File: ambush.png (595 KB, 640x359)

595 KB PNG

Currently I'm working on / struggling a bit with a system to determine a DC for the players to spot a random mob encounter

Right now, what I have is:
>Each 2 hours I roll for a *general* random encounter
>Some entries might generate a mob encounter
>Mob encounters are essentially divided between "wild" and "sentient" (can be talked to)
>For each I have a secondary roll to determine more, regarding behavior and situation ideas

The issue though, is that I'm having a hard time to determine whether the encounter is something my players notice from afar (100ft+), something close-by but with priority on initiative, or just get ambushed. I want to come up with a nice and easy to use system to stream line how far the players notice the mobs (might be influenced by biome/terrain)

Right now my best idea is to set a Perception DC, and have the difference between the player's score and the DC be a factor of the distance (eg: 30ft + 10ft x difference). However it seems a bit clumsy right now

Any thoughts?

How you guys handle this situation? I think part of the challenge is because on a hexcrawl+WM campaign, the players are as likely to be ambushed as they are to ambush whatever they find...

>>97655456
2024 dmg pages 33-38 on travel, check out 5eg OP if you don’t have the book.

It has information for running how to detect enemies, weather, and encounter distance as well as giving you DCs for checks that you can alter for your game

I don’t have info for your random encounter b/c I’m lazy

>>97655456
When running Kingmaker (Pathfinder 1st Ed) y abandoned the indicated Random encounter reccomendations and used the following
Each zone would get a "cadency" encounter (a dice showing how many exploration hours would be between encounters). I'd roll around 10 in advance (wayyyy more than the 3 we would have at the most)
I'd the encounter with the encounter tables for each biome (Plains, forest, riverside, mountins, etc). I'd roll the stealth for the involved creatures (and take note/tweak the encounters to make them more interesting).
then, as they were exploring the corresponding hex, I'd choose one of the encounters and I'd already have the target perception and when to start rolling.
Night encounters (during sleeping) were another thing on their own.
Fun times ^_^

File: Overworld - Marchewilde -(...).jpg (1.92 MB, 2048x1536)

1.92 MB JPG

>>97655431
I've been running a campaign in 5e that's exploration and hex-crawl focused, but in my own world and not really random. It's been a lot of fun and operates like a hex-crawl (including having hexes), but it isn't randomly generated as we play.

I have honestly found 5e pretty cumbersome for it. It's what everyone wanted to play and I mostly don't care that much about system, so whatever. But combat is just such a fucking slog in 5e. There are good things about that: a dungeon only needs to be six rooms or so in order to fill up an entire session. So I can prep vast amounts of content pretty quick. But I feel like I'm having to give out absurd treasure and XP for what they're doing because, otherwise, we're not gonna hit level 7 until 2030 (they're up to level 4, at the moment).

>>97655456
I almost-always give the players a heads-up, usually from pretty far away as they travel. Like miles. Surprise 'em sometimes but, most of the time? Hell they're traveling. Why not give them the heads up and let them decide what to do? It produces good engagement between players, as they bicker about whether to go charging after the goblins they see in the valley below, or try to sneak up on them, or take a different trail entirely. "Monster here, roll initiative" gets stale. Let the players flex their creativity and decide whether or not to even engage in a fight (they almost always will). Gives them a good chance to display some of their non-combat stuff, a little personality, and engage with each other instead of each of them just playing against you.

File: travel.png (4.47 MB, 2000x1000)

4.47 MB PNG

>>97655670
>2024 dmg pages 33-38 on travel, check out 5eg OP if you don’t have the book
Thanks! I'm running 2014 for context, but I will check that resource nonetheless, se if there's anything useful in there. The more I can use from existing sources, the better!

