rolls is akin to asking a Texan why they don't put tomatoes in their clam chowder. They probably haven't even heard of the practice, and there's an inherent inertia to changing how things function. For those rare few that are versed in the rule sufficiently to have an opinion, they use the same arguments as you hear surrounding the Diplomacy skill; superiority of GM advocacy, role-vs-roll, unbiased decision-making, etc.
Random Encounters don't see this kind of debate. They're in the corner, used by some, unused by many outside of deciding what the party will fight today (making the process simpler by just opening your monster book to a random page and rolling initiative). The arguments for and against, I suspect, follow a similar pattern to that of Diplomacy. DMs feel more confident in their ability to tell a story, and feel they are hampered by such arbitrary dice, and might as well play a boardgame if the human element is removed.
What's important here is that random encounters shouldn't be seen as a crutch, but a tool. The position of DM carries the danger of bias and favoritism. This is a subtle danger. Even if you manage to not play favorites, your impressions and reactions to PC behavior are going to be the same from NPC to NPC. I'm not saying it's impossible, but actors face a similar hurdle and the best ones take lessons and practice for years in doing only that, while the role of DM is one of unguided discovery amid a sea of other roles. Much like the other rules of the game are used rather than just throwing it all to the wind for Cops & Robbers, an encounter table properly designed, serves to enhance the game.
Relevant Links
The Alexandrian's Game Structures
Online Encounter Generator
Improving Random Encounters
No comments:
Post a Comment