[POLL] A POLL AND DISCUSSION ABOUT RANDOM BATTLE ENCOUNTERS: HOW THEY MAY BE IMPLEMENTED.

Poll

To you, which of the following is the best way to add random encounters to a game? Please read each option carefully. - Results

Old-school: Random battles are on. This means managing potions and mana as you explore dungeons.
15
39%
Encounter ring: The player has a ring or item that is worn or otherwise toggled on/off that can shut off random battles. Players warned beforehand that they may be inexperienced for a boss if used too frequently.
11
28%
Boss-kill disable: Random battles in a dungeon or area are disabled upon the player killing the boss. However, the player cannot level up further in that area after doing so.
7
18%
Level-cap disable: Random battles in a dungeon or area are disabled upon reaching a pre-determined level cap for that area. Prevents grinding for xp and gold.
5
13%

Posts

Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Why is it not acceptable now?
I totally agree with Ratty.

RPG areas are separated into two archetypes: Town and Dungeon. The Town is the safe zone, where the player plans, outfits, and reconnoiters for the Dungeon. The Dungeon is the danger zone, where the player will fight constantly in an attempt to reach the end. The player must always assume that he or she will be deceived, inconvenienced, and drained in the Dungeon area, and must prepare accordingly.

Players who complain about random encounters don't want to play an RPG. (However, the story creation in RPGs has gotten so good, that players often weather any annoyances anyway, just to continue "reading" the story. This is where the modern player is frustrated: when the story can't be easily accessed.)

However, there is something to be said for consistency. We can't have 16 random encounters on one trip and then 2 on the next. The player needs to be able to anticipate the general danger level of an area, otherwise the "planning" part of the game becomes futile.
Sailerius
did someone say angels
3214
author=Sooz
Why is it not acceptable now?

Because we no longer are restricted by hardware anymore and players have been spoiled on more fun implementations of encounter management than random encounters.

As was mentioned before, the number one problem with random encounters, and one which is fundamentally unmanageable no matter how "well-implemented" your system might be, is that they interrupt the flow of gameplay and punish exploration. As a designer, you need to get into the head of players and consider what it is that they want to be doing when they're playing your game. On a moment to moment basis, there are lots of different goals they could be pursuing: exploring, searching for combat, trying to advance the plot, admiring the scenery, etc.

If your current objective is anything other than searching for combat, then having a random encounter thrown at you is an unwanted interruption of what you were doing before and forces a context switch in your head as you're forced to shift your way of thinking to engage with combat gameplay, interrupting the flow you were in, and then you need to try to pick up where you left off again when the battle ended. If your current objective is searching for combat, then random encounters still fail you because there's no in-game feedback presented to direct you toward your goal; you have no action you can perform that will get you what you want except randomly running around in circles until the RNG lands in your favor.

In every use case, random encounters are the single most annoying possible mechanism for managing the occurrence of combat.

FFXIII-2 had the best implementation of the concept I've ever seen but it was still a huge jump backwards from where XIII was: in it, when random encounters trigger, they spawn on the map near you and you can avoid them. But it's still more annoying than regular touch encounters because of how frequently they pop up when you want to be doing something other than combat. Or, worse, when you are actively trying to fight encounters and have to dance around in a circle like a chicken with its head cut off waiting for one to trigger. Except, crap, it's not the encounter you were looking for! Try again.

By all means, make the game you want to make, but don't blame players for having moved on decades ago. Indie RPGs are a dime a dozen.
unity
You're magical to me.
12540
Bravely Default was plenty popular, and plenty of people still enjoy Pokemon. I don't think random encounters are so out of favor with everyone.
author=Sailerius
author=Sooz
Why is it not acceptable now?
Because we no longer are restricted by hardware anymore and players have been spoiled on more fun implementations of encounter management than random encounters.


Though I think this can be situational, depending on the game's art style and technical prowess. I sure as heck would think that random encounters in a big-budget AAA title would be hilariously out of place. Heck, even as far back as Dragon Quest VIII it seemed awkward.

