Time Constraints (beyond random encounters)

[DangerousPuhson]

I hate random encounters as the means for pressuring the players with a time limit, for a number of reasons. I believe their efficacy as a motivator is overblown by armchair DMs, who are privy to the bird's-eye-view of the adventure and can only speculate what the party is thinking.

Instead, I'm more keen to pressure the party based on an event-based timeline (also ensuring that the party is made aware of said timeline in one way or another). The benefits of an events-based approach over wandering monsters as time pressure are numerous:

1) Ties in to the greater campaign (i.e. they have to do something before a properly-telegraphed campaign event occurs), which works the narrative of the adventure rather than working the "flavor" of the adventure.

2) Presents a bigger threat. Wandering monsters are unknown, representing only a nebulous threat - could be easy, could be hard. Events are known, and can be so grand in scale that the party knows the stakes are higher or that they cannot survive it, and so must move quicker.

3) Not constrained to dungeons or travel. The time pressure persists so long as the event persists, regardless of where the players are and whether or not they are chancing random encounters.

4) Since the threat of an event will take place regardless of character choices, you can prepare it ahead of time (which is entirely against the spirit of random encounters) and really flesh it out.

5) Can't be "juked" the way that a party can choose to avoid random encounters (by hiding, or securing a room, or leaving, or whatever).

6) Is actually a reason. Wandering monsters are not a real reason to keep moving - they represent a persistent "danger" in the area, which the party is already expecting and dealing with.

Don't get me wrong, wandering monsters are fine as a tool, and should be in every good dungeon - but they are not a good time constraint, and not a good motivator (especially in combat-for-XP systems). So for that, I use events, such as:

- Stopping a wedding/execution/coronation/ritual
- Clearing out a place before an army swoops in to lock it all down
- Racing a band of rival adventurers to the good loot
- A changing of the guard leaves the place briefly vulnerable
- Catching a rare/brief window of opportunity to access, like the dungeon door only opening during an eclipse
- The dungeon location is about to made public, inviting mass plunder by anybody
- Shifting planes/planar alignments means certain things only line up at certain times
- One super scary, nigh-unkillable threat persistently stalks the place
- A wasting affliction (either on them or an NPC) for which the characters have little time to seek a cure
- A magical item/artifact about to lose its powers forever unless recharged in a specific way
- The dungeon is about to be obliterated by an active volcano or asteroid etc.

How do you guys feel about random encounters as time pressure? Do you have any events that have worked as substitute in your own games?

 

[Beoric]

I think event timelines have their place, and I have used them. The biggest problem for me, and I know this is going to be a shock to you, is that I can't stop myself from being super particular about the timelines being realistic, and I start figuring out realistic communication times, travel times, and planning/analysis times for Team Monster, and then those timelines don't jibe with the incredible inefficiency of players.

Like, truly stunning inefficiency. I hate modules that are written so everything is in a state of stasis until the PCs show up, but I understand them. Because if I have an actual countdown clock, I can count on the players to run it down on some ridiculous wild goose chase prompted by I don't even know what. I have had a week long clock run out while the players had not yet decided whether they were ready for the second, social encounter. Like, you have staked out the orphanage the kids were kidnapped from for four days, watching while nothing has happened, do you think maybe you should maybe go talk to the actual witnesses?

[I had a four paragraph rant here, which I decided to cut. The problem is my players still have trauma from one of our DMs in the teenage years, and now they assume every NPC is secretly an easily offended evil archdruid. I mean, I was also there when we had the shit kicked out of us by the busboy who was actually a high level monk, because somebody called him "sirrah," but I promise you, that is not how I run my campaign.]

They do, however, respond to the use of random encounters, as long as the encounter rolls are expressly linked to behaviour. So if they want to do a thing that is loud or takes time, it triggers a roll, and they know it, and they take it into consideration.

 

[The1True]

Random Encounters are great for adding dread and tempo to large exploratory dungeons like Barrowmaze, and for keeping open-ended hex crawls interesting. But yeah, for a feeling of urgency, they're going to probably backfire by slowing everything down (unless they're designed to be overwhelmingly dangerous forcing the party to flee, which is going to start to feel like DM fiat after a while...)

