The Importance of Randomness

[Ratskinner]

I'm all for giving people lots and lots of "help I can't decide" tables, but make sure people can go right for the default just as easily.

I like to work a certain rhythm into my game, and randomness ruins that.

Even back in the day, people (myself included) would regularly ignore tables and just do what we wanted, anyway. I don't recall ever rolling for "Wandering Monsters" or paying much attention to the treasure tables. (If I want you to have a magic item, you're getting it.)

 

[Dannager]

Nope. Heck using that theory who would ever want to DM.

Me, and nearly every decent DM I've ever met.

Ok Bob you are the gamemaster. You don't have any actual fun.

Sure you do. You derive fun from the players having fun.

They certainly do.

No, they don't.

That is why its a game.

D&D is not a traditional game, and lacks some of the elements associated with traditional games.

Winning and losing are not as cut and dried as it is in some games but it is there.

No. There is no set win condition for the game of D&D. As long as you are playing the game and having fun, you're winning. In fact, because the DM himself is both omnipotent controller and invested in the party's victory, "losing" the game often isn't a very real threat (despite, perhaps, the DM giving the players an impression to the contrary).

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.

Individual challenges can have win or lose conditions, but the game as a whole eschews those traditional trappings.

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.

I agree, but the players are in much less of a position to ensure the enjoyment of everyone at the table. The DM has a unique responsibility in this respect, because of his increased role in maintaining the environment and game world.

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

It doesn't need to, but on the whole it improves the game experience for the players when it does.

Yes, random encounters can create potentially exciting scenarios. But so can planning ahead, and planning ahead will more consistently create exciting scenarios than rolling on a chart will.

Random encounter charts (and their associated tools) are encounter-creating shortcuts for DMs caught off-guard. An ideal play experience will make as little use of them as possible, and ideally the players will never know otherwise.

 

[Hassassin]

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.

Do you also think there's no difference if I make all opponents auto hit and just reduce damage instead of giving them an X% chance to hit and normal damage?

 

[JamesonCourage]

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

It doesn't need to, but on the whole it improves the game experience for the players when it does.

Yes, random encounters can create potentially exciting scenarios. But so can planning ahead, and planning ahead will more consistently create exciting scenarios than rolling on a chart will.

Random encounter charts (and their associated tools) are encounter-creating shortcuts for DMs caught off-guard. An ideal play experience will make as little use of them as possible, and ideally the players will never know otherwise.

This is just preference, and not an all-encompassing blanket statement of fact for all tables, I assume. Because, man, our version of an "ideal play experience" is not very close at all, based on your description here. I love improvising. Much, much more so than laying everything out in advance.

Then again, I'm also not "invested in the party's victory", so we differ there, too. I'm not invested in them losing, either. I'm invested in RPing the enemies to the best of my abilities, whether or not it screws the bad guys or good guys over (the players could be either).

But, I came in really late to this conversation, and I've uncharacteristically skipped all previous pages and just replied to one comment. That probably means I'm commenting on something that was already covered and will get directed to that, but c'est la vie (sometimes). As always, play what you like

 

[Hassassin]

But that abdication is an illusion. The DM after all makes the table.

Suppose a monster is chasing the party, who blast a 10' pit (DC 15 to jump) in it's path. Is there no less DM fiat when I just decide whether the monster makes it across instead of rolling? After all, I've decided how good a jumper the monster is.

Similarly, if there's a 10% chance to meet 1d4 trolls each day when crossing the Troll Mountains, why should I just decide that now's a good time for them to meet three?

Often I don't actually decide even how a jumper the monster is or what the random encounter table looks like, because the DMG/MM/adventure tells me.

 

[thedungeondelver]

There is a fellow who posts (not sure if he's on this forum) as OldGeezer on various forums. He was lucky enough to game with the original Lake Geneva group back in the day. He said this about random encounters (nee wandering monsters):

"Mike commented that that's why he likes random charts: they help tell a story that neither the DM nor the players can anticipate."

You can read the entire experience about gaming with him here, I recommend it highly. But that paraphrase pretty much says it all: they help tell a story that neither the DM nor the players can anticipate.

When you roll to-hit, aren't you doing the same thing? When you roll your hit points, aren't you doing the same thing? Moment to moment, the story unfolds. The DM should never, ever feel conscripted to only set-piece (ugh) "encounters". An adventuring area is a living, breathing place. Some unlucky orcs might have been tasked with hunting down the rat wearing the jeweled collar. The monsters that dwell above it all dead, a neo-otyugh might have decided to slurp on down the hall towards better pickings. A flock of stirges, driven by hunger, might be flapping through a cavern. A Dryad could be out communing with her kin - there's no end of things that can just "happen". These things "...help tell a story that neither the DM nor the players can anticipate."