I think it's easier to justify using random encounters if your game is trying to emulate older styles.
InfectionFiles
the world ends in whatever my makerscore currently is
4622
Pokemon is a great example of Random Encounters done right. Yes, there is Zubat frequency and some caves can be obnoxious but it melds well with world and gameplay
This is great discussion. I really enjoy checking in on this topic.

What started out as a technological implementation in Wizardry, quickly became technologically surpassed to the point where you can point at any NES and future consoles and say "random encounters are a relic of the past, we have moved on," and yet they're still here; popular among some, unpopular among others. Likewise, in modern AAA RPGs, we also see that turn-based battles have, for the most part, gone away. In its place are, sometimes but not always, action battle systems where you mash a button repeatedly to deal damage. This isn't always the case, but it's becoming a standard because "turn-based battles are a relic of the past." It's not a trend I care for.

I've never had an aversion to random encounters. As mentioned earlier, I believe most people's complaints come from Zubats and FFIV. FFIV, despite its ridiculous encounter rate, is still my favorite game in the series because of the story, characters, classes, and so on. I enjoyed the combat as well. When people complain about random battles, they also seem to leave out the fact that most of them have a flee or escape system, which allows them to avoid the random encounter, a system which is typically scrapped in games where the enemies appear onscreen.

In one topic I found on google, everyone was discussing the issue of random battle encounters in RPGs. The topic was overwhelmingly against random encounters, that they decided it was something to be completely avoided in any way, shape or form. Then the discussion took it a step further: any battle was a distraction from the story, a distraction from exploration, a distraction from the plot. The topic then concluded with everyone suggesting that battles get scrapped all together in favor of a visual novel approach. After all, if the only goal is the plot, then why have battles in the first place? If we claim everything is a relic or that it's antiquated, then where do we conclude? In this illustration, they ended by getting rid of battle systems in RPGs entirely.

To me, I enjoy battling in RPGs. I love the numbers, the stats, the classes, the skills learned as you grow in level. Turn-based encounters where you have to make a gamble: do I use this character to resurrect my spell caster this turn, or do I have them use a shield to keep the other party members from dying? Managing health and mana points, collecting items to use in battle: I love it. It seems to me that, in rare cases, excess avoidance of battles and random encounters in RPGs, tends to come from a horrible battle system. Sometimes when a developer goes out of their way to remove battles and reduce encounter rates, I feel there's this idea that they themselves don't even enjoy their own combat. As if they're saying, "here's a battle. You shouldn't have to fight it though. I'm sorry I have to put this there. I really shouldn't be doing this, please don't hate me too much for this, okay?" It's not always the case, but sometimes that's the way it feels to me.

I wanted to post more yet I've got to head out for supper. Will be back soon. Great discussion!
I don't this I've played an RPG with a more intense and thrilling encounter system than invisible random encounters.

Fun is subjective.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Yeah TBH if you're abandoning nearly all gameplay stuff in favor of story, you probably should just give up on games and start writing books, because you don't really like games.

I keep seeing people say "random battles are outdated!" but really all that seems to mean is "random battles aren't popular at the moment." I don't think any mechanic is really outdated; there's trends and fashions in gam mak just like in every other creative sphere, and something that's a few years old is seen as old and uncool. But I think any game element can be used well, and it's all about what makes the game good.

Action games and visible encounters have their uses, but I think it's foolish to assume that they're the only good or valid approach to RPG combat. There's a lot of fun to be had in turn-based strategy (as uni mentioned, Pokemon ain't goin' nowhere anytime soon!) and there are plenty of settings where random, unseen encounters could be a benefit, rather than a setback. (Anything trying to build tension, for example: they're a bit like a jumpscare in that respect.)
What I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the concept of keeping random encounters for a time, but then having the option to trigger them after a while. I know the board has varying opinions on the Zeboyd games, but I really enjoyed how Cthulhu Saves the World handled random encounters.