Time keeping can be a bitch. For 1.5-2e I built a funky little clock to mark turns and hours so I could keep track of torches, spells, fatigue etc. It sort of worked, but I had to make sure it didn't get bumped between sessions. A better solution is creating waypoints: X number of rooms/X treasure is discovered/X mini-boss is encountered/X rest stop has been found. Move your opposing forces along their own thread at each point, altered by how much the PC's dithered/destroyed/rushed/schemed etc. Set escalating warning events at each waypoint to clearly broadcast that time is running out and that the players' choices so far have had repercussions.

 

[Beoric]

I also switch to real time when players are debating among themselves. I have thought about maybe buying a ten minute hourglass and sticking it on the table.

Re: waypoints, I use distance travelled in a dungeon, as long as they are mapping, which I figure is slow enough to justify it. If they aren't mapping, or looking for secret doors etc., their speed of travel is too quick to roll checks - but I also reset the fog of war behind them, and they are going to fall into pits a lot.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Time keeping can be a bitch.

I've made a time-tracking page for one of my campaigns - covers a whole week in 10 minute increments, and it's more prettied-up than a page with just a bunch of blank checkboxes on it. I'll upload it when I get back home. I've also had good success making a custom calendar using a simple MS Word table, which makes day tracking really easy.

Waypoints is good for the DM to manage, but I reckon to the players it feels much more like DM fiat than an overwhelming force that keeps things moving (perhaps if the players are kept in the dark about goings-on, it might work - but then again, you can't really keep a timer in the dark because it loses its effectiveness). Like having an hourglass at the table, the players watching you tick off a box for another hour or day hammers home the point that time is ticking down.

 

[Beoric]

Time keeping can be a bitch.

This is why I hammered on a user-built time tracker until it more or less didn't interfere with the framework I was using for my VTT. It's always a pain because two different user-made systems may have overlapping variables. Although the dude who built the inventory system really should have anticipated there would be problems when he named the variable for the type of item "Class".

 

[DangerousPuhson]

This is why I hammered on a user-built time tracker until it more or less didn't interfere with the framework I was using for my VTT.

Was this a tracker that automatically kept time based on the player's in-game movements, or was it manual? because I won't lie - an automatic time tracker sounds really damn cool.

 

[Beoric]

Was this a tracker that automatically kept time based on the player's in-game movements, or was it manual? because I won't lie - an automatic time tracker sounds really damn cool.

It's not automatic, just easy, and it talks directly to the calendar. Plus I can add its macros to other buttons, so if I click "short rest," it grants the PCs the benefits of a short rest and it advances the clock 5 minutes.

And to be clear, that doesn't add five minutes to some arbitrary number in order to keep track of time in the dungeon. It takes 9:20 on Farday, the 20th day of Olarune, 998 Y.K., and turns it into 9:25 on Farday, the 20th day of Olarune, 998 Y.K. Or I can add an hour, or a day, or a week, or really any number I want to make a button for, as long as the increment is no smaller than one minute.

Hmm, it would be really easy to make a "turn" button that advances the clock 10 minutes and rolls a random encounter check, and displays the results only to me.

Now you have me looking for a way to automatically advance the clock using real time. Poking around the forum, it is clear that this would be doable by someone with better coding skills than me. I see somebody made a countdown timer that can be displayed for the DM and/or players, which is pretty cool; you can set it up to give a warning, and when time is up it starts flashing red. Imma poke around in that and see if I can link it to the calendar somehow.

 

[Malrex]

"4) Since the threat of an event will take place regardless of character choices, you can prepare it ahead of time (which is entirely against the spirit of random encounters) and really flesh it out."

For me, this is a red flag because it gets me close to a railroad, which I dont prefer doing (its ok if you do though!).

I think Events certainly have a place and a good DM tool. But I don't necessarily see Wandering Encounters as a motivator to speed things up---although I guess in the case that they want to feel lucky and avoid some, then ok. I see it as the opposite....they are apart of the resource game. They do SLOW things down, which is the point...

My group is in a dungeon right now and we have 2 torches left and a long way to go....we got slowed down due to wandering encounters and entered a very scary resource game. The resource game can be kind of fun...where torches or lamp oil actually becomes like treasure!

 

[squeen]

The "threat" of random encounters is the stick to speed things up (something I am not entirely sure I 100% love...life is hectic enough). But @Malrex is correct, the actual encounter slows down "progress" (unless you love combat for combat's stake) and forces players to make poor choices against a ticking (real-world) clock. i.e. player discussion in RW costs game time.

