Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 4687927" data-attributes="member: 467">It will probably come as a surprise to few that I voted &quot;yes -- randomness is good&quot;.&nbsp; However, I have a caveat:In any given situation in which randomness is a factor, the most important element is that the range of randomness make some sort of sense (what that means depends entirely on the situation).&nbsp; For example, I really like &quot;swingy&quot; combat with the potential for critical hits and fumbles, especially if those things come with neat, iterative charts. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="(:" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; (:"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname="(:" />roll: A crit! :roll: to the head! :roll: right in the eye! :roll: oooh! blinded for life!) and random encounter tables. However, all the elements in the random range (all the stuff on the charts) needs to make some sort of sense, at least insofar as internal consistency is concerned. Even a Deck of many things is okay, because the Deck is an artifact and its potential range of effect is broad.&nbsp; However, a random encounter chart that included both frost giants and fire salamanders would not be okay, nor would a critical chart that gave apparently equal likelihood to decapitation whether the attacker was using a bow or an axe.It's the simulationist in me I suppose.And, as made clear in the AD&amp;D 1E DMG, randomness (or not) is largely in the hands of the DM.&nbsp; If an encounter comes up that makes no sense or hurts the game, there's nothing wrong with rerolling or tossing out the result entirely, or simply using the result as a springboard for creativity.&nbsp; this last thing is I think what randomness really adds to the game: we all tend toward our preferences and can end up in ruts; randomness can pull us out of those ruts and make us reconsider those preferences in ways we never would have considered and improve play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 4687927, member: 467"] It will probably come as a surprise to few that I voted "yes -- randomness is good". However, I have a caveat: In any given situation in which randomness is a factor, the most important element is that the [i]range[/i] of randomness make some sort of sense (what that means depends entirely on the situation). For example, I really like "swingy" combat with the potential for critical hits and fumbles, especially if those things come with neat, iterative charts. (:roll: A crit! :roll: to the head! :roll: right in the eye! :roll: oooh! blinded for life!) and random encounter tables. However, all the elements in the random range (all the stuff on the charts) needs to make some sort of sense, at least insofar as internal consistency is concerned. Even a Deck of many things is okay, because the Deck is an artifact and its potential range of effect is broad. However, a random encounter chart that included both frost giants and fire salamanders would not be okay, nor would a critical chart that gave apparently equal likelihood to decapitation whether the attacker was using a bow or an axe. It's the simulationist in me I suppose. And, as made clear in the AD&D 1E DMG, randomness (or not) is largely in the hands of the DM. If an encounter comes up that makes no sense or hurts the game, there's nothing wrong with rerolling or tossing out the result entirely, or simply using the result as a springboard for creativity. this last thing is I think what randomness really adds to the game: we all tend toward our preferences and can end up in ruts; randomness can pull us out of those ruts and make us reconsider those preferences in ways we never would have considered and improve play. [/QUOTE]

Verification