In the menu, it tells you how many random encounters you have left for the dungeon/area. Once you hit zero, no more random encounters spawn. But if you want to grind some more, there is also a menu option labeled 'Fight', that just spawns a random encounter whenever you select it.

Not saying it was perfect, but for me it made the random encounters (which were necessary to level up and give a feeling of danger) less irkiness since I knew I was only a few away from being done with them (or if you were really worried about an area/using high cost skills to win, you could camp out near a save point till you exhausted them).
Ratty524
The 524 is for 524 Stone Crabs
12986
author=unity
Bravely Default was plenty popular, and plenty of people still enjoy Pokemon. I don't think random encounters are so out of favor with everyone.
Even more pertinent, I have yet to see any Undertale fan complain about that game's random encounters, and that game's been nominated among the best indie game of 2015?

author=Sailerius
Because we no longer are restricted by hardware anymore...
This isn't even remotely true. Not just in the sense that unless every single living person has a computer with ad-infinitum memory space and internet connections with no resource cost, hardware is always going to create some limitations, but other RPG encounter methods pre-dated random encounter methods (See games like the Japanese version of Hydlide), with many even running with unique encounter methods around the same time. This proves, at least in my point of view, that random encounters were implemented less as a way to circumvent hardware limitations and more of as a fully conscience design choice for a certain kind of game.

author=Sailerius
As was mentioned before, the number one problem with random encounters, and one which is fundamentally unmanageable no matter how "well-implemented" your system might be, is that they interrupt the flow of gameplay and punish exploration.
Because all flow interruptions are bad, and no variety is allowed with games ever?

Believe it or not, ANY encounter system, randomly generated or not, interferes with flow. It's just that there are "good" pace-breakers and there are "bad" ones.

The only real issue with random encounters is that you are taking away player control as to whether to encounter enemies or not, but say you had an encounter system like the Elder Scrolls games. Those are technically random encounters, it's pulling from a set of enemies/npcs and randomly placing one at a set distance within your proximity, yet being able to "avoid" these battles is simply a matter pressing a button input at the right time, or even just ignoring this potential encounter you spot ahead of you to continue on your way. Whaddya' know? You have a random encounter system that DOESN'T break the game's flow in an extreme way and still gives the player some control!

This is why I can't buy any argument against random encounters, dawg. There are just too many factors that surround it that can't convince me that the encounter system alone is a reason for a game being obnoxious. To just dismiss it all is just a full blown cop-out to any problem-solving you do as a designer.

author=Sailerius
If your current objective is anything other than searching for combat, then having a random encounter thrown at you is an unwanted interruption of what you were doing before and forces a context switch in your head as you're forced to shift your way of thinking to engage with combat gameplay, interrupting the flow you were in, and then you need to try to pick up where you left off again when the battle ended. If your current objective is searching for combat, then random encounters still fail you because there's no in-game feedback presented to direct you toward your goal; you have no action you can perform that will get you what you want except randomly running around in circles until the RNG lands in your favor.
Again, breaks in the flow of gameplay is still not an issue that exists solely in random encounters. And again, you are acting as if random encounters can't circumvent the hated mechanics found in traditional JRPGs, yet so many games, especially in this generation, prove otherwise?

In regards to your last argument, I don't know any good RPG that doesn't have hotspots for its encounters. Sure, you do have to wait for RNG to land in your favor, but tell me what's a better alternative? If you have a certain monster that gives out a cool bonus item, for instance, making that monster appear 100% of the time in a single obvious spot is the quickest way for players to abuse your mechanics and ruin any challenge in the experience. Maybe just remove that element? You might as well also remove any bonus in the game for the same reason, and now you have a game stripped to its bare bones that isn't fun or exciting to play. Even Dragon Quest 1's designers knew this, hence the Gold Golems and Metal Slimes exist.

