The Importance of Randomness

[JonWake]

In OD&D, there's no guarantee that things are fair. One of Gary's and Rob Kuntz's favorite stories, says Mornard, was Clark Ashton Smith's The Seven Geases, in which (spoilers ahead) the hero survives a horrible death at the hands of seven different monsters only to die meaninglessly slipping from a ledge. That was one of the seminal texts of D&D, said Mornard, and one of the stories it was designed to model. "The story that D&D tells," said Mike, "is the story of the world. Heroes aren't invincible."

Series: D&D with Mike Mornard Blog of Holding

 

[Hassassin]

Im sorry, but they don't.

Having a list of appropriate potential encounters (for the area/adventure/setting) is useful, and could make you consider things that might not have occured to you otherwise. Randomly determining which of these encounters occur however, has nothing to do with creativity.

Think of random encounters like the audience in improv theater. The creativity isn't in the "random" content that you get from audience or encounter table, but in how you roll with it and tie it into the scene or plot that's going on.

 

[Mattachine]

Series: D&D with Mike Mornard Blog of Holding

The hero in Seven Geases doesn't accidentally slip and fall off of a cliff. While fleeing a couple of terrible monsters over a giant spider web, the web breaks and the hero falls into a chasm. Also, the story is a bit of a parable about making deals with evil.


Anyway, random encounters only work for me if combat mechanics are simpler, and average fights with 4 players drop from a one hour time frame to a 15 minute time frame.

Something I liked in AD&D was that most fights didn't take long.

 

[Tortoise]

If the DM is more interested than being surprised by his own dice than by delivering a well-crafted scenario for his players and letting them do the surprising, then you're right. The situation I outlined probably isn't ideal for him.

You appear to continue implying that a DM that uses available tools in ways other than you feel they should be used is a poor DM. I find that to be a very narrow viewpoint and a rather offensive attitude to have in a discussion. It provides nothing positive to the conversation.

Now, to make this post have some value:

There are many uses for random charts, and yes, having predesigned encounters is important. I both use premade modules which I modify or steal ideas from, as well as creating my own dungeons and encounters to place in the game. That does not in any way rule out or make less enjoyable using random encounters or even a randomly created dungeon nor does it imply laziness. It still requires a very active involvement in making the world seem alive to the players and allows them all sorts of room to surprise me in turn. I and my group consider that fun. You and your group likely consider something else fun and that is equally valid.

 

[Tortoise]

Im sorry, but they don't.

Having a list of appropriate potential encounters (for the area/adventure/setting) is useful, and could make you consider things that might not have occured to you otherwise. Randomly determining which of these encounters occur however, has nothing to do with creativity.

Taking the result of a random roll and crafting the encounter around it from whole-cloth is absolutely a creative endevour.

I've already shown that with my earlier examples in this thread concerning the werewolf and halfling options and how I made it something much different than a combat encounter.

 

[Dannager]

You appear to continue implying that a DM that uses available tools in ways other than you feel they should be used is a poor DM.

Actually, I'm implying that a DM who would rather be surprised by his dice ("Oh my god, a 93! What a surprise!") than give his players the best game experience he can is a poor DM.

I find that to be a very narrow viewpoint and a rather offensive attitude to have in a discussion.

I think that there are good DMs, average DMs, and poor DMs, and every sort of DM in between. And I think certain habits and ways of thinking characterize each. If this idea is offensive to you, or if hearing it causes you distress, ask yourself why.

It provides nothing positive to the conversation.

I wrote this, verbatim, last night on another forum. It's appropriate here, though:

It's no longer cool to give advice to D&D players, especially DMs. They all know what's best for their own games better than anyone else, even when they don't, and any attempt to give general pointers that could possibly run counter to how an experienced DM already does things is sure to be met with a, "How dare you try and tell me how to run my own game!"

There are many uses for random charts, and yes, having predesigned encounters is important. I both use premade modules which I modify or steal ideas from, as well as creating my own dungeons and encounters to place in the game. That does not in any way rule out or make less enjoyable using random encounters or even a randomly created dungeon nor does it imply laziness. It still requires a very active involvement in making the world seem alive to the players and allows them all sorts of room to surprise me in turn. I and my group consider that fun. You and your group likely consider something else fun and that is equally valid.

Would your players find it less exciting if you rolled on your random encounter chart in advance, and planned out the encounter then? If so, why? They're still random, after all. If not, why not design the encounters ahead of time? And, finally, if you end up designing the encounters ahead of time anyway, why not just design the encounters you'd like to design, and simply pretend that they were random rolls?

 

[Connorsrpg]

Sorry Dannager, didn't get that point about 'advice'. Aren't you the one telling others their styles are poor or they are poor DMs for using methods you don't like. That "OMG a 93" quote is kind of offensive and demeaning. Don't for a minute think we are just lazy or stoopid b/c we like rolling the dice.

