The Importance of Randomness

[Tortoise]

I'm not really asking you anything. I'm telling you that I believe something to be the case.



I've presented well-reasoned arguments for why the preference for random tables defining gameplay (rather than simply supporting it when appropriate or convenient) is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the DM. I'm also not the only one who holds that position.

Welcome to the internet. People disagree with you. You can either respond with an argument that is similarly well-reasoned, or you can do whatever it is you're trying to do right now. I'm not really sure what that is, but it certainly looks like an attempt to discredit by personal attack.



No, actually, it doesn't surprise me at all that certain people choose to respond to a well-reasoned position by being personally insulted.



When I set out to insult or condescend to someone, it will be abundantly clear to everyone, rather than simply being the inflamed suspicion of those who disagree with the position I hold.

I was hoping this whole thing was resolved and there wouldn't be any more my way is better and yours is teh suk type comments in the thread. Please confirm that I'm imagining it.

 

[Lidgar]

What is your opinion on providing these tables as digital tools rather than including them in core rulebooks?

I know you are not specifically asking me )), but I would prefer both. I design adventures mostly on the computer, so on-line tables is good. But I also like the portability of books. I am not a big ipad/laptop guy...

The tables I really like are not so much those that try to inspire plot ideas - have too many of those as it is. It is those that are focused on descriptive vocabulary that is specific to the fantasy genre - whether it is common equipment, room names, colors, smells, etc. Those are great fillers for the nooks and crannies.

 

[Dannager]

I was hoping this whole thing was resolved and there wouldn't be any more my way is better and yours is teh suk type comments in the thread.

I'm sorry that you feel that's what the arguments that I and others in this thread are making boils down to.

 

[Piratecat]

Guys, it's okay if you don't agree with Dannager, and it's okay if he doesn't agree with you. This thread is actually a pretty good example of how to discuss an unpopular position without being a jerk about it. If you can defend your point while (a) stating that it's your opinion, not a gospel truth; (b) not insulting someone or telling them what they should think; (c) actually supporting why you feel that way, then I'm all for it.

As such, please stay civil. And as always, if you just find someone annoying we always have an ignore feature.

 

[El Mahdi]

I'd go further than this - the DM's responsibility is simply to facilitate an enjoyable play experience for the players. Whether he makes that inherently enjoyable to himself isn't something I would consider a responsibility...

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I can't imagine anybody doing a hobby unless they enjoy it, or doing it in a manner in which they can enjoy it. I have to acknowledge that it's certainly possible for someone to DM even though they don't enjoy it, or do it in a manner they don't enjoy, and can be that selfelss about it. I can't. I would expect that would be an incredibly extreme case, to the point that I doubt such a person as a DM actually exists or has existed. But again, anything is possible.

, and I strongly feel that the more emphasis you place on your role as entertainer (and thus become the sort of person who derives satisfaction from the enjoyment of others), the better a DM you are.

But on the whole, you're absolutely correct. The DM's responsibility is to help make the game fun. That is an umbrella, though. There are a tremendous number of things that the DM must do in order to make that happen.

If one is an Entertaining sort of person, and your group desires and appreciates this type of DM, then Yes. But that's hardly Universal. Many groups don't give a whit about a DM as entertainer, and simply want a pure adjudicater. In that case, any entertainment skills a DM has would be wasted on an audience looking for something else. And a group that likes randomness, absolutely love random tables. A DM who uses them with that group is entertaining their group and giving them exactly what they want. There are lots of styles of DM's and groups. Some want a competitive DM, that plays NPC's and Monsters as if they are competing against eachother ant the goal is to win. Others want a DM that simply adjudicates Monster and NPC actions, and follows the rules as written with no deviation or variation. Others want to be entertained through the DM's descriptions of the environment, through acting of NPC's, or as a pure story teller. The variations are infinite, and each is as valid, appropriate, and skillful as any other.


