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.

Running a Hexcrawl - part 2a: Encounter Density (Sparse)

When working on my hex-crawl, the first thing I considered, even before designing the map, was how many encounters I should have per area. I looked at multiple sources and examined their suggestions. Of course, there is no singular method, and my findings were that encounter density—like most things—runs across a spectrum. At the sparse end of the spectrum, we have the classic methods from B/X and AD&D.

Basic D&D Expert Rules for Wilderness

The Expert book doesn’t offer much guidance on encounter density other than the map of The Grand Duchy of Karameikos. Examining that map, there aren’t many encounters. The bulk of the map consists of large areas populated by humanoids and monsters, but few hexes are indicated as specific encounters. Towards the center of the map are the human lands with the capital of Specularum and other settlements—mostly castles. These are still encounter sites because, after all, what are settlements if not human lairs? Fortdoom, for example, is even described as having dungeons underneath it. There are two other obvious encounter sites that are ruins: The Haunted Keep and Wereskalot. But that’s pretty much it. While it does have a section titled “Fill In Important Details and Points of Interest,” it doesn’t offer any guidance on how many. This is left entirely to the DM.

On a side note, the only area on the example map drawn out in further detail is a gnome lair. The vision of a party of adventurers dungeon crawling through a gnome lair as murder-hobos makes me laugh. More importantly, however, the material does not prescribe either of these things—whether it is dungeon crawling under Fortdoom or a gnome lair. All possibilities are up to the players—one just happens to be hilarious.

The rules section on Wilderness Encounters focuses more on wandering encounters rather than fixed sites. It’s worth mentioning that the map has about seven hexes per inch, indicating a huge space with very few encounters. This approach seems to seed just a few areas, allowing the party to wander if they are interested. If they do, the DM can roll on the procedurally determined wandering encounters. If something hooks the players, the DM can start preparing in that direction. This is only speculation, but the guidance in the book supports it. Section C under Designing a Wilderness states: “If the town and dungeon are placed near the center of a small-scale map, the players will be able to explore in all directions.” It advises just one dungeon and a nearby town, but also the freedom for the players to explore.

AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide

The 1st edition of the AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide offers more guidance. In Appendix B, after giving the table for randomly generating the terrain, it has another table for Inhabitation. It is a 1-100 table with different types of settlements plus ruins spread throughout the first 16 result numbers. Any result 17 or over is an uninhabited hex. Such a table yields results similar to the Karameikos map in that the points of interest are either settlements or ruins.

I suspect that the AD&D DM, like the B/X DM, is expected to either arbitrarily throw in a dungeon, lair, or odd discovery, or to use the wandering encounters rolled up during a session to inform what to make. Rolled up a couple of ogres last session? Maybe it’s time to place an ogre village with 2d10 ogres in it. How far away was the party from human civilization when the ogres were encountered, and where is that ogre village? What impact does that have on the going-ons of the nearby human settlements? The DM now has something to weave into the setting, and the world grows.

It is also important to note that this system suggests a 16% probability for one encounter. Sixteen percent equals approximately a one in six chance. So we now have a clue to encounter density: one per six hexes, or 1 on a d6. Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, Shadowdark, in the Overland Hex Maps chapter: “For each hex, roll a d6. On a 1, the hex has one point of interest.” Shadowdark’s POIs are more fantastical than AD&D’s settlement-heavy take. I’m not sure when D&D adopted the Points of Light approach; it may have been third or fourth edition, but it was definitely post-1st edition where most encounters were settlements.

So now I have a starting place for encounter density: if I am to adapt the classic approach with sparse encounter sites, I will place them about six hexes apart or 1 in 6. To make it easier, I can roll a handful of d6 and place them at the 1s.

However, that’s not the only system I came across. I’ll be discussing those in an upcoming post.

Running a Hexcrawl - part 1: Intro

What This Isn't

• This isn’t a tutorial. (I don’t know what I’m doing.)
• This isn’t a review. (I’m not here to critique systems or settings.)

What This Is

This is me figuring out a hexcrawl by running one. Hopefully, I can work through what makes a successful hexcrawl for my playgroup. Maybe that means you can determine what to take, leave behind, or simply comment on.

Why the Hexcrawl?

The promise of it, of a living world that exists outside of the players, and to a large degree, even outside of me, has been a draw for years now. And finally, I’m running one! I’m currently four sessions in, and here is one of my first observations: I’m not sure who the hexcrawl is for. The craft of it all, and the experience, seems like it may be a GM-centered experience. It certainly is enhancing my time with it, but I doubt the players are getting the same out of it, and if so, I don’t think it is for similar reasons.

An example of what I mean is how I’ve developed a system of procedures that takes the setting into account and builds an encounter that fits within the setting. The players have engaged with these encounters and have told me how the world feels large as they peel back elements they uncover. But I get the sense it still feels like any other situation I’ve prepped beforehand, rather than the procedurally and organic method that continually surprises me, and I’m the one who made the table that generates them!

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Before going into the details and deeper observations, which will be coming in a future post, you should know the setting, system, sources, and some of the choices I’ve made/am making along the way.

The Setting

The setting I am using is Into the Cess & Citadel, a system-agnostic book from Feral Indie Press. One of my favorite manga is Blame! If you know these two books, it’s no surprise that Cess & Citadel appeals to me. For the system, I selected Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC). Before this campaign, I had never run DCC, so this is a good opportunity to finally try out the game. It is also one of the recommended systems in the Cess & Citadel book, and I can see why: they both have an absurdist approach that complements each other.

Sources and Tools

I’m using a slew of other sources, but I’ll mention them as the need arises. For designing the hex maps, I’m using Hex Kit. The game is online, and the VTT is Foundry. It is important to note that I am running this game for two simultaneous groups in a Braunstein-style, or in today’s parlance, a West Marches game. The key element I’m taking is one-for-one timekeeping: every day of real time is one day in game time. I’m tracking time for each group, and although they don’t know each other, they have already come across the effects they’ve had on the campaign.

That’s it for now. As I continue running this hexcrawl, I’ll continue to share how the game evolves. I’ll dive into more specific observations and challenges. Stay tuned as we explore the depths of this campaign together and uncover what makes a hexcrawl truly engaging for everyone involved.