I am on the fence about their efficacy in total game enjoyment. One could argue that if the players are taking a long time debating their actions, it's not just an inability to make decisions (theory A) but because they actually enjoy the interactions of working out a problem as a group (theory B). There is social-dopamine in discussion (talking to friends), and they reason they may be eating up a lot of time doing it may be because they are enjoying it. Also, forcing poor choices may long-term hurt the campaign, and ultimately game satisfaction.

As a DM, I try to be patient and just monitor if my players are "stuck" or engaged, nudging them along in the former and just passively observing with the latter. My son is a "planner" and my two girls do not enjoy being put on-the-spot in high-stress situations, so I suppose I've adapted to the group dynamic by letting them "stop the clock" when they feel the need. In a campaign that's lasted years, there's no reason to rush.

Regardless of how much real-time is allowed to pass, Random Encounters should still be checked at the appropriate game-time intervals. It prevents "pixel-bitching" in all its diverse forms and dispels the monster-waiting-in-room-for-you-to-open-the-door game-flaw. It also adds verisimilitude of a dynamic environment.

Set piece encounters are fine (triggered by PC actions like proximity, timetables, etc.). Inevitable railroad (Quantum Ogre) encounters are total BS used by only the weakest of DMs.

$0.02

 

[Beoric]

Hey @Malrex, it's good to hear from you, I assume that means you aren't running for your life. Are you and your family safe? (Am I remembering correctly that you live in California?)

 

[DangerousPuhson]

But I don't necessarily see Wandering Encounters as a motivator to speed things up---although I guess in the case that they want to feel lucky and avoid some, then ok. I see it as the opposite....they are apart of the resource game. They do SLOW things down, which is the point...

I've heard it both ways:
1) wandering monsters punish the party for lingering/fixating
2) wandering monsters drain limited resources (the timer for how long the party can explore)

My issue is that both of these cases are extremely circumstantial.

If the party doesn't know that monsters are still making moves around them and that their arrivals are because of lingering rather than just the DM injecting action into slow points, then there's no impetus for them to keep moving - in their minds, the DM is going to do what the DM is going to do, regardless. Similarly, they could attribute the presence of wandering monsters to just the activity of standard dungeon denizens (ones they would have encountered anyway elsewhere), and not realize that the longer they take the more monsters "spawn in" (which is a concept that, frankly, I have issues about).

For the other point, there are many groups that just aren't threatened by resource depletion - ones that waive resource management, ones that are too high level to worry about light sources or food (because they can use magic), ones that bought 1,000 torches and 1,000 rations in town and never have to worry about light or food again, ones adventuring outdoors, etc. And of course, ones that play anything past 3e, where the light spells and goodberries flow like wine

Events are universal. No matter the party's state, they can all get behind the idea that they only have 6 days to stop the summoning ritual (or whatever). It's easy, it's thematic, it's menacing, and it visibly defines the timeframe in which the party has to work. To me, that makes it the superior form of crafting time constraint, over the nebulous "sense of danger" that wandering monsters provides as motivator.

 

[Beoric]

Let's not forget one of the other reasons for using random encounters, which is to make the environment seem like a living space.

Also, monsters don't need to "spawn-in," they can be part of the dungeon roster. There are TSR era dungeons where monsters/NPCs that were on the random monster table were from specific parts of the dungeon. There is also the odd module where there was a significant chance that monsters or (more often) NPCs might not be in their room when the party gets there.

If you want resource depletion to be part of your game, you kind of have to plan your game around making those resources scarce, and you and the players have to be willing to do a certain amount of bookkeeping (although some of that can be automated now). But also, it is clearly built into the game that, as they level, resource depletion becomes less of an issue. Light is no longer an issue, for instance, once the casters have access to "continual light". (It also isn't an issue in the early game if there is an easily accessible town. Torches are cheap like borscht.)

But random encounters usually aren't about expending food or torches, they are about expending hit points and spells/spell slots. If your random monsters don't carry treasure, they are resource depletion without any reward attached, and are therefore something to be avoided. I know my players consider this, because they will ask how long a particular action is going to take, and if it is long enough to warrant a random encounter check, they may decide against it..

If the party doesn't know that monsters are still making moves around them and that their arrivals are because of lingering rather than just the DM injecting action into slow points, then there's no impetus for them to keep moving - in their minds, the DM is going to do what the DM is going to do, regardless. Similarly, they could attribute the presence of wandering monsters to just the activity of standard dungeon denizens (ones they would have encountered anyway elsewhere), and not realize that the longer they take the more monsters "spawn in" (which is a concept that, frankly, I have issues about).

