Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8840852" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Something Reynard said got me to thinking.  When I first started playing D&D, random chance was king.  What ability scores did you roll?  Did you get a 17 instead of a 16?  These things could make a world of difference when determining what you could play, and how effective you would be.If your DM rolled treasure randomly, a humble treasure chest could pay out in potions of healing or a longsword +3; the original "loot boxes", if you will.Even some magic items and spells were slot machines; what did I get from my Bag of Beans?  What card did I draw from the Deck of Many Things?  Did my Prismatic Spray nuke the dungeon boss, or was it a colorful dud?  Even the basic game mechanics, did I hit?  How much damage did I do?  Did I make my save?Often, it proved that it was better to be lucky than good.Over time though, D&D campaigns evolved to have ongoing plotlines and became much more than the Rogue-like and Diablo-esque games that it inspired.  Some groups began to shun randomness, because it could turn an enjoyable story into a total disaster.  Not only did some players reject pure randomness, but even some games did (I'll shill Amber Diceless Roleplaying here as an example).I often see people who desire more randomness and less at loggerheads about what they feel is "fun".  The arguments about monster critical hits a few months ago touched up on this, with a majority of voices seeming to feel that the game would suffer immensely if there wasn't a constant (if low level) threat of being instantly knocked down by a powerful monster's lucky hit.5e, from the very beginning, however, catered to a "less random" approach to the game.  Monsters were presented with average damage totals to speed play.  Players could opt to not roll hit dice, instead taking a set amount of hit points on level up.  Even rolling for ability scores has changed; while still the first option presented, most groups seem to have switched to point buy, and, of course, ever since the year 2000, the difference between a 16 and a 17 has become largely academic.  You no longer need certain ability scores to qualify for a class (even though you are still rewarded in other ways for higher ability scores), with the notable exception of multiclassing.Feats no longer have ability score requirements (though some armor and weapons do demand a certain amount of Strength to use, but at the same time, you can build a perfectly viable character without a high Strength just as well).A lot of debates have occurred not just on whether or not D&D should be random at all, but to what extent it should be random.  How likely should players succeed at die rolls, for example.  Many of the complaints about the game's math really come down to "it's too random" vs. "it's not random enough".So how do you feel about this?  How much randomness do you want in a game?  Do you hate it when a named, powerful NPC goes down due to a lucky crit or a flubbed save?  Do you groan with dismay if a Wild Magic Sorcerer sits down at your table?Or do you feel that the game has become too predictable, and want even more chaos, like exploding dice or more d% tables to roll on?How do you feel WotC will move the game in the future, towards one extreme or another?</blockquote>

Verification