The Importance of Randomness

[Harlekin]

A very tough random encounter is not always a problem, even if want to avoid character death. The party can flee, hide (if they win opposed perception) or negotiate (if intelligent enemy).

Whether you consider the risk worth it is something you can decide when you choose/create the table, just as when creating "normal" encounters.

This is a side point, but if the encounter can be solved by running away, hiding or negotiating and these options are reasonably obvious to the players, it's not a tough encounter, just an encounter that requires a non-combat solution.

 

[Harlekin]

This is the same for both jumps and random encounters: I can roll 1) without the players noticing, 2) so they don't see the result, or 3) openly. I tend to use the second option for most rolls.

They still know all the possible outcomes, so they can actually care.

 

[Klaus]

The Death of Randomness

If there's anything that can be said for sure about 4e, it's that random events are constrained to the combat board, and even then, the range of random events is highly reduced. A creature has an expected lifespan, an expected damage output, and an expected treasure parcel. Encounters are built to minimize the likelihood of a disaster or overwhelming victory, characters are built to withstand the vagaries of the dice, and character creation is more like engineering than hoping for a high STR roll. The general consensus with the New School D&D crowd is that this is a Good Thing.

For a certain play style of DnD, this is a good thing. Knowing what's in the box lets DM's build encounters and whole campaigns with a reasonable certainty and a minimum of chaos.

But for other styles of DnD, randomness is absolutely essential. Not just in combat, but in the whole of the world. Randomness frees the Dungeon Master to be an impartial referee. Take wandering monsters, for example. If you decide that in a dungeon there's a 20% chance of encountering a monster every 10 minutes (or hour, or day), you have set a danger level without coming off as a bad guy. Of course, it requires skill to set these danger levels at something the players feel is logical. Walking through a town shouldn't have an 80% chance of being attacked, and walking through sparsely populated woods shouldn't have the checks made every five minutes. When the DM uses random methods to propel the 'story', it frees the DM to describe the situation and watch what happens, and it frees the players from having to second-guess the DM's intentions.

The Function of Randomness in RPGs

Random events undermine metagaming. Metagaming requires treating the game world as a statistical analysis, or treating the DM's adventure as a predictable narrative. Humans can only make statistical predictions within very tight constraints, however. With multiple variables, predictions outside of the system become impossible. Instead of wondering why the DM isn't letting my amazing tracker shine, I know that within this town there's a chance that I simply won't encounter any badguys worth tracking. It stops becoming about an antagonism between the DM and the players and now the players have to deal with a new situation.

Unpredictability spurs creativity. If the DM doesn't know what is going to happen from moment to moment, plot creation involves finding links between events, strengthening some, pruning others and letting the players move through the world freely. It frees the DM to keep low investment in any one outcome, because a trick of the dice might undo all her hard work.

The two things are entirely unrelated. The ability to craft encounters in 4e has nothing to do with random encounter tables. So much so, in fact, that several 4e adventures have random encounters. But instead of running into 4d6 orcs, your PCs will run into 10 orc drudges, plus an orc shaman and an orc chieftain.

 

[Kannik]

I would be happy to have some random tables included as an aid to the DM, as long as there is accompanying text on how to use the randomness to best create an adventure.

Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. For example, the rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating — if not deadly — but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die.

peace,

Kannik

 

[Mattachine]

The two things are entirely unrelated. The ability to craft encounters in 4e has nothing to do with random encounter tables. So much so, in fact, that several 4e adventures have random encounters. But instead of running into 4d6 orcs, your PCs will run into 10 orc drudges, plus an orc shaman and an orc chieftain.

Absolutely--4e still had random encounters, but they were de-emphasized, and explicitly called out as optional.

 

[JonWake]

What is it about D&D where if you say, "I play this way", within ten minutes someone will be shouting from the mountains that I'm not doing it right?

 

[Tortoise]

Random encounter charts (and their associated tools) are encounter-creating shortcuts for DMs caught off-guard. An ideal play experience will make as little use of them as possible, and ideally the players will never know otherwise.

In whose ideal? Why must a DM be caught off-guard to justify using random encounters in their game?

Sounds like a serious case of One-Wayism going on.

There are many different play styles out there, all equally valid for the group that wants to play that way.

 

[Mattachine]

What is it about D&D where if you say, "I play this way", within ten minutes someone will be shouting from the mountains that I'm not doing it right?

I think it comes from the game being very personal to many players, and being part of our lives from a young age. Unlike many other games (such as video games and card games), D&D involves a deep level of creativity, as well as roleplay. Therefore, it hold an importance that other games do not.

When someone suggests a way to play that's against your tastes, it might seem like an affront to you personally, rather than simply differing tastes.

In any case, we are all putting forth our points on this board fervently, arguing for what should be included in the limited space of a new rulebook. We want to feel that our voices will be heard, and that our suggestions are the ones that make it in. Delusional? Well, maybe a bit, but we have an excuse to discuss and debate something near and dear.

 

[FireLance]

What is it about D&D where if you say, "I play this way", within ten minutes someone will be shouting from the mountains that I'm not doing it right?

From observation, the probability of such a response increases in direct proportion with the level of implication that the described method of play is objectively superior.

Of course, it doesn't always work out that way, but hey, randomness is fun, right?

 

[Harlekin]

What is it about D&D where if you say, "I play this way", within ten minutes someone will be shouting from the mountains that I'm not doing it right?

Who exactly was doing that? At worst you were told that some of your underlying analysis was not correct, that's not the same as saying you are doing it wrong. I would actually say, everybody in the thread agreed that randomness can be beneficial to the DM, if he is experienced enough to know how to handle it.