Well yeah, they need to know the mechanic exists in order for it to be effective.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Well yeah, they need to know the mechanic exists in order for it to be effective.

Problem is, telegraphing the threat of random encounters is a bit... wishy-washy. Are the enemies limitless? Are these creatures coming from somewhere, and can they be stopped? What is triggering the random roll? Is it not metagaming if the DM tells the players they have a 1-in-6 chance every ten minutes for an encounter? As you say, the threat doesn't really exist unless the stakes are communicated, and if not communicated in this verisimilitude-breaking way a random encounter becomes virtually indistinguishable from a planned encounter, which makes the randomization kind of pointless in the grand scheme (other than for pure ludological purposes).

 

[Beoric]

Problem is, telegraphing the threat of random encounters is a bit... wishy-washy. Are the enemies limitless? Are these creatures coming from somewhere, and can they be stopped? What is triggering the random roll? Is it not metagaming if the DM tells the players they have a 1-in-6 chance every ten minutes for an encounter? As you say, the threat doesn't really exist unless the stakes are communicated, and if not communicated in this verisimilitude-breaking way a random encounter becomes virtually indistinguishable from a planned encounter, which makes the randomization kind of pointless in the grand scheme (other than for pure ludological purposes).

These are all things the players can be told. It may be meta-gamey, but so is assuming you are encountering things solely because the DM has decided it is time to encounter things.

In-game, the characters would not be making the assumption that they were encountering something because the DM decided. They would be assuming that they were in a dangerous environment, and they want to spend as little time exposed to that danger as possible, because the more time they spend, the greater the chance that they are going to wind up in a fight that they would rather avoid. If you are concerned with verisimilitude, say that.

If the party doesn't know that monsters are still making moves around them and that their arrivals are because of lingering rather than just the DM injecting action into slow points, then there's no impetus for them to keep moving - in their minds, the DM is going to do what the DM is going to do, regardless.

I want to look at this again. You are always saying that quantum ogres are fine because the players don't know that it's a quantum ogre, so what is the harm? Well, the harm is that your players think that, "in their minds, the DM is going to do what the DM is going to do, regardless." That's why you make things random, and you let your players know that they are random, so that they know that their choices matter, that their choices can have consequences, and that those consequences are going to be determined in an impartial way. If your players are really thinking that "the DM is going to do what the DM is going to do, regardless," that suggests they don't think that these encounters are determined impartially. They may be fine with that, but being fine with it happening is not the same as saying that it doesn't happen.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

These are all things the players can be told. It may be meta-gamey, but so is assuming you are encountering things solely because the DM has decided it is time to encounter things.

In-game, the characters would not be making the assumption that they were encountering something because the DM decided. They would be assuming that they were in a dangerous environment, and they want to spend as little time exposed to that danger as possible, because the more time they spend, the greater the chance that they are going to wind up in a fight that they would rather avoid. If you are concerned with verisimilitude, say that.

The bolded part I want to emphasize, because I think it speaks to the risk of making these kinds of analysis at this level (the omniscient DM level): generally-speaking, we don't know what the players are going to think, because they are not a homogenous group - they are individuals. Some are smart, some are dumb, some are trusting, some are suspicious. Some will think it was a DM plan all along, some will think it's random bad luck. When you hide the process, player opinion becomes as Schrodinger's cat - we don't know what they think until they make their character act. Do they feel the time pressure? Again, we don't know until they act. Some might rush, but odds are equally strong that some won't care at all.

This is why I advocate for event-based time pressures, where there is very little wiggle room for misaligned expectations - if I (the DM) say the thing is going to happen in 3 days, then it's going to happen in 3 days. The players know it, race against it, feel the pressure of it. Conversely, if I say "a monster is maybe going to show up the longer you stay here", the ticking clock is less prominent, less at the forefront of their minds... which means the breadth of reactions that players will have to the threat is unpredictable because their reaction to that information will vary from player to player, which is less the case in a definitive-deadline scenario.

As example, which of these statements is more likely to motivate you at the office?:

1) If the boss happens to come around and sees you not busy at work, he will be angry.
2) If you do not finish the report for the boss by Thursday, he will be angry.

The consequences for both are the same - unwanted boss anger - but only one warning has a real impact.

