Is high randomness good for an RPG?

[S'mon]

I find I have more fun in games with a strong random element; similar to real-world randomness. That doesn't obviate the need for GM thought though. And your examples are kinda silly.

 

[Treebore]

I find I have more fun in games with a strong random element; similar to real-world randomness. That doesn't obviate the need for GM thought though. And your examples are kinda silly.

Yes. I like random tables under controlled conditions. IE I use the tables, but only accept results that I can get to fit into what is going on in the game. I love things like Toolbox, Mother of All Encounter Tables, Mother of All Treasure Tales, and Ultimate Toolbox not for controlling my game, but for giving me inspiration in directions my own mind wouldn't take me.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think the poll question is too broad and nebulous to offer a meaningful answer. However, the specific questions are worth addressing (though some of them are pretty broad and subject to interpretation, too).

Is high randomness...more fun?

Depends on what you consider high randomness. I like some degree of randomness, but I also like problem solving and meaningful choices in the RPG. Also depends on where and how the randomness is being applied.

Is...convoluted randomness...more fun?

Convoluted has a somewhat negative connotation, implying needless complexity. Thus, I'd say no, needless complexity is not more fun.

Is...random randomness good design for an RPG system?

When considering random randomness, I suppose it contingently depends.

For instance, instead of a set 10% chance for something, is it better to roll 1d20 to see what the percentage chance is (and then roll the d%)?

If I think the chance should be about 10%, then I'd just set it to 10%. If I don't know/care or want a more random spread, I might roll a die, but I think that would be rare. If I'm writing a game supplement and want to suggest an appropriate range, rather than a discrete percentage chance, I might list it as 1-20%.

Is it good to have a series of charts where rolling on one determines the next chart to roll on?

Sure. I find that kind of thing useful. (Although it depends on the place the series of charts is used. If it's in the middle of combat, maybe not...)

Is it fun to have a system where a result can be from fantastic to terrible (like "character gains a level" to "character dies") -- like drawing from a deck of many things?

Not always, but it certainly can be. I like to present this kind of thing and leave it up to the players whether they want to risk it or not. (Usually somebody does.)

If rolling randomly (straight, no drops or rerolls) for ability scores and hit points is good, is rolling for starting level even better?

Not necessarily. But it might be appropriate in some circumstances.

Is a randomly generated dungeon -- random rooms, corridors, monsters, treasure -- more fun than one put together with a plan?

No, I don't think so. However, I do use random tables and such to help me flesh things out, and also as a springboard for my own creativity. I think random tables (e.g. the Monster & Treasure Assortments) and lists (e.g. the cool stuff in the 1e DMG) are useful tools.

 

[The Highway Man]

When considering random randomness, I suppose it contingently depends.

LOL Sig worthy.

 

[xechnao]

Is high randomness, convoluted randomness, random randomness good design for an RPG system? Does high randomness make an RPG more fun?

No. Definitely not. Unless such high randomness is a conclusion of your choices as a player. For example if you choose to face death there may be a good chance that you die. Survival or death, decided like this is high randomness. OTOH you may have gained a chance to a splendid reward. This may be desirable too.
Constant high randomness is bad for an rpg. It might be good and very fun for a wargame like Warhammer 40k though. The orc army was developed (at least when I used to play) as a gambler's army. It was lots of fun. But in an rpg? no.

 

[Wik]

Well, I don't like high randomness as you describe it, but I think you were making extreme examples. But having a random game (Or, as Omega World d20 put it, a game with a "high state of flux") can be a lot of fun.

Random character powers are great, and I love random character generation (I'm looking at you, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay!). There's something neat about rolling up a character with a mismatched collection of abilities, and trying to tie them together. Or, even more fun, getting a really poor character and trying to kamikaze him so you can make a new one. Especially if you can do it without the rest of the group catching on to your plan.

Random in actual play? Absolutely, because it helps break the GM out of his preconceived approach. As GMs, we all have preferences - in monsters, in treasure we award, in encounters. If you use some randomness in that, you'll find the scope of the game inevitably broadens. And you could find that, while you find Giant Ticks to be very silly monsters, if you were to run one because a table called for it, one or two players in your group really respond to it. And you learn a bit more about why they like to game.

 

[Bullgrit]

To answer my own question: I don’t think high/convoluted/random randomness is good.

I like some randomness, and a game needs some randomness. But randomness for randomness’s sake is very unnecessary.

I love random/wandering monster charts (dungeon or wilderness), when logically arranged (not a kitchen sink kind of thing; maybe a dozen different encounters). I could (and have) run a game session (or four) using a random chart (like when the party is traveling long distances across wild country). But the randomness should stop at chance for encounter and number appearing – going further into random stuff gets tedious and just gives a DM more work to do before the encounter starts.

For instance, instead of a set 10% chance for something, is it better to roll 1d20 to see what the percentage chance is (and then roll the d%)?

This is adding randomness to randomness, and I think it’s silly.

Is it good to have a series of charts where rolling on one determines the next chart to roll on?

This is unnecessarily complicated.

Is it fun to have a system where a result can be from fantastic to terrible (like "character gains a level" to "character dies") -- like drawing from a deck of many things?

I have been directly told that a chart for d%, 01=”death” and 00=”gain a level” is a perfectly well balanced game mechanic. I disagree.

If rolling randomly (straight, no drops or rerolls) for ability scores and hit points is good, is rolling for starting level even better?

I dislike generating characters with random rolls.

Is a randomly generated dungeon -- random rooms, corridors, monsters, treasure -- more fun than one put together with a plan?

No, it is not more fun. It can be fun, but it is not more fun that a planned dungeon.

* * *

And your examples are kinda silly.

I agree. Although, over the years here, I have read defenders state that each of these items make a game more fun, and that restricting randomness makes a game boring.

Bullgrit

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I love random character generation (I'm looking at you, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay!).

Chaosium's Stormbringer (the original -- I'm not familiar with the later editions) has a great random PC generation system. It's almost a "mini-game." (Kind of like the classic Traveller mini-game of PC generation.)

(I also find "roll up your PC and see what you get" something of a fun challenge, from both numbers and role-playing perspectives.)

 

[Oni]

Randomness that makes thing convoluted or adds extra steps is bad IMO.

Also when randomness has more determination in the players fate than their own actions, that is also bad IMO.

Everything in moderation, so I voted no, a high level is not a good idea.

 

[Campbell]

I like a degree of randomness in actual play, but I feel that adventures, encounters. treasure, and other prepared elements should be designed to fit the sort of game that is being played.