Many of us are experienced too. I have been running games for 25+ years. I still love to use MANY random tables. (Check my sig if you want some ).

I have many ideas and I 'can' design well balanced and suitable encounters. See, the main thing is I don't WANT to do this all the time. For many reasons.

1. In a sense, players in our group often feel cheated if all of the predetermined encounters were going to happen anyway.

2. Related to 1. I don't like to just follow my instincts all the time on what would make a cool series of adventures. I like the idea other things could happen. This is a really hard concept to explain, but I kind of feel like I am cheating the PCs if they only ever encounter what I want them too. Eg from game: Played in city, so I wanted some nearby buildings, so I didn't just make a few up, instead I gathered all my dnd sources on this and made some charts that allow for the rolling up of random Buildings & Businesses (yes, on our site) and THEN I rolled a few and it was fun. I do find it fun creating this way.

3. I am sick of balanced encounters that last so many rounds (and go for too long). I can see why many 4E games don't throw in more randomness.

4. Who would write up encounters with a lone snake having a go at a PC? That stuff just doesn't get enough millage any more, as it is apparently irrelevant to the main plot? I can understand it not being in written modules, but throwing many 'mini-encounters' into a game can be fun.

5. It is great fun making many Random Encounters actually add more to the central plot - ideas I would not have usually followed. I once ran a whole cross-the-country-chase this way.

6. If I were to pick the encounters I think would be cool, I feel like I am missing out on the many other ideas out there. That is why I compile them into one spot.

7. And I will stop here - I just love rolling the dice and seeing what comes up and how I can put that into the campaign. Note I often do these ahead of time but not always. Isn't that why AEG's Ultimate Toolbox was so awesome ?

I guess you could say I just like randomness for randomness sake (and that is true too ), but we have had so much fun over the years playing this way. I am finding it hard to put my finger on it, but this play style seems less relevant to the more scripted 4E style of game. Not dissing, there is just something missing for us and I can see why people that love 4E would be less favourable to random rolls. But at our table we embrace it. All players roll 4d6 and make 1 swap only. Even with point buy being an option (only time it was used was a new guy that love computer games). I certainly would like to see randomness be embraced in the next edition...maybe not to the extent I do, but I want cool tables for Dungeon Dressing, Buildings, Trees, whatever.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Above post was about randomness in general. Re Random Encounters. I LOVE using these to build a picture of what a place is like. What common places/things are found there, what creatures, fauna and flora can be present, and likely events are all parts of my charts.

Of course I could detail a few (and I do sometimes), but I always do from random encounter charts.

Maybe hard to get head around, but they way my Encounter Charts interact with my Realm Charts works wonders for my campaigns and the way my brain works. Be more than happy to post docs here, inc an eg.

 

[Li Shenron]

Randomness is, in a game like D&D, best constructed as a consensual illusion between the DM and the players - an illusion that allows the DM to maintain control of the game world and its impact on the PCs, while giving the players the believable (though often false) impression that the ultimate outcome of their participation in the illusion is not predetermined.[/B]

As a DM I am not sure I want to maintain control of the game world.

If it means to be totally in charge of the future history of the world (small scale or big scale), then I wonder why should I be running a game and not just write a story and put it in a blog.

It saddens me to think I am piloting the game to a predetermined outcome (e.g. the characters are going to save the world for the cliché earth-shattering event) and leaving them only freedom to alter the details of the story. Am I then DMing only for myself?

 

[Tortoise]

Actually, I'm implying that a DM who would rather be surprised by his dice ("Oh my god, a 93! What a surprise!") than give his players the best game experience he can is a poor DM.



I think that there are good DMs, average DMs, and poor DMs, and every sort of DM in between. And I think certain habits and ways of thinking characterize each. If this idea is offensive to you, or if hearing it causes you distress, ask yourself why.



I wrote this, verbatim, last night on another forum. It's appropriate here, though:

It's no longer cool to give advice to D&D players, especially DMs. They all know what's best for their own games better than anyone else, even when they don't, and any attempt to give general pointers that could possibly run counter to how an experienced DM already does things is sure to be met with a, "How dare you try and tell me how to run my own game!"



Would your players find it less exciting if you rolled on your random encounter chart in advance, and planned out the encounter then? If so, why? They're still random, after all. If not, why not design the encounters ahead of time? And, finally, if you end up designing the encounters ahead of time anyway, why not just design the encounters you'd like to design, and simply pretend that they were random rolls?

I and others have already pointed out we use multiple methods, shown examples of how we use them, and stated any method a group chooses is equally valid. None of this matters in the face of your serious case of One-Wayism.

You continue to ignore or twist what other posters say and insult other DMs. You also contradict yourself at times which shows you aren't in this for a good conversation, but to crap on everyone else's enjoyment of the discussion. That is called trolling.

The topic has gone so far from the original intent now that getting it back on course and making it relevant to 5e will likely be pointless.