The Importance of Randomness

[I'm A Banana]

Because DMs are not playing a game, in the traditional sense.

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.

It doesn't necessarily follow that because D&D has no game theory win conditions, this yields a DM whose job it is to simply facilitate others' enjoyment. In fact, it isn't always strictly true that D&D has no game theory win conditions, though it certainly has that potential.

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. 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.

Facilitating the enjoyment of the players doesn't necessitate establishing strict control. It is possible for players to enjoy randomness. In fact, given the nature of surprise and excitement, it is more likely that a player will enjoy randomness far more than they would enjoy control.

You're right that a DM doesn't control the players, and can be surprised by them. However, part of what this means is that a DM cannot reliably foreknow such things as what creatures will be fought in combat, and what creatures will be parleyed with, or where the party may travel. A strongly narrative DM may be able to make fairly strong educated guesses, but not every group enjoys a strongly narrative structure on their game experience.

Furthermore, postulating that more enjoyment results for some people from a lack of control doesn't by any stretch mean that it is the only important difference between a narrative and a D&D game, it simply indicates that it is one important difference.

I realize that this is a nuanced position - it makes an effort to acknowledge things like the difference between the game world and the players' sphere of control, the fact that the players have their own hedonistic calculus to satisfy, and the fact that random encounter tables are designed as a tool of convenience rather than a formula to construct an ideal game around - but dammit, it's about time we started trading in nuanced positions instead of, "Embrace the chaos!"

Your position isn't the only nuanced one in the thread, and you'd get much more out of this dialogue if you perhaps tried to discover the nuances of others' positions instead of relying on condescension to shut down opposition.

 

[Dannager]

In whose ideal? Why must a DM be caught off-guard to justify using random encounters in their game?

Sounds like a serious case of One-Wayism going on.

There are many different play styles out there, all equally valid for the group that wants to play that way.

If the DM is more interested than being surprised by his own dice than by delivering a well-crafted scenario for his players and letting them do the surprising, then you're right. The situation I outlined probably isn't ideal for him.

 

[Dannager]

Facilitating the enjoyment of the players doesn't necessitate establishing strict control. It is possible for players to enjoy randomness.

Unless you're rolling random encounters in full view of the players, there is no requirement that they be aware that the encounter was random. The players are blind to what goes on behind the screen. Ideally, there will be no way for them to tell whether an encounter was random or pre-designed - if there is a way for them to tell, it's probably because the random encounter seemed incongruous, or seemed like flying-by-the-seat-of-your-pants design. Neither of which is desirable.

Your players enjoy good encounters. Promise. They don't enjoy bad encounters as much. Promise. Random encounters are more likely to be bad encounters than pre-designed encounters, assuming a DM of moderate skill.

In fact, given the nature of surprise and excitement, it is more likely that a player will enjoy randomness far more than they would enjoy control.

The players don't have control in either situation. When they open the door and discover orcs behind it, they are blind to whether those orcs were placed there weeks ago by the DM who designed the dungeon, or placed there just now when the random encounter dice were rolled. The only indications one way or the other is that pre-designed encounters can be carefully crafted, and the planning and effort that went into their design should express itself in play; similarly, random encounters do not have the benefit of that planning and effort ahead of time, and will, on the whole, seem more sloppily-designed.

You're right that a DM doesn't control the players, and can be surprised by them. However, part of what this means is that a DM cannot reliably foreknow such things as what creatures will be fought in combat, and what creatures will be parleyed with, or where the party may travel. A strongly narrative DM may be able to make fairly strong educated guesses, but not every group enjoys a strongly narrative structure on their game experience.

Even the most sandbox game in the world would be better served by a robust arsenal of pre-designed encounters to be dropped into the game when the DM felt it was appropriate, than by a few random encounter charts.

Furthermore, postulating that more enjoyment results for some people from a lack of control doesn't by any stretch mean that it is the only important difference between a narrative and a D&D game, it simply indicates that it is one important difference.

That didn't stop multiple people from claiming that the only thing keeping them from writing a narrative instead of playing D&D is that they can be surprised by their own die rolls.

Your position isn't the only nuanced one in the thread,

You're absolutely right. But there are too many non-nuanced arguments in this thread, and it's really time that we as a community graduate from that sort of thing. EN World is, in my estimation, one of the most sophisticated tabletop roleplaying discussion forums in the world. I can't help but feel like we sort of have a responsibility to advance the collective understanding.

and you'd get much more out of this dialogue if you perhaps tried to discover the nuances of others' positions instead of relying on condescension to shut down opposition.