But, you're absolutely right though that the responsibility of a DM is an Umbrella, an Umbrella under which many different styles and tools exist. Being able to come up with things on their own is one possible tool, but one that is not necessarily a requirement or responsibility of the DM...and therefore not an abdication of responsibility if they don't use that specific tool.

But this isn't about improvisation. We've already acknowledged that random tables have a purpose in that they are a useful tool for DMs who find themselves in the position of having to come up with material unexpectedly. The contention is, rather, about those DMs who choose to make random encounter tables the core of their encounter generation when they don't have to. The position that I - and others in this thread - hold is that, on balance, the purposeful creation of encounters by a DM familiar with the game he is running will provide a more enjoyable play experience than the reliance on a random encounter table.

Incorrect. This is defining what the proper use for a tool is to someone else, and that's something nobody here is qualified to do. There is no one on this site or in this hobby that has the ability, qualification, or imperative to tell people what is acceptable or not acceptable, proper or improper, good or bad, or even better or worse, as pertains to a subjective hobby. All anyone here can say is what's better for them, at their table, and with their group. What's more enjoyable for you or for others here, is not universally more fun for somebody else or some other group.

However, continuing to tell others that their way of doing something, or applying a tool, or playing, DM'ing...whatever...is insulting and condescending. It's marginalizing how somebody else plays and the experience they have as one that's less than yours. And that just is not right, in any context, at any time, when applied to RPG's.

What is your opinion on providing these tables as digital tools rather than including them in core rulebooks?

My opinion is that I would like to see some basic random tables in the Core DMG for D&D Next, and many many more random tables with varying levels of applicability on DDI.

I understand that DDI is the future of D&D as pertains to continuing revenue for WotC. But that does not mean that DDI is the future of D&D for each and every gamer or DM. The game still needs to be playable as a stand alone, books only, table-top game. Which is why I think the DMG should include some basic random tables. Ones that cover some basic environmental factors, campaign/world building tools, and even some basic adjudication/action description tables. I think they would be an excellent inclusion and nod to experienced DM's and groups who like these, and an especially invaluable tool to new DM's/Groups.

 

[Dannager]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I can't imagine anybody doing a hobby unless they enjoy it, or doing it in a manner in which they can enjoy it. I have to acknowledge that it's certainly possible for someone to DM even though they don't enjoy it, or do it in a manner they don't enjoy, and can be that selfelss about it. I can't. I would expect that would be an incredibly extreme case, to the point that I doubt such a person as a DM actually exists or has existed. But again, anything is possible.

I'm not advocating that someone take the role as DMing when they don't like DMing. What I'm saying is that, as a DM, I've always found it more helpful to focus on what my players find enjoyable, because I find that when they have a good time, I have a good time. Many DMs have a list of things they want out of their game, but unlike the players, I think a certain (significant) portion of the DM's personal hedonistic calculus ought to include the satisfaction he derives from creating a play experience that the players will enjoy. Players can certainly think from this perspective as well, but I think it's particularly important that the DM consider it.

If one is an Entertaining sort of person, and your group desires and appreciates this type of DM, then Yes. But that's hardly Universal. Many groups don't give a whit about a DM as entertainer, and simply want a pure adjudicater.

I was referring to entertaining in the very broadest sense - taking on a role whose purpose is to bring about enjoyment in others. "Entertainer", here, can just as easily mean a competent rules adjudicator as it can a world class method actor behind the screen.

In that case, any entertainment skills a DM has would be wasted on an audience looking for something else. And a group that likes randomness, absolutely love random tables.

We had a conversation about this going on earlier in the thread. I advocated using the DM's ability to lie to the players as a way around this. Operating from the assumption (and it's one that you can certainly challenge, though I don't think anyone has tried yet) that, on the whole and all else held equal, handcrafted encounters will tend to be more enjoyable than randomly generated encounters, we can reasonably state that it could be useful to design encounters ahead of time and merely pretend to generate them randomly.

