The whole point of swinginess and randomness is to bring the potential of a loss condition (in this case, character death) into play. Which causes me to ask: if you can't lose, what's the point of playing?
<Raises hand> This old USENET post isn't by me, but I unreservedly endorse it.
RPGs and video games differ from most ordinary board games in that
there doesn't have to be a loser. I think it's reasonable that they
attract mindsets which aren't very interested in losing; and a lot
of RPG groups successfully cater to this.
If I enter into playing, say, chess with the expectation I will never
lose, I'm being an idiot and I'm bound to be disappointed. Not even
the World Champion gets that. But if I enter into _Heroes of Might
and Magic IV_ (which is what I'm currently playing) with the
expectation that I won't lose, I'm not hurting anyone, and it's not
unreasonable that I may get what I want. (Especially if I turn the
difficulty down--and I may yet do that, because the losses are really
more annoying than challenging.)
Whether the player still wants it when she gets it is another question,
but for at least some players in some situations the answer is "yes."
I don't think I would still be playing Heroes
if I lost even 1/3
of the time. In a board game, I know I have to give my opponent
a fair shot, but here there's no such obligation; the only thing
against winning all the time is that it may detract from the challenge,
and for me, right now, I'd rather win than have a really strong
If this is a personality flaw it's an awfully common one; I think
it's better just regarded as a preference.
A common problem with such games is that they are entertaining for
the players but not for the GM. I get tired of having my NPCs
wiped out time and again; I spoiled a campaign recently by engineering
a TPK in the attempt to make things "a bit more challenging." Clearly
I overshot, but by game contract I shouldn't even have been trying.