On the Value of Uncertainty

[Reynard]

In a DND game, even if the players can't die, they can still fail. The country could be ruined, the world could be invaded, the players could simply not accomplish what they set out to achieve. That to me is the critical aspect, I think the main one Reynard was highlighting.

Success or failure is only a single aspect of the subject. Overall, whether in combat or out, whether in character generation or adventure design, the uncertainty element adds to the game.

Let's say the players decide to have their characters ander into the wilderness in search of a few random encounters to get those last couple hundred XPs to achieve their next level. Obligingly, the DM pulls out his handy-dandy "Forest of Blight" random encounter chart, which is not a level dependent list of possible encounters but a "simulationist" list of things that live in the forest, from lowly goblin bandits to a huge plague dragon. He rolls "ogres", which we'll say is more or less appropriate for the party, turns to the MM and rolls 200 of them. Thinking fast, he decides they have to have a place to live and opens up to the random dungeon generator and asks the players to take a short smoke break. Ten minutes later, he's got a small ogre fortress and a treasure hoard containing a holy avenger (rolled randomly).

Suddenly, the campaign includes an adventure about a small army of ogres who killed a legendary paladin who sought to defeat them, only a day's march from the campaign's home town. It's not an adventure or setting element the DM would have come up with on his own -- he had other plans -- but such a thing would automatically enhance the game and the campaign world.

 

[Fenes]

I often use random chance in an adventure, to decide some things.

"Roll 1d6.

6 - the warehouse you ran into is the perfect hiding spot from your pursuers.

1 - you just stumbled on a shady deal between a few guards and a few hooded dark figures. They turn around, and one whispers "He saw too much". Behind you. You hear your pursusers close in as well.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

A nice example there Reynard. Makes me want to track down the old 1e encounter tables. Actually, I might spend some time drawing some up for a new campaign I'm planning on running. Also reminds me of an anecdote about how Tim Burton came up with the plot for Mars Attacks.*

There is a lot to be said for a bit of randomness. Even in character generation. Although I'd still prefer a good point buy system (HERO) I have enjoyed random ones (say, Marvel) a great deal too. I think it's good to get ones' inspiration from anywhere one can. The thing with random tables comes in if you already have a specific idea but the random table doesn't allow this. I recall this situation coming up a lot in the olden days playing various games systems. (Traveller and Runequest come to mind.) Of course this is where the people playing the game need to sit down and say: 'well, this random generation thing is all well and good, but Ralph wants to play a gritty fighter, not a high class wizard so let's let him.'

Whatever works to inspire more and better games, characters, adventures.



*He had these old bubble gum cards about invading martians. There was a different scene or what not on each card. He threw them into the air and then picked them up in what ever order they came to hand. Viola: the movie was storyboarded.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Success or failure is only a single aspect of the subject. Overall, whether in combat or out, whether in character generation or adventure design, the uncertainty element adds to the game.

It should be pointed out that, while certain elements of randomness might be removed from the game (such as death, for some), doing so comes at a cost. For some, that cost might be "bought back" (or more than bought back) by the benefits gained.

After all, no one (that I know of) is advocating an entirely random game. Just that randomness itself, while potentially leading to "undesireable" results, adds to the game. Exactly where that randomness comes in, and how much is desireable, is a matter of taste.

IMHO, at least.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

double post

 

[RFisher]

Almost invariably, combat is most likely to have its outcome determine by the uncertainty of dice since dice are rolled with more frequency (and ferocity!) in combat than any other situation in the game.

Combat has lots of rolls, but it also has lots of decision points. The combat mechanics tend to make it that you need to have many unlucky rolls to undermine good decisions.

In my experience, it’s more likely for an unlucky roll outside of combat to result in a significant failure. Though I think that’s due to how my groups have tended to handle things outside of combat.

At its most basic level, this takes two forms: engaging the game system to affect the range of possible results from dice rolls, or by engaging the game through the other participants – the DM, in particular – to affect the situations in which dice are rolled.

A light bulb went on for me when someone said that they decided early on that the point was to keep the dice from being rolled.