If you are able to maintain the appearance of randomness for your group - I won't get into a philosophical discussion, here, but I would argue that what the group you're referring to is looking for is not actual randomness, but rather the feeling of experiencing a set of circumstances that no one anticipated - then you will have the best of both worlds: the quality of handmade encounters with the appearance of randomness.

A DM who uses them with that group is entertaining their group and giving them exactly what they want. There are lots of styles of DM's and groups. Some want a competitive DM, that plays NPC's and Monsters as if they are competing against eachother ant the goal is to win.

Ahh, now this is something else. Mind you, the scenario you discuss here is pretty far-removed from your typical D&D game. But yes, if you buck the non-competitive paradigm that lies at the root of the game, random encounter tables suddenly become akin to a third-party "arbitrator", capable of facilitating a competitive sort of game if the random tables are designed properly. In this scenario, the DM is not really the DM, but is rather another player who happens to be in control of a number of characters at once. That said, I don't think the sort of random tables you or I are discussing do an adequate job of filling that role.

Others want a DM that simply adjudicates Monster and NPC actions, and follows the rules as written with no deviation or variation. Others want to be entertained through the DM's descriptions of the environment, through acting of NPC's, or as a pure story teller. The variations are infinite, and each is as valid, appropriate, and skillful as any other.

There are plenty of ways to run D&D, yes. I can think of none (save the remove-the-DM scenario you outlined above) where it would not improve the play experience to replace random encounters with well-crafted encounters, especially if the players are none the wiser.

But, you're absolutely right though that the responsibility of a DM is an Umbrella, an Umbrella under which many different styles and tools exist. Being able to come up with things on their own is one possible tool, but one that is not necessarily a requirement or responsibility of the DM...and therefore not an abdication of responsibility if they don't use that specific tool.

Being able to come up with one's own scenario is not a requirement of a DM, you are absolutely right. I firmly believe that using published adventures is a totally valid way to play D&D, for instance. What I also believe is that a DM's responsibility includes creating as solid a play experience as realistically possible. I believe that, as outlined above, random encounters do not accomplish this as well as well-crafted encounters do. If a DM does not have the time to prepare encounters in advance, or if the DM is caught unprepared for a situation by an unexpected choice on the part of the PCs, then using random encounters as a convenient tool to keep the game running smoothly is absolutely called for.

Incorrect. This is defining what the proper use for a tool is to someone else, and that's something nobody here is qualified to do. There is no one on this site or in this hobby that has the ability, qualification, or imperative to tell people what is acceptable or not acceptable, proper or improper, good or bad, or even better or worse, as pertains to a subjective hobby. All anyone here can say is what's better for them, at their table, and with their group. What's more enjoyable for you or for others here, is not universally more fun for somebody else or some other group.

However, continuing to tell others that their way of doing something, or applying a tool, or playing, DM'ing...whatever...is insulting and condescending. It's marginalizing how somebody else plays and the experience they have as one that's less than yours. And that just is not right, in any context, at any time, when applied to RPG's.

Would you prefer that I say something like, "I believe that replacing random encounters with well-crafted encounters will probably result in a better play experience for your typical group?" I mean, it won't actually mean that I believe anything different, I'd just be saying that. Or is it just no longer okay for people to give advice on D&D? Is this another example of, "No one knows me better than me, even when I don't," thinking?

My opinion is that I would like to see some basic random tables in the Core DMG for D&D Next, and many many more random tables with varying levels of applicability on DDI.

I understand that DDI is the future of D&D as pertains to continuing revenue for WotC. But that does not mean that DDI is the future of D&D for each and every gamer or DM. The game still needs to be playable as a stand alone, books only, table-top game.

I think eventually this will no longer be the case. I mean, sure, some people will throw a fit if D&D is no longer available in dead tree form, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good decision for the hobby. It's just a matter of when.

 

[Hassassin]

What is your opinion on providing these tables as digital tools rather than including them in core rulebooks?

Mine is that they should be included in the DMG (since that's what I always have at the table), but additional digital tools are a good idea (since they are quicker to use when preparing adventures).

