D&D 5E Randomness and D&D

[Lanefan]

The people here that I see referring to story that way are almost always trying to run their table through one published adventure or another. Published adventures are their own error state, IMO.

Now with this I disagree. Published adventures (we call them "canned modules") can and do work very well in a randomness-heavy game*. Most of the adventures I run are canned, either written by someone else or by me. It's very rare if ever that I run a whole adventure off the cuff, though almost all none of the between-adventures stuff, travel encounters, etc. is preplanned.

Where randomness causes headaches is if one is trying to run a hard AP as the campaign, or keep things on a tight course.

* - either that, or I've been mighty lucky all these 38 years.

 

[Andvari]

I like how randomness works to generate stories. Whether it's immediate through d20s rolled in combat or from treasure generated randomly. It also forces you to think creatively with what you're given. An orc chieftain has an unlikely treasure? What's the story behind that? Many random encounters I roll out before the session so I can prepare context and story for them.

 

[payn]

When people talk about story in D&D, about 99% of them mean before, not after. Emergent story is great and compatible with randomness. Railroading story is neither great nor compatible with randomness.

99%? Talk about railroading....

 

[payn]

Old School D&D was all about the Randomness. The whole point of the game was ANYTHING could happen at random. This made the Classic D&D game unique. In a way unlike anything else. Roll some dice, anything could happen.

The problem comes with Storytelling. Randomness will ruin a story in just one roll of some dice. Way too many GMs and players don't like that and don't want that in a game. Even if they rolled it, they would just change it.....they don't want the special character to die. And if you just change rolls you don't like....why bother rolling at all?

I think there is a gulf between pure random and reasonable chances. Its just as ridiculous to have an 8 hit point wizard in a party with a 2 hit point fighter at level 2 as what you describe above. Though, if some folks love a barely functioning system built just for the laughs, who am I to tell them its wrong?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think it's important to still have a degree of randomness in adventures. If everything happened exactly as DMs and PCs expected, it wouldn't be half as fun. I will deliberately include random tables to roll on in my adventures (for example, I just had a list of combat complications during a big battle, so that I never knew if someone was going to show up to heal the PCs, or a hail of javelins was going to come down on everyone).

Random magic items, though, I'm not as much a fan of. I remember the days of having specialization in, say a two-handed sword, and ending up with a +1 longsword because of randomness. I'd much rather magic items be curated for the adventurers to a degree.

 

[Andvari]

Random magic items, though, I'm not as much a fan of. I remember the days of having specialization in, say a two-handed sword, and ending up with a +1 longsword because of randomness. I'd much rather magic items be curated for the adventurers to a degree.

Incidentally also why I'm not a fan of weapon specialization. If the fighter finds a weapon, I want him to be able to pick it up and use it effectively whether it's an axe, a sword or a bec-de-corbin.

 

[payn]

Incidentally also why I'm not a fan of weapon specialization. If the fighter finds a weapon, I want him to be able to pick it up and use it effectively whether it's an axe, a sword or a bec-de-corbin.

Yeah I always found proficiencies a bit limiting in the past. I wouldn't mind fighters being able to use any weapons, but some of them have a bonus action, feat, or whatever that needs to be unlocked through proficiency. So, you could still use the weapon to fight, just not trip, disarm, whatever specialty with it unless you have the prerequisite.

 

[Alzrius]

So how do you feel about this? How much randomness do you want in a game? Do you hate it when a named, powerful NPC goes down due to a lucky crit or a flubbed save? Do you groan with dismay if a Wild Magic Sorcerer sits down at your table?

Asking "how much randomness" sort of feels to me like asking what genre of movies are best. Sometimes I'm in the mood for an action flick where everything gets blown up, other times I want a whodunnit-style thriller, and sometimes I just like a good jump scare movie. Which is to say, that I can see the appeal of a minimal-randomness system, but I also see the appeal of one where randomness plays a much stronger role.

From what I can tell, the former is much more popular than the latter these days. Randomness isn't welcome in character generation when people sit down already knowing exactly what they want to play. An episodic style of campaign, where adventures are set pieces with no larger connections, and random encounters determine what the PCs meet in the wilderness and various dungeons, isn't going to lend itself to a sweeping, epic narrative. Treasures are placed according to what PCs want or need rather than being picked out at random for characters to either figure out or liquidate back in town.

Personally, I think that D&D lends itself to randomness more when the game engine grants less options during character creation/advancement and has an overall lower level of power. I can see why randomness was eschewed in 3.X and 4E, because the sheer number of options available (including being able to craft customized magic items) and the massive scale in power strongly encouraged being particular with how your character was developed.

Compare that to, say, BECMI, where the power level was much lower (even across thirty-six levels) and there were far fewer options for differentiating your character at the mechanical level (i.e. characters were defined more by what adventures they completed than by their build), and it's easy to see randomness having a much stronger hand. There's simply more room for it to operate, and less problems tend to be caused when a monkey wrench is thrown into how things are progressing in the campaign.

So yeah, different styles for different editions (and different games, for that matter).

 

[Clint_L]

Lately I've been increasing my table's randomness quotient through more liberal use of random encounter tables, using tables that provide RP opportunities more than just combat (though some of them could become combat, depending on player choices). I love it - it makes the story more fun and interesting for me. In my game world, very few creatures are automatically antagonists, so every encounter can become a variety of things.

The other key element for randomness is from dice rolls, particularly natural 1s, which is why "Lucky" is banned at my table and I really hope "Halfing Luck" goes away with OneD&D. Some of our most memorable story beats have grown from failures and natural 1s in particular. My players and I get more excited for natural 1s than natural 20s, because they know something fun and surprising is about to happen.

I write 90% or more of the underlying story, so I can make major adjustments as events unfold.

I also roll in front of the players whenever possible, so that they get the excitement of seeing their fate play out.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I feel like randomness is more in charge, not less in 5e. Yeah, your ability score rolls aren't so important, but that's because so few of your stats matter more than the d20 roll now. And I hate it.

When roiling my own, I have way more 'slay the dice' abilities like rerolls, setting the roll to a specific number, etc.