Priority 1: Avoid die rolls
Priority 2: If you can’t avoid a roll, do everything you can to tilt the odds in your favor

 

[Doug McCrae]

Suddenly, the campaign includes an adventure about a small army of ogres who killed a legendary paladin who sought to defeat them, only a day's march from the campaign's home town. It's not an adventure or setting element the DM would have come up with on his own -- he had other plans -- but such a thing would automatically enhance the game and the campaign world.

I disagree with the 'automatically enhance'. It's extremely implausible that 200 ogres could be living a day's journey from town and yet never have been mentioned up until now. The random roll in this case hurts verisimilitude, breaking the illusion of a world with an independent existence, an illusion which would have been preserved by the storyteller's trick of foreshadowing.

Also, a randomly generated dungeon containing 200 ogres is almost certainly going to be both boring and lame.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree with the 'automatically enhance'. It's extremely implausible that 200 ogres could be living a day's journey from town and yet never have been mentioned up until now. The random roll in this case hurts verisimilitude, breaking the illusion of a world with an independent existence, an illusion which would have been preserved by the storyteller's trick of foreshadowing.

Also, a randomly generated dungeon containing 200 ogres is almost certainly going to be both boring and lame.

I a disagree with your disagreement in pretty much every way. First of all, being a game and not a novel series or television show, if suspension of disbelief gets stretched a little now and then, I don't think it is a deal breaker. Sure, versimilitude is a good thing, but you can't have everything and I'd rather give up that than give the possibility of being surprised. Also, it's a pretty poor DM, I think, who can't come up with a plausible explanation for the large ogre population existing so close to town in a heretofore unknown dengeon. It only has to be plausible in the context of a fantasy world that includes both ogres and dungeons, so there's plenty of wigle room. And finally, the DM isn't a storyteller or a narrator or a director. All those things imply a degree of predeterminednarrative that RPGs, including D&D, don't emulate very well.

 

[Reynard]

Combat has lots of rolls, but it also has lots of decision points. The combat mechanics tend to make it that you need to have many unlucky rolls to undermine good decisions.

In my experience, it’s more likely for an unlucky roll outside of combat to result in a significant failure. Though I think that’s due to how my groups have tended to handle things outside of combat.

Depends on the edition, of course. In 3E, for example, the possibility of a critical hit doing extreme amount sof damage made one undermining one good decision quite possible. And, of course, it depends on what level the PCs are -- in almost any edition, 1st level characters are fragile enough that luck can drop them, and in many editions they remain relatively fragile up through 3rd.

But you are right about the singular outside of combat roll having a more likely impact because it is more likely that outside of combat the DM will call for a roll with lots and lots of consequences. What I find strange is that here the DM is most likely to fudge -- if the roll have savere consequences that could disrupt or change the definition of the campaign, he' more likely to ignore the dice and go with the prefferred result anyway. In that case, he shouldn't be calling for a roll at all. Although, again, I tend to try not to call for rolls for lots of things that other DMs are likely to want Diplmacy checks and the like for.

 

[Ginnel]

Currently our group has played 11 sessions of 4th ed finishing an adventure, DM is having a short break to prep for the next one so I've offered to run a one shot with a difference.

The players give me their character concept, focusing on race, personality, their defining fighting style (which in itself will contain a suggestion of combat role), and a bit on background.

Not class, not every last penny of their items, not their stats, not their powers/class features.

This is going to be my task, so effectively the players don't get to create their character how they want to mechanically, they will have to be clear with me in their description of their concept.

I don't think this level of attention in regards to customising characters would be practical for a campaign, but i'm interested to see if this will effect the way players portray their characters given that they will have only control over the descriptive story side of character creation and not the mechanics side which will in effect be both controlled because they explain exactly what they want and at the same time randomish because it is my interpretation not their own.

I'm thinking since they only have control over the story side and fighting style this focus might mean they will be more likely to describe their actions in and out of combat something that is lacking in more than half the group at the moment.

hope its not too off topic.