Should we remove randomness from D&D?

[der_kluge]

Reading all these Mearls' threads and others regarding changes to the game about removing "unfun" elements, I can't help but think about all the situations in the game that I would consider "unfun".

One of the biggest is bad dice rolls. I mean, how many have been sorely disappointed to roll a big 20 on a crit, and then roll a 1 for damage? That's no fun. Or even just rolling a 1 to hit.

I say, we get rid of the randomness. Get rid of the dice. All player's actions succeed at the maximum possible value every time.

Players are then perfectly happy. No more unfun!! Yea!!

 

[MojoGM]

Maybe we should all switch over to the AMBER game.

I don't think that's what people are saying (well not ALL people). But there ARE some elements of the game that can be "unfun" when trying to run, and those should be looked at and possibly tweaked.

Maybe 3E/3.5 has too many rules? I don't know. I wouldn't switch to another system at this point, but sometimes I think back to the days playing from the red-box basic set and feel that the game has gotten needlessly complicated since then.

Maybe I'm just looking at the past with nostalgia-clouded eyes.

I just don't know.

 

[Ranger REG]

Players are then perfectly happy. No more unfun!! Yea!!

For a little while, but then the game becomes predictable. Almost routine.

The random of the di(c)e roll allow us to take the risk, gamble, especially when the odds are against us. It's that in all of the games, be it boardgames, TCGs, even videogames. It's even there in Deal or No Deal. Trying to see what the future hold rather than knowing it beforehand is the thrilling part.

 

[Remathilis]

Hyberole is not yet a dead art...

Ok, I'll go out on a limb and defend Mearls and some of D&D's basic design ideas.

Randomness is fun...

* Determining success or failure of a particular action (skills, attacks, etc) and the degree of success involved (critical, saves)
* Determining the variables of a particular action (damage rolls).
* Determining probability of an encounter (random encounters), and their type, nature and monetary reward for overcoming.

Randomness is rarely ever fun...

* Determining character survival based solely on rolling well on one (and only one) die roll (save or die).
* Determining character survival solely on how well others roll (vitality points)
* Determining starting attributes, wealth, and life total (ability scores, starting gold, hp).
* Determining important character creation information (race, class, gender, alignment)
* Probability of surviving, let alone overcoming, a given situation.
* When it turns a perfectly good time into a poor time.

Or in other words

Randomness is fun when there are other mitigating factors that can offset poor luck. This means things like resurrection and restoration magic, or action points, or lesser penalties than dying. If the Pcs feel that they can overcome a challenge by doing something more than just rolling exceptionally well, the game is fun. If not, its a grisly game of Russian roulette which the PCs will eventually lose.

 

[Ranger REG]

Or in other words

Randomness is fun when there are other mitigating factors that can offset poor luck. This means things like resurrection and restoration magic, or action points, or lesser penalties than dying. If the Pcs feel that they can overcome a challenge by doing something more than just rolling exceptionally well, the game is fun. If not, its a grisly game of Russian roulette which the PCs will eventually lose.

The consolation prize or "roll again" factor?

 

[Psion]

No.

 

[Ry]

The consolation prize or "roll again" factor?

No, I think he's referring to good planning, a well-built character, and skill shown by the players in handling the situation the GM presents. If those factors (which can include judicious use of action points, just as easily as judicious use of spell slots or hit points) can overcome randomness, then the game is fun. But if good planning, a well-built character, and skill shown by the players all come to nothing because of one save-or-die roll, it's not fun.

 

[Glyfair]

But if good planning, a well-built character, and skill shown by the players all come to nothing because of one save-or-die roll, it's not fun.

Yes, the flip side of this is a game where you show up and flip a coin. If it's heads you win, tails you lose. Then the players and DM come up with the story in play (or visa versa).

Randomness can be fun, it can be unfun. I think the unfun elements (which include things like most save-or-die effects, IMO) should be removed or mitigated and the fun elements should be kept.

 

[mhensley]

That's why some people use action points in their games - to minimize the bad rolls at important times.

 

[RFisher]

My goal as a player is to reduce the affect of randomness on my character's fate. Like many games, a part of D&D is playing the odds.

Even if you superglued the dice to the table with the 20 sides up, this doesn't guarantee success at everything you do. You could have a fun game that way. It might be better, though, if you used something less than 20 for the static result. & a game based mostly on a 1d20 roll probably wouldn't work as well this way as a game designed around--e.g.--a 2d6 roll.

I may have to actually try this. Although I think I want to try Wushu first.