The Importance of Randomness

[Hassassin]

Randomness is especially important for the exploration "pillar".

I wholeheartedly recommend the excellent Kingmaker AP from Paizo as a study in how random encounters make the world alive. They are not just background noise, but foreshadow important foes or allies in the narrative. They are also an occasional tool for the DM to introduce plot hooks and some "quests" can be solved through a random encounter.

[sblock=Spoiler: 1st Part of Kingmaker]In the first part of the AP there are quests for defeating six bandits and finding a tatzlwyrm's head. Both can be solved by running into a random encounter.

Random encounters with both mites (evil fey) and kobolds are common, and both parties are important about halfway through the adventure.[/sblock]
[sblock=Spoiler: 2nd Part of Kingmaker]In the second part, quests call for troll blood, sap of a shambling mound. Again, they can be solved by running into a random encounter. Trolls are one of the main problems in this adventure and could be encountered already in the first part of the AP.

Once the bandit lord is defeated in the first part, bandit activity in the area is reduced and the encounter tables no longer include bandits. They also don't include mites, since the assumption is that those were also defeated in the first part.[/sblock]

 

[Hassassin]

I've also been toying around with a character generation system which uses a standard array plus random rolls: assign (16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) however you like, then roll 3d6 in order for each ability score. If the rolled score is higher than the assigned score, use that instead. This allows for quirky characters like fighters with an Intelligence 18 and Strength 16, while ensuring that all characters meet basic playability standards. If you want even more randomness, you could allow players to assign just one or two of the numbers (say, 16 and 14) before rolling 3d6 in order.

Ability score generation seems to come up in a lot of threads. FYI, you get close to 4d6dl averages if you start with the array 16/14/12/10/8/6 and roll 3d6 in order to increase.

 

[harlokin]

Randomness is especially important for the exploration "pillar".

I wholeheartedly recommend the excellent Kingmaker AP from Paizo as a study in how random encounters make the world alive. They are not just background noise, but foreshadow important foes or allies in the narrative. They are also an occasional tool for the DM to introduce plot hooks and some "quests" can be solved through a random encounter.

[sblock=Spoiler: 1st Part of Kingmaker]In the first part of the AP there are quests for defeating six bandits and finding a tatzlwyrm's head. Both can be solved by running into a random encounter.

Random encounters with both mites (evil fey) and kobolds are common, and both parties are important about halfway through the adventure.[/sblock]
[sblock=Spoiler: 2nd Part of Kingmaker]In the second part, quests call for troll blood, sap of a shambling mound. Again, they can be solved by running into a random encounter. Trolls are one of the main problems in this adventure and could be encountered already in the first part of the AP.[/sblock]

With respect, I don't see how randomness is important to the above examples at all.

The end-result can be achieved better by the GM placing the required encounter where it is deemed appropriate to the game session.

 

[Hassassin]

With respect, I don't see how randomness is important to the above examples at all.

The end-result can be achieved better by the GM placing the required encounter where it is deemed appropriate to the game session.

There are pre-placed encounters for most of the examples. Random encounters make them more common, ensure a chance for even those parties who don't venture to those specific locations, and make the world seem more dynamic. They also result in each campaign going differently, since some things may happen in any order.

[sblock=Spoiler: 1st Part of Kingmaker]I had a random encounter with mites early in the adventure. It was at night so the mites attempted to steal some of the party's stuff. They didn't succeed (sentry was alert), but if they had the party would have had an additional incentive to pay a visit to their lair.[/sblock]

 

[harlokin]

There are pre-placed encounters for most of the examples. Random encounters make them more common, ensure a chance for even those parties who don't venture to those specific locations, and make the world seem more dynamic. They also result in each campaign going differently, since some things may happen in any order.

[sblock=Spoiler: 1st Part of Kingmaker]I had a random encounter with mites early in the adventure. It was at night so the mites attempted to steal some of the party's stuff. They didn't succeed (sentry was alert), but if they had the party would have had an additional incentive to pay a visit to their lair.[/sblock]

IMO it doesn't make the world seem more dynamic, the GM shouldn't be letting the Players know if an encounter has a rationale behind it or not.

