Should we remove randomness from D&D?

[airwalkrr]

I'm on the other side of the fence. I say more randomness is a good thing for the game. One of the greatest things about 1e was that randomness was everywhere. I like the feeling that I don't know exactly what is going to happen. If I want to play a game where strategy is important and luck is not, I'll play chess. But to me, chess is only fun to play competitively for that very reason. When it comes to D&D, a game I play socially, I want the game to be weird and random and unexpected all the time. So give me randomness by the ton!

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

98% of the game-time is players making poor planning and poor decisions during the game. Stuff happens.

FWIW, at least the cruel and sadistic DM (e.g., me!) is having fun at the players' fatal error.

 

[ashockney]

Methinks this is a troll of the highest order, however...

1) After the release of Dangerous Journeys, and the introduction to the concept of Joss, I used what others would consider "action points" in an effort to minimize the impact of the dramatic story being told, with a silly, anticlimactic resolution due to one die roll.

It worked surprisingly well. It does become it's own subsystem to manage, however, over time.

2) I've instituted "average damage" rolls for a couple years in my high level gaming.

This allows for criticals and automatic failures, but reduces the impact of those criticals.

3) See the recent WoTC article about remaking high level dice rolls to be more rational.

They are doing just that. Removing a degree of randomness, to make it easier to roll, count, and calculate.

Be careful what you troll for, you just might not like what you find...

 

[Thomas Percy]

der_kluge - imho You don't understand the world "fun" or "unfun" the same as Mearls. And me.
Remove dice? Never! I love the thrill of randomness and sound of dice "the sound of unknown judgment".

 

[Gold Roger]

Great, now Henry has to smack you.

For what it's worth, what you are in fact saying, is that not randomness, but failure is unfun and should be removed.

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.

Right here, you are showing how randomness improves the game, by pointing to crits rolled by the player. These are random and very fun when they happen unexpected.

 

[delericho]

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.

I'm guessing from the tone of your post that you weren't being entirely serious. However, in answer to the question in your thread title:

Absolutely not. Randomness is an absolutely essential part of the D&D experience.

Which is not to say that the current rules are perfect - there are some areas, notably save-or-die spells (where a sucessful save often means "no effect"), which could use some work.

 

[DaveyJones]

No.

qft.

if i can't roll my dice i won't be playing D&D

 

[ShinHakkaider]

qft.

if i can't roll my dice i won't be playing D&D

QFT.

 

[Mystery Man]

And make all of the monsters nice. You know, where they look mean and nasty but it turns out they were just misunderstood and just needed love.

 

[Akrasia]

No.

Indeed.