 

[Harlekin]

Suppose a monster is chasing the party, who blast a 10' pit (DC 15 to jump) in it's path. Is there no less DM fiat when I just decide whether the monster makes it across instead of rolling? After all, I've decided how good a jumper the monster is.

This is a very good question because it illustrates when randomness is actually useful.

But before engaging that question, let me point out that by determining what the jump skill of the monster is, you have predetermined how useful the players' strategy is. So if this is a standard strategy of your players, but all your monsters have especially high jump skills, you are still blocking the players, whether you roll the actual skill check or not.

However, you still want to roll for two reasons

First, the randomness is visible to all players. As I have mentioned upthread, randomness adds fun to those in the game that observe it, here it is observed by all at the table, not just the GM.

Second, when jumping/failing to jump over a pit either outcome is equally likely to contribute to the game. As many in this thread have mentioned, rolling up too tough a random encounter requires heavy DM adjucation to not derail a game. And failing to roll any random encounter in a long time can make some trips feel really easy or boring.

So random encounter carry a higher risk to the game while serving as entertainment only for the GM. That does not mean they are necessarily bad, after all the GM needs entertainment too. But I would argue that random encounters are a
bug for inexperienced DMs that don't know how to modify random encounters on the fly, while being a feature for very experienced DMs that can do so without strain or fail.

Similarly, if there's a 10% chance to meet 1d4 trolls each day when crossing the Troll Mountains, why should I just decide that now's a good time for them to meet three?

It will make no difference to your players, unless you let them peek behind the curtain by letting them know that you roll for wandering monsters every day.

Often I don't actually decide even how a jumper the monster is or what the random encounter table looks like, because the DMG/MM/adventure tells me.

By that argument, I don't predetermine encounters in an adventure either, because the adventure tells me.

 

[Incenjucar]

Even back in the day, people (myself included) would regularly ignore tables and just do what we wanted, anyway. I don't recall ever rolling for "Wandering Monsters" or paying much attention to the treasure tables. (If I want you to have a magic item, you're getting it.)

Certainly. Basically it comes down to the Rules Zombie crowd that absolutely cannot and will not violate what they think is the exact right way to play the game handed down by the powers that be so help you Gygax; they need for such options to be explicit rather than implied or "obvious."

 

[Mattachine]

You can read the entire experience about gaming with him here, I recommend it highly. But that paraphrase pretty much says it all: they help tell a story that neither the DM nor the players can anticipate.

This is definitely true . . . but many of the stories that such a system tells have no plot, or detract from the ongoing story. When I was younger, I was a DM enchanted by random tables, and I used them frequently (especially city encounters) as a substitute for preparation. Sometimes they created a story, often they were one-shot encounters that were fun.

Still other times, random encounters derailed the ongoing story to the point where the players would ask, "What were we doing again?" I can think of running the AD&D Tomb of the Lizard King where the random encounters killed a couple characters and derailed the adventure. Was that unpredictable? Yes, Fun? Maybe, but it meant giving up on the adventure because of an incidental moment, rather than because of conflict with the antagonists.

I think this discussion reveals some of the play styles at work: many want a game with the sandbox feel, where PCs often fail, without long story arcs; many others want a game where the plot is set and the PCs make choices that determine the climax and final outcome. Random encounters are part and parcel to the former, but antithetical to the latter.

My suggestion is that random tables (monsters, treasure, magic, NPCs) can be presented as examples, but should not be relied upon (as they were in AD&D).

 

[Hassassin]

First, the randomness is visible to all players. As I have mentioned upthread, randomness adds fun to those in the game that observe it, here it is observed by all at the table, not just the GM.
[...]
It will make no difference to your players, unless you let them peek behind the curtain by letting them know that you roll for wandering monsters every day.

This is the same for both jumps and random encounters: I can roll 1) without the players noticing, 2) so they don't see the result, or 3) openly. I tend to use the second option for most rolls.

(In combat I often roll attacks and damage openly to let the players get a better idea of how tough the enemy is.)

Second, when jumping/failing to jump over a pit either outcome is equally likely to contribute to the game. As many in this thread have mentioned, rolling up too tough a random encounter requires heavy DM adjucation to not derail a game. And failing to roll any random encounter in a long time can make some trips feel really easy or boring.

So random encounter carry a higher risk to the game while serving as entertainment only for the GM.

I think rolling the tough encounter and not rolling it both contribute to the game. Otherwise I wouldn't use the table. Specifically, I think the risk of rolling it contributes to the game.

A very tough random encounter is not always a problem, even if want to avoid character death. The party can flee, hide (if they win opposed perception) or negotiate (if intelligent enemy).

Whether you consider the risk worth it is something you can decide when you choose/create the table, just as when creating "normal" encounters.

By that argument, I don't predetermine encounters in an adventure either, because the adventure tells me.

In some adventures that's actually the case, if an encounter may or may not happen depending on what the players do. Unfortunately, all too often encounters in published adventures are completely predetermined.