At best, random encounters are a device to amuse the GM with no relevance to the player's eperience of the game, and at worst they are an abdication of responsibility.

 

[Hassassin]

IMO it doesn't make the world seem more dynamic, the GM shouldn't be letting the Players know if an encounter has a rationale behind it or not.

At best, random encounters are a device to amuse the GM with no relevance to the player's eperience of the game, and at worst they are an abdication of responsibility.

That something is a random encounter in no way implies a lack of rationale. It is the DM's job to determine the rationale, if it is not readily apparent. The examples I gave have an implied rationale behind them.

I would phrase "abdication of responsibility" in a more neutral way, but yes: they allow the DM to avoid using his fiat when determining what happens in a certain situation. If the party treks through the Troll Mountains, an encounter table allows the DM to model the risk they take without having to just choose if the party meets an overwhelming force.

Just like I don't want to choose if a troll hits and kills a PC, I don't always want to choose if the party meets a typical troll gang or exactly how many trolls there are in one. I only want to choose the chances, based mostly on the setting and party actions.

(BTW, I roll without showing the dice to players and do that even for encounters already in place. They don't know how relevant an encounter is to the big picture.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

DMs do not have a game theory win condition. They do not have a game theory lose condition. Their role is to facilitate the enjoyment of the game - and, I would suggest, they are primarily there to facilitate the players' enjoyment of the game.

Nope. Heck using that theory who would ever want to DM. Ok Bob you are the gamemaster. You don't have any actual fun. Your job is to facilitate the fun for this bunch of players week in and week out. Oh and by the way you have to devote more time and energy into this than the rest of them.

Heck, I would argue that the players don't even have traditional win/lose conditions.

They certainly do. That is why its a game. Winning and losing are not as cut and dried as it is in some games but it is there. The biggest difference is that under either condition, the game need not be over. Players can score numerous victories and suffer many defeats and the game can continue.

As a DM, your goal should be to derive enjoyment through your players' enjoyment of the game. In my eyes, you're not a good DM until you've gotten there.

I would expand this to everyone at the table. The goal of every participant should be to derive enjoyment through helping others enjoy the game. The DM and the players are not playing against each other so there is no reason not to include the players in this.

Any argument along the lines of, "If I wanted to control everything I'd just write fiction," misses the point on two counts - first, it ignores the fact that the DM doesn't control the players, and can therefore be surprised by their decisions even while maintaining control over the game world; second, it completely sidelines the players' investment in the game by holding that the only important difference between playing D&D and writing fiction is whether or not you can surprise the DM.

Control over the gameworld doesn't need to include foreknowledge of everything that will happen within it.

 

[Hassassin]

They certainly do. That is why its a game. Winning and losing are not as cut and dried as it is in some games but it is there. The biggest difference is that under either condition, the game need not be over. Players can score numerous victories and suffer many defeats and the game can continue.

There are no formal win/lose conditions, but players certainly create their own conditions for positive/negative rewards. I wouldn't call them winning/losing precisely because they are seldom game ending. Someone's positive reward may even be negative for another player: losing a character in a memorable way is one example.

 

[Harlekin]

I would phrase "abdication of responsibility" in a more neutral way, but yes: they allow the DM to avoid using his fiat when determining what happens in a certain situation. If the party treks through the Troll Mountains, an encounter table allows the DM to model the risk they take without having to just choose if the party meets an overwhelming force.

Just like I don't want to choose if a troll hits and kills a PC, I don't always want to choose if the party meets a typical troll gang or exactly how many trolls there are in one. I only want to choose the chances, based mostly on the setting and party actions.

But that abdication is an illusion. The DM after all makes the table. So there is no difference if he designs an encounter with a 20% probability of a tpk or if he rolls on a table on which 50% of all encounters have a 40% probability of a tpk. Either way, the DM decides that there should be a 20% probability of a tpk.

This is obviously a simplified example, but it applies to more complicated scenarios just as well.

 

[Harlekin]

At best, random encounters are a device to amuse the GM with no relevance to the player's eperience of the game, and at worst they are an abdication of responsibility.

I think this is pretty much it. It makes the games less predictable for the DM, which can be fun for him. I don't think it ever improves the play experience for the players.