Friday, February 3, 2017

Hijinks in the Hills

Hello lovely people! The terrain encounters continue - this time I look at hills.As always, it's PWYW from RPG Now.

I have a question - is 36 encounters too much when I have 12 benign ones? My long term plan is adding all of my encounters and generators to the main rulebook. Would people prefer 18 more focussed encounters per terrain? Maybe have an optional d6 table for benign encounters for all terrains to keep things interesting. I'd like to hear your thoughts. When I make a new mechanic or rule, I'm always keen to make them as simple as possible and maybe 36 encounters is too much.

In other news, Bards don't have the religion ability any more. I found myself using it to contact gods, do ceremonies and ward evil spirits. None of which I thought was very bardy.

For more SCRAWL products, visit mt RPG Now page.


  1. Looking forward to reading this! I have a request: could these be published as .epub/.mobi as well? I really like to read through your work (and RPGs in general; but a big-format PDF doesn't make it easy. I could print things out, but that seems wasteful and I the last few times I did that, I always left the papers somewhere and never read more than a few pages.

    1. Hi Filip! Thanks for your comment! That is a great idea. Over the next week or som, I will convert them to epub/mobi and put them on Lulu.

  2. I haven't downloaded a copy as of yet, but 36 encounters (I'm guessing D66?); seems perfectly reasonable for a random table. It's often a case of the more the merrier too; as there's nothing like rolling the same encounter twice to break the "reality" of your gaming session.

    That said, I certainly agree with the idea of focus; so that every encounter feels like it somehow belongs to both the situation, and any other random event you may encounter. Benign encounters can really help weave that experience too, as I would like to think that not everything was out to kill me! ;0).

    Some terrain is definitely more dangerous than others though, so maybe a weighting based upon the inherent properties of the terrain? For example, I expect swamp land to be far more dangerous (risk of disease, bug bites, large reptiles, losing gear to heavy mud, exhaustion etc) than a relatively leisurely walk on the plains.

    That's just my two cents though. :0).