And why is random better? Because its a game, and more specifically to me, its an improvisational storytelling game, and way more fun to roll the dice, and hope for good rolls, and deal with bad rolls, and improvise the story as the successes and failures rack up.
Yes, when dealing with
short-term effects with
short-term consequences.
A lucky attack roll only has an immediate, short-term benefit. Its consequences, in the greater scheme of things, are negligible since they will be balanced out by just as many unlucky attack rolls.
Similarly, an unlucky attack roll only has an immediate, short-term penalty. Its consequences, in the greater scheme of things, are negligible since they will be balanced out by just as many lucky attack rolls.
There is, however, an
ENORMOUS difference between this:
rolling attributes.
And rolling hp.
and this:
And rolling to hit.
And rolling damage.
And rolling skill checks, (take 10--bah!).
The latter group is of the kind described above. Such rolls concern
short-term effects with
short-term consequences.
The
former, however, are completely and totally different. When you roll ability scores or hit points you are basing
loooooong-term effects and
loooooong-term consequences on single highly random and highly variable rolls whose conseqences will carry on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on throughout the rest of the campaign.
If you roll a 16 for your Strength instead of a 14. That gives you a
PERMANENT +1 bonus to all strength-based attacks, damage rolls, and skill checks for your character's
ENTIRE career due to nothing but a single, momentary turn of chance.
Likewise, roll a 12 instead of a 14 and you suffer a
PERMANENT -1 penalty to all of these rolls for the
ENTIRE life of your character.
This is nothing, I repeat
NOTHING like making a single attack roll. To compare the two kinds of rolls is fallacious in the extreme. They are completely different, have completely different consequences in the game, and must, therefore, be treated very differently.