robconley
Hero
I view that is a negative as that a convention of the game rather reflecting the reality of the setting. Similarly I am not keen on how mechanics are activated like Second Wind, or the dice pools that accompanies the 5e Battlemaster variant. Both only make sense as part of a game not as a reflection of the reality of the setting.
To be clear the reality of the setting can something fantastic like a RPG like Toon which is about roleplaying characters in a cartoon world. It not about being realistic in terms of how our world works.
Nor reflecting the reality of the setting has to be detail in the way that GURPS with all the combat option is detailed. It can be highly abstract as long it can tied back to how the setting work as if you were there as the character.
So I view mechanics like "once is all you get" as a game convention.
Events that potential or certain negative consequences for the character that they zero control over. In my experience it doesn't end will over the long haul if that handled through fiat. Players are far more accepting of the results if it occurred because of random generation. And they know that these tables are being used as part of the campaign. So they factor the risk into their plan.
Players are more aware than one would think that the referee just happened to create a forest in front of them to adventure in. It can be gotten away with is done sparely but done over and over it become a noticeable pattern. It doesn't mean it doesn't work for how you run your campaigns. But it does take away from running a sandbox campaign.
Why? Because it takes away from the challenge knowing the referee is creating something out of whole cloth right then and there.
Now this doesn't mean you have to make 1,000s of pages of notes. But it helps if it already on the map, and you have a sentence or two about it, even though you have to take a breather to create something or pull something off the shelf in order to supply details if the players choose to explore it.
This is based on my observation of doing this for decades with multiple groups of players. I first noticed this when I switched from using the World of Greyhawk to Judges Guild Wilderlands in the early 80s. The players considered what happened to be more fair knowing that many details were there ahead of time. That I wasn't just making naughty word up to spite them.
Keep in mind player can and do make a bad plans. Underestimate the opposition or overestimate what they can do. And suffer negative consequences for it. In short in my campaign there is the possibility of failure. But if you are going to have possibility of failure then you need to be a fair referee. And it more fair to have a certain level details already defined about the setting. In practice it doesn't have to be much.
It doesn't have even be as wordy as my Blackmarsh setting. It works with stat blocks similar to what Traveller uses.
Because the bias is minimized as a result. So the result is perceived as more fair. Provided of course the random table itself is perceived as fair. If you say on a 1 you met a goat, 2 to 6 you met Smaug the Golden. Well players will call out you out for using a dumb ass table. Unless of course is happens to be one for around Erebor. Then it fits what been said about the locale. But if a referee uses this for the Shire well they deserve the player's scorn.
But it something that earned and saved to be used later by the player? The character in the world of Prince Valiant has no idea they he or she possesses a storyteller certificate. It does represent something ethereal like luck, faith, karma? If it doesn't tie back to the setting and it meant to be use as the player discretion not the player acting as their character then it is a meta-game mechanic. If it ties back to something within the reality of the setting (luck, faith, karma) then it not.
Hope that clarifies my view.