I will continue to make an effort to do so.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If the DM is more interested than being surprised by his own dice than by delivering a well-crafted scenario for his players and letting them do the surprising, then you're right. The situation I outlined probably isn't ideal for him.

There's a certain art to making well-crafted scenarios based off of random information you get on the fly. It takes a while to get used to, but I can say that my group has reacted much more positively to that approach from me than from preparing things beforehand (even in theory, not just in practice). Promise.

Even the most sandbox game in the world would be better served by a robust arsenal of pre-designed encounters to be dropped into the game when the DM felt it was appropriate, than by a few random encounter charts.

Disagree. This method does not account for the dynamic nature of the ever-changing and evolving "most sandbox game in the world." As always, play what you like

 

[Dannager]

There's a certain art to making well-crafted scenarios based off of random information you get on the fly. It takes a while to get used to, but I can say that my group has reacted much more positively to that approach from me than from preparing things beforehand (even in theory, not just in practice). Promise.

Are they reacting that way because they don't like the idea of pre-designed encounters, or because they like the encounters that happen to be random more?

It strikes me that this is probably a case of players rebelling against the idea that what happens to them is predetermined. It's always struck me as sort of a silly thing to rebel against, since a crafty DM could easily design encounters ahead of time and simply pretend to roll them up randomly.

Disagree. This method does not account for the dynamic nature of the ever-changing and evolving "most sandbox game in the world." As always, play what you like

With a robust-enough set of pre-designed encounters, then yes. Yes it does. Hypothetically, given enough time you could create unique, well-crafted encounters for every possible scenario that could arise in your sandbox game. You could certainly create enough encounters that they would satisfy any of your campaign's needs with minor on-the-fly adjustments.

The anticipated rebuttal, of course, would be, "But no one has that much time on their hands, it would take them forever to design all those encounters! Random encounter tables would be so much easier!" Which is exactly my point - random encounter tables are a convenient tool, but are not an equivalent substitute for a well-crafted encounter, on average.

 

[LostSoul]

Don't forget that random tables can make you consider things that you never would have without that result.

Constricting creativity is an excellent tool.

 

[Libramarian]

What is it about D&D where if you say, "I play this way", within ten minutes someone will be shouting from the mountains that I'm not doing it right?

Little bit of what I like to call Geek Social Fallacy #6: An Argument is Always Welcome.

Little bit of the fact that this forum is basically for arguing about what we want in 5e.

Little bit of the fact that you kinda dissed 4e, which remains a sore spot for people.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Are they reacting that way because they don't like the idea of pre-designed encounters, or because they like the encounters that happen to be random more?

They don't like the idea of pre-defined encounters in theory. They like the feel of a more organic encounter produced by "random" play (winging encounters, potentially with a random table).

It strikes me that this is probably a case of players rebelling against the idea that what happens to them is predetermined. It's always struck me as sort of a silly thing to rebel against, since a crafty DM could easily design encounters ahead of time and simply pretend to roll them up randomly.

The whole "illusion" debate here again, and whether or not it's unavoidable, good or bad, etc. It also drifts the game away from sandbox and towards story play, which isn't inherently bad, but is drifting away from the goal of "the most sandbox game in the world."

With a robust-enough set of pre-designed encounters, then yes. Yes it does. Hypothetically, given enough time you could create unique, well-crafted encounters for every possible scenario that could arise in your sandbox game. You could certainly create enough encounters that they would satisfy any of your campaign's needs with minor on-the-fly adjustments.

The anticipated rebuttal, of course, would be, "But no one has that much time on their hands, it would take them forever to design all those encounters! Random encounter tables would be so much easier!" Which is exactly my point - random encounter tables are a convenient tool, but are not an equivalent substitute for a well-crafted encounter, on average.

As long as you're not porting entire encounters over by massaging them into the setting, I think your hypothetical is sound. Not practical, but that's not what you just said. It feels a little like the goalposts shifted, but that's probably my fault in misinterpreting you earlier. As always, play what you like

 

[harlokin]

Don't forget that random tables can make you consider things that you never would have without that result.

Im sorry, but they don't.

Having a list of appropriate potential encounters (for the area/adventure/setting) is useful, and could make you consider things that might not have occured to you otherwise. Randomly determining which of these encounters occur however, has nothing to do with creativity.

 

[JonWake]

Little bit of what I like to call Geek Social Fallacy #6: An Argument is Always Welcome.

Little bit of the fact that this forum is basically for arguing about what we want in 5e.

Little bit of the fact that you kinda dissed 4e, which remains a sore spot for people.

I did? I just thought I said that one of the design goals was to minimize random results and make the gameplay a bit more predictable. Didn't realize that was controversial, as that it was a stated design goal.