Again, that issue isn't isolated to random encounters either. Action RPGs and those with touch or even-based encounters can have this as well. I'd like to hear some thoughts on how to circumvent this, because the only solution I actually see from it is "don't make an RPG."

author=SgtMettool
Though I think this can be situational, depending on the game's art style and technical prowess. I sure as heck would think that random encounters in a big-budget AAA title would be hilariously out of place. Heck, even as far back as Dragon Quest VIII it seemed awkward.

I think it's easier to justify using random encounters if your game is trying to emulate older styles.
Sooooo... Let's be clear on something. "Random Encounter" is something completely different from "Menu-Based Combat." Skyrim is an example of a modern AAA title that uses some elements of RNG to determine what you encounter on its overworld. Random encounters aren't exactly "gone," they're just being executed in new methods.
PSA: Menu-based combat and Turn-based combat are two different things. Kingdom Hearts is the former but not the latter, while Hearthstone is the latter but not the former.

Still, discussing turn-based gameplay is better for another topic.

First of all, there's nothing wrong with taking away player control - enemy behavior, hazard placement, hit stun, NPC actions, fundamental forces such as gravity etc. are all things the player has no control over. The problem with randomized things is that in the above examples, the player is able to read these uncontrolled properties and can play around them.

I really do agree that the fundamental problem is not the encounter method, but rather combat itself. Many old school RPGs give you far too few options and don't give the enemies anything interesting either, meaning that combat is almost entirely determined by stats alone.
The type of random encounters I've learned to like are when you can predict one coming. Some RPGs I've played use an encounter gauge which shows two things.
- Risk
The more you walk around, the closer the gauge indicates you're about to trip a random encounter. This resets after you exit the area or a battle.
- Battles remaining
Each battle won will partially deplete the gauge, as the area has a set amount of battles.
Once depleted there are no more encounters until you revisit the area.

Most RPGs carry an element of survival as you have to traverse areas and fight your way through with available resources. That part is removed if you can just switch it on/off.
It's still nice though to have the option of getting items or such which temporarily raise/lower or remove encounters.
It should be noted that the random encounter is not a technical limitation at all, seeing as to how it originated in an environment completely devoid of technical limitations: the tabletop RPG.
author=Zachary_Braun
It should be noted that the random encounter is not a technical limitation at all, seeing as to how it originated in an environment completely devoid of technical limitations: the tabletop RPG.

Though let's be honest tabletop random encounters are also incredibly outdated.
author=Shinan
author=Zachary_Braun
It should be noted that the random encounter is not a technical limitation at all, seeing as to how it originated in an environment completely devoid of technical limitations: the tabletop RPG.
Though let's be honest tabletop random encounters are also incredibly outdated.


I'd agree that handcrafted encounters are not only more fun to players for the most part, it's also much more fun to design as a DM than filling up encounter tables (and also much easier). Randomness used sparingly can greatly spice up otherwise mediocre encounters, though (what if that orc's battleaxe turns out to be a +2 Two-hand axe of Inferno? How about the forest where you fight off a wolfpack has a bunch of traps set by hunters or fey?).
There may be no one in your immediate social circle who plays them, but that does not make them outdated—it makes them irrelevant. Just like random encounters, to most young people. But this fleeting recognition can't capture their employment as a game mechanic... because it's irrelevant to them. People don't think about things that are irrelevant to them.

But it exists, and it is, in fact, gainfully employed.
Well they are outdated in the sense that they were an integral part in the early days of tabletop rpgs when tabletop rpgs were closer to wargames with single characters and completely focused on dungeon crawling and such things. The trend since the 90s have been on more "tailored" gameplay experiences and generally it is seen that random encounters from a table is not ideal in those circumstances.

I'm not saying random encounters aren't used in tabletop today. But they are nearly always accompanied by sentences like "let's do something really old school this time".
Random with a way to disable/evade them...... like an item you buy from the shop. On touch evented ones sucks because you need a bigger map to accommodate them and then you're exploring that big map.... and have to run away from that shit then don't know where you are anymore.....