Some types of random tables take a lot of space in books and might be better as digital only.

OTOH, advice on creating and using random tables absolutely belongs to the DMG.

 

[Dannager]

Some types of random tables take a lot of space in books and might be better as digital only.

This is my thought as well. Random tables take up a comparative ton of space in written form for something that is essentially a bunch of giant formulae. As long as you know the table suits your situation, you don't need the table. You just need the results it spits out for you.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Would you prefer that I say something like, "I believe that replacing random encounters with well-crafted encounters will probably result in a better play experience for your typical group?" I mean, it won't actually mean that I believe anything different, I'd just be saying that.

Personally, I would prefer that you say something like "I prefer crafting encounters when I play for reasons X, Y, Z."

Leave your judgement of others' play experience out of it. No one asked for it. It's actively harmful to a constructive conversation. It sounds arrogant, ignorant, and paternalistic. You don't know me, you don't know my game, you've never played at my table, and you can't assume that you know better than me what I am going to have more fun doing. The moment you try to expand your hypothesis to anyone more than yourself, you're entering a world that you know nothing about. You believe you know what the ideal play experience is for a typical group? I believe you're wrong in that belief in at least three different ways.

Or is it just no longer okay for people to give advice on D&D? Is this another example of, "No one knows me better than me, even when I don't," thinking?

No, it's another example of how you don't me. Perhaps some other people do know me better than I know myself (my girlfriend sometimes, I suspect...and in certain contexts, advertisers, behavioral economists, psychologists, and creative artists), but you don't know me. And what's more, I didn't ask for your input on how you think I could make my game better (generally the opinion of advertisers, economists, and all that, is solicited in some way).

Let's put it this way: I wouldn't tell a fat woman who talking on an ice cream forum about how much she loves this peanut butter cup ice cream and thinks everyone should try it about diabetes, heart failure, factory dairy farms, George Washington Carver, Black History Month, the caocao plant, conquistadors, Hershey, and morally dubious imports from South America.

I might say, if it was relevant to the discussion, "I think I'll stick with the caramel gelato at my local fair trade store. Less calories, less guilt, and it tastes so good!"

I wouldn't say "Fair trade caramel gelato is better because it doesn't make you fat, and it makes the world a better place. It should be the only option, except maybe if you want to go online to a specialist store."

edit: And I want to be clear that this is me trying to be constructive, D, not confrontational. Looks like a few posters have been turned off more by your style of posting than by your salient points, and you seem like a pretty thoughtful poster from what I can tell, so I'd like it if people could address your actual points instead of spending a lot of time, energy, and verbiage being annoyed at how you present them.

 

[El Mahdi]

Would you prefer that I say something like, "I believe that replacing random encounters with well-crafted encounters will probably result in a better play experience for your typical group?"

No. Because what you said isn't correct. You don't know what would be enjoyable in somebody else's group. And I'd challenge you to objectively define "typical group". There are just too many variables present for an objective definition. There are as many styles and preferences as there are gamers, and each game table is a conglomeration of those varied styles and preferences. Typical is a way in which we judge what we like or don't like, and is objective only within our own purview. Outside of our own self and values, what we think is typical is likely not, or at the least is no longer an objective valuation - it's subjective because it's personal.

What I would prefer is: "I've found that in my games, replacing random encounters results in a better play experience for my group." or "I've found in games that I've played in, replacing random encounters with well-crafted encounters resulted in a better play experience." Both of which are 100% accurate, 100% irrefutable, 100% constructive, and 100% a positive contribution to the conversation.

It's when one starts speaking authoritatively about what they know happens in other groups (which one isn't able to), or starts speaking authoritatively about what the "right way to play" is, that one tends to find themself with less than positive responses. (And by positive, I'm not talking about necessarily agreeing with you, but responding civilly and fairly to you - One tends to get back what one gives out. I know, that's all Zen and touchy feely crap, but it's still true.)