Forum

The rules (Ref's Guide p 14) tell us that if the PCs make camp & remain in camp for more than one shift, we have to roll on the stationary encounter table once per shift, and for each shift we remain stationary, we have to add a +1 DM on that table ... which means that after 7 shifts in camp, i.e. on the second day, a large force will inevitably show up and demand our surrender. And if we beat them off, then an even larger force will show up ... on the next shift, i.e. the end of the second day.

So, given the time involved in brewing fuel (if we have a still) and in scrounging for repair parts for a broken vehicle, the PCs are more or less hooped when they run out of fuel or when they have a breakdown.

This seems ... broken.

1. how often should stationary encounters really occur? Once per shift, or once per day? Should they at least be limited to daylight hours?
2. how should the location of the camp -- on or near a main road, vs. tucked into a concealed hide well off the road -- influence the chance of an encounter occurring at all?

If the PCs are found?

HIDDEN CAMP: If the PCs make no attempt to hide their camp, approaching NPCs will automatically spot it. If the
PCs do hide their camp, roll RECON as described on page xx of the Players’ Manual. If the NPCs fail to spot the camp, the PCs can choose whether to stay undetected or make their presence known.

But the STATIONARY ENCOUNTERS table (referred to as special encounter table in the text) assumes that PC are always discovered?

SCOUTS: A group of scouts sent from a faction nearby, equal in number to the PCs, arrives to ob- serve them. They can be marauder or military. Allow the PCs a RECON roll to spot the scouts (op- posed roll). If spotted, the scouts might attack, retreat, or negotiate, depending on their goals.

How would the scouts know that they have been spotted?

The table implies - but does not explicily state - that detection of PCs is automagic.

Chapter 2 tells at first GM can roll, choose or create own encounters, GM can generate encounters more or less often. "You are in charge of the pacing of the game, not the rules."

Encounter tables are just quick ideas GM should use to help his imagination. If charatcers keeps hiding and keep watch they will be probably alerted any movement around. If they are moving in open they will be seen. If it is dark or misty, you should roll recon. This is just how random tables have been used since d&d (if goblin tribe is friendly because of a reaction roll, it won't tell why they are... Its GM's job to tell why.)

Stationary enconter table is just too short. I hope it there would be more variety in final book. More neutral encounters (like watchman seeing wild animal moving nearby) and few friendly ones. Encounter deck is great one. I love it.

Obviously the referee can decide to do otherwise. That's not a helpful observation.

The point here is that the basic stationary encounter rule makes it impossible to stop long enough to distill fuel or make repairs, & the question is how to amend that so that the basic rule makes sense.

Perhaps rephrasing the rule to only trigger a random roll when the players decide to stay in a place for longer than is "safe". If the situation is that they found a good place to hide and recover for a while there's no need to roll on the table until the GM has made it clear that they are in risk of discovery. If they just take their time in a high risk area where they know it's risky the table might be a good idea.

True, but it should still be possible to hide a camp well enough to hide it from visual observation (assuming someone with the appropriate know-how is present), thereby avoiding detection by means other than someone literally stumbling into it by accident. And it's a severely depopulated countryside after all; not Piccadilly Circus at rush hour.

The referee needs to have an idea of just what factions and forces are around. Some parts of Poland may be swarming, but other areas will be an abandoned wasteland. The referee should allow the players to make rolls to get an idea of how populated an area is. If for example the referee states that the road is covered with fresh tank tracks and the players decide to camp for the day then they deserve to have encounters.

My point here is that yes, players should not feel that they are perfectly safe, but having game mechanics in place for like distilling fuel that takes a fair bit of time should not be directly countered by random rolls that the players have no control over.

If for instance they do chose to setup camp in an area with plenty of people moving around they have clearly taken a large risk and know the consequences. If they can never setup a somewhat safe camp the whole point of having game mechanics that require spending time in one place is wasted.

My point here is that yes, players should not feel that they are perfectly safe, but having game mechanics in place for like distilling fuel that takes a fair bit of time should not be directly countered by random rolls that the players have no control over.

Exactly.

Yes, there are people all over the landscape. But with that in mind, why would the presence of the player party attract special attention so quickly? A group that moves by night and holes up in a camouflaged hide well off even secondary roads should not be experiencing random encounters escalating into an attack by a large force within 24 hours of arrival.

In my mind, stationary encounters ought to be modified (or entirely different) based on the terrain, not only for type of encounter but also for how often they occur.