>>97655692
>and take note/tweak the encounters to make them more interesting
Challenge here is that its all random + player choice, I have no idea whether players are going to a jungle or to a hill, or whatever. So I'm looking for resources that can help me come up with interesting interactions on the spot

I feel like overall, making a few pre-planned encounters for each environment (3 would suffice, 5~6 to be safe) would probably be a great idea and work better/more smooth than what I have. However, I'm greatly enjoy the aspect of it being fully random because even I get surprised about the things that come up. In that regard, sometimes I as DM make system decisions that are not better or more efficient... but are simply more fun for me

>Each zone would get a "cadency" encounter
I don't have a cadency encounter, because I roll for each 2h of travel. Note that this roll includes a lot of things other than mobs (such as terrain features and things like that). Nevertheless, each region gets a "familiarity" score which means that the more a region is explored, the less likely it is for things to happen there (allowing players to go further each session)

>Night encounters (during sleeping) were another thing on their own
Right now I'm doing the same rolls, but applying a rate of one roll per 4h of rest (instead of once per 2h of travel). This would be the same as if they were just waiting somewhere. Then the roll itself, I roll my entire table, and ignore everything that is not monsters

File: Untitled.png (641 KB, 720x468)

641 KB PNG

>>97655843
>my own world
Historically I've always run tables in my own world as well. Been doing it for about 20 years, even wrote 2 full-length novels based on it

>isn't randomly generated as we play
But I decided to give random play a try and I'm having a blast! As a DM, its interesting and exciting to not know what players will find, and makes me excited for each session because I too want to find out more. It's a totally different style of play, but I'm very happy that I decided to give it a try

>5e pretty cumbersome
>combat is just such a fucking slog
Yes, 100% agree to both. Choosing DnD was also a player-oriented decision to me, and though I try to optimize combat as much as I can, it does take forever indeed. One thing though that has been helping me in that regard is:
>I always run turn orders in table/seat order (pic related)
>At start of combat, everyone rolls initiative
>However rolls higher than me goes before me
>Sometimes, low initiatives might go first too because they are sitting next to people with high initiative
>I don't care as long as it get things moved

>Surprise 'em sometimes but, most of the time?
Yes, I agree. I like to mix them up, but I find both ways equally engaging. Usually when they see things from afar, I give them the decision to move around it or face it. But overall, the way I run my campaign greatly encourage not fighting useless fights (however, sometimes they might also see sometime of interesting around the mobs)

So what I want is a system that can help me dictate the odds of being a surprise/ambush, vs something seen from afar. I do agree though that the "ambush let's roll initiative" approach should be a minority of the cases

>"Monster here, roll initiative" gets stale
Though I use initiative rolls ALL the time, even when it isn't combat. I typically follow it with "this is not necessarily a combat yet", and often players are reluctant to attack before seeing what the mobs do

File: 2026-03-03 WM Muito!.jpg (169 KB, 646x718)

169 KB JPG

>>97655843
>>97655924
This is btw how the randomly-generated map is looking as of last session (yesterday). All names are chosen by players, and we are in process of creating a permanent encampment on the river north of that boat (players arrived in this undiscovered land on that boat)

Since its all randomly-generated and taken by fog of war, just finding out about a new hex is already quite exciting

>>97655931
Sounds rad and fun. I get the appeal of the random world.

>>97655843
>I feel like I'm having to give out absurd treasure and XP for what they're doing because, otherwise, we're not gonna hit level 7 until 2030
Forgot to reply to this!

Treasure seems to be 100% based on what the DM want, whether it want a campaign rich and abundant in loot and gritty where every gold coin found matters. So far, my campaign has been the latter - I've introduced mechanics/entries on tables for treasure but they are hard to find (so far in 12 sessions, only once they found a treasure worth of note)

XP, on the other hand, is something we need to be more mindful. I feel like a good progression is required. Generally as a DM I usually go for:
>Level 1 -> 2 , I plan to take 1~2 sessions
>Level 2 -> 3, I plan to take 2~3 sessions
>Level 3 - > 4, I plan to take 3~4 sessions
>(...)

On this West Marches campaign, I'm having players start at level 3, and I'm usually giving out 600~800 experience a session, which means they get to level 4 after 3 sessions. I feel like that's a good rate. After that, it's going to take increasingly more, but I will eventually bump the experience rate of things

However, if your campaign is hexcrawl but not WM (thus with a fixed party), then I would either go for a milestone system or calculate XP to simulate one, unless you want to use experience in a way to mold player behavior

>>97655935
It's being rad and fun!

More importantly, I'm for a change not making player fun my 100% priority. While its still a huge focus and I definitely want all players to enjoy each session, I'm also giving myself (as DM) some priority

Bumping for now