I want to look at this again. You are always saying that quantum ogres are fine because the players don't know that it's a quantum ogre, so what is the harm? Well, the harm is that your players think that, "in their minds, the DM is going to do what the DM is going to do, regardless." That's why you make things random, and you let your players know that they are random, so that they know that their choices matter, that their choices can have consequences, and that those consequences are going to be determined in an impartial way. If your players are really thinking that "the DM is going to do what the DM is going to do, regardless," that suggests they don't think that these encounters are determined impartially. They may be fine with that, but being fine with it happening is not the same as saying that it doesn't happen.

There's a certain mindset I adopt when considering what's good or bad for my game - that mindset is that of a player, not a DM. The DM has access to the guts of the adventure, but 90% of what they see does not affect play at all. For that reason I believe it better to work off the premise that player view is the one that counts. This is encompassed by my position on quantum ogres - that parts of the game that matter most are the parts where the players interface with the DM's information. A quantum ogre is merely the guts behind the scenes (that the players don't see) which simply establishes the parameters of the encounter (which is the interface of play, the part that actually matters).

There's no functional difference between these two situations:

1) A DM has guidelines for an encounter, then the players encounter it.
2) A DM has guidelines for random encounters, rolls a hidden die, then the players encounter it.

From an "interface" point of view, the only thing that matters is that there is an encounter. Whether that encounter was generated by die roll or by choice is irrelevant - an encounter is happening regardless. If you choose to roll a die before a pre-planned encounter to give a false sense of impartial randomness, the experience still looks exactly the same to the players' POV. No difference in experience, no harm to the fun of play.

Impartiality is a hot-button topic we're going to have to agree to disagree about. For some, the game isn't real unless everything is as impartial as possible; for others, impartiality takes a back seat to fleshed-out design and encounters deliberately curated to be more fun/exciting/interesting/thematic/etc. Since I adopt the player POV when designing adventures, I tend to favor the things I figure my players will enjoy most, and in my group (remember, all groups are different) my players don't derive fun from the impartiality of the game, as they are not especially simulationist in their play.

Also, impartiality doesn't necessarily encourage or discourage the players making choices. We aren't talking about a railroad here - I still hold true the golden law that the DM must bend the world to the choices of the players, which is where the actual impetus for player choice derives. There is just as much opportunity to make meaningful choice in a deadline situation as there is to make one is a persistent threat situation. The difference is that the input is randomized instead of pre-set, which means a heavier reliance on improvisation when the encounter doesn't necessarily align with the situation ("How did an owlbear show up here? There's no way we didn't hear it stomping around this little 8-room dungeon until now!").

Maybe some players get their kicks from being able to juke the random encounter system in their favor, but I've never seen it, I don't promote it, and I certainly don't advocate designing entire adventures around it.

 

[Beoric]

The bolded part I want to emphasize, because I think it speaks to the risk of making these kinds of analysis at this level (the omniscient DM level): generally-speaking, we don't know what the players are going to think, because they are not a homogenous group - they are individuals.

I didn't say that this was what the players would assume. I said that this was what the characters would assume. Recall that I was responding to this statement:

Problem is, telegraphing the threat of random encounters is a bit... wishy-washy. Are the enemies limitless? Are these creatures coming from somewhere, and can they be stopped? What is triggering the random roll? Is it not metagaming if the DM tells the players they have a 1-in-6 chance every ten minutes for an encounter? As you say, the threat doesn't really exist unless the stakes are communicated, and if not communicated in this verisimilitude-breaking way a random encounter becomes virtually indistinguishable from a planned encounter, which makes the randomization kind of pointless in the grand scheme (other than for pure ludological purposes).

Ugh, yet again this site isn't letting me post certain paragraphs. Here is a pic of what I want to say:

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I've made a time-tracking page for one of my campaigns - covers a whole week in 10 minute increments, and it's more prettied-up than a page with just a bunch of blank checkboxes on it. I'll upload it when I get back home.

Ah, this slipped my mind - here we go:

https://imgur.com/keVOp0m

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Ugh, yet again this site isn't letting me post certain paragraphs.

Hoo boy, been there.

I get what you're saying, but it seems to be veering into "how to use random encounters" rather than "here's why random encounters are a superior tool for pushing players forward when compared to deadlines/events" - I already know that random encounters aren't useless, and how to use them. However I'm mostly fixated on looking at alternatives, because I find REs comparatively weak for motivational purposes, even if it could be made stronger with some creative changes/applications.

 

[Beoric]

I don't think I said that random encounters were a better tool, I think I said they were a useful tool, and that my own failings make it hard for me to use deadlines and events. If I didn't say that, I should have.