Locations versus Encounters

Taking a slight detour from my process of developing a hex-crawl, a tangential consideration is how to treat locations or encounters in a hex-crawl, or whatever those things are that we key on the map and describe elsewhere. For instance, should I key on the map a farmer on the road whose wheel fell off the wagon and is in need of help? What if he is also surrounded by hungry wolves? My gut instinct is no. Keyed locations on the map are just that: static, unmoving locations. That’s why we key them in. I believe that once we number, label, and note them, they don’t go anywhere—just like locations.

If something can move around, we already have a procedure for that: wandering encounters. I didn’t say random encounters but rather wandering encounters. Random implies unpredictability—seemingly without a method or procedure. I’m reminded of an old meme with a Siberian tiger in a pool.

Our tables for wandering encounters should reflect the place. Whatever the players encounter as they travel should reflect the organic conditions and evolving situations of the area.

So, what about locations? Can those go in the wandering table? I suspect you know my answer: no, they can’t. It’s certainly been done before, but at that point, those aren’t wandering encounters anymore. There, we have lapsed into procedurally generated world-building during the game. This approach is, of course, fine if that’s what you want at the table, but I think the distinction is important for figuring out the campaign we want to run. Are the players and the GM building this world together, or is the goal for the players to feel immersed in a world with its own internal and consistent logic? 

My current mindset for the game I’d like to run is for the latter.