The Importance of Randomness

[Connorsrpg]

Um, I have certainly defended using random rolls (as this is what the thread is about), but I am not sure many (if any barring 1 maybe) have said anything about our way being 'better'. Quite the opposite I thought, but many here have expressed their love of using randomness, etc. Not sure that last part was really necessary, but anyway your first point was valid - those MM2 tables are exactly what I meant too. Still use those.

 

[imurphy943]

I was playing my first game of OD&D EVER the other day, and the castle of a local lord was being attacked by a four-man team of viking mercernaries (largely the PCs' fault). We ran in there to try to stop them from killing him, and I decided to do a little looting in the confusion. I figured that the most easily found, least guarded, and most fungible loot happened to be... salt. The stuff goes for around 5 gp a pound, which to a first-level character sounds like easy money.

So I say, I run down into the kitchens and shout, "viking attack! run for your lives!", and steal the salt while everyone is running. The DM says "they probably already know", so I say, "so why would they be in the kitchen?"

He decided that the fairest way to settle it was to roll d6. I don't know what the odds were, 2-to-1, 1-to-2, even, but in that act he put the outcome of the situation entirely out of either of our hands. In that one die roll, I felt more tension than I had ever felt in combat. I almost cheered when I got away with 15 GP worth of salt.

It doesn't matter to gamist me whether the probability is accurate or not, rolling a die is simply more fun than either arguing the DM out of his decision or being shot down by him.

 

[Essenti]

... It doesn't matter to gamist me whether the probability is accurate or not, rolling a die is simply more fun than either arguing the DM out of his decision or being shot down by him.

Yes, die rolls are awesome for the very reason you mention, and this was a perfect opportunity to use of a die roll and take control out of either the DM or PC's hands!

But what I find the most interesting, mainly because it is how I DM, is that it didn't even matter what you actually rolled on the die. The DM could just decide that you were going to get the salt, but to add that feeling of uncertainty (for you the PC), the DM had you roll the die and essentially ignored the result. The tension for you as a PC is still there, but the DM can pick whether or not the die roll means anything to the story.

I am just as likely to use a die roll result as ignore it in these situations, and end up going with whatever fits the story / fun factor balance better. They never know what I am doing with the dice, if I choose to follow or when. Die rolling is still a shot in the dark for them.

Basically, I am reiterating what I've alluded to in earlier posts on this thread. Both elements of randomness and directed DM design are useful and tools, and having more tools in your box should improve your chances of being a good DM, not accounting for taste.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Now, you don't have to view a preference for random tables as an abdication of responsibility on the part of the DM. But I certainly do.

So, you're okay with anyone using a different type of gameplay than you, but you're also asking us to be okay with you feeling and stating that those types of gameplay are inferior to your way of gaming...?

Sorry, but No...just No.

And you wonder why people think you're being insulting.


Do you honestly not see the condescension and insult in your statements...?

Avoid the personal attacks, please. - PCat

 

[Dannager]

So, you're okay with anyone using a different type of gameplay than you, but you're also asking us to be okay with you feeling and stating that those types of gameplay are inferior to your way of gaming...?

I'm not really asking you anything. I'm telling you that I believe something to be the case.

Sorry, but No...just No.

I've presented well-reasoned arguments for why the preference for random tables defining gameplay (rather than simply supporting it when appropriate or convenient) is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the DM. I'm also not the only one who holds that position.

Welcome to the internet. People disagree with you. You can either respond with an argument that is similarly well-reasoned, or you can do whatever it is you're trying to do right now. I'm not really sure what that is, but it certainly looks like an attempt to discredit by personal attack.

And you wonder why people think you're being insulting.

No, actually, it doesn't surprise me at all that certain people choose to respond to a well-reasoned position by being personally insulted.

Do you honestly not see the condescension and insult in your statements...?

When I set out to insult or condescend to someone, it will be abundantly clear to everyone, rather than simply being the inflamed suspicion of those who disagree with the position I hold.

 

[Lidgar]

In before lock...

I am not a huge fan of random encounter tables for any edition - I guess I always just play things by ear and make decisions when a "random" encounter should occur. Albeit, in more sandboxy campaigns, they do have a place.

But I AM a big fan of random tables to help dungeon and encounter design. Those tables at the back of 1e DMG were priceless and still used. Hope 5e sees the return (and expansion) of them.

 

[El Mahdi]

In before lock...

I certainly hope the thread will not be locked.

This is a thread I read when it initially started, but had been giving it a pass lately as I was reading other threads. I was catching up on the conversation here when I came across the above.

I will not waste any more posts in this thread on this subject, or take things into my own hands (as I did once before). I will however, be taking this up with the Mods.

Mods: please do not lock the thread over this sidetrack. This subject (Dannager) is over for me as concerns posting about it in this thread. I think this has been a very constructive thread and conversation. One I hope that Monte and company have been able to glean useful feedback from. I'd be very disapointed if it ended because of one person.

 

[El Mahdi]

Personally, I almost never use random tables. I actually find them too limiting for me. I have quite an imagination (an overactive one if you ask my wife), that usually far exceeds what a random table can give me. But I do occasionally use them - like when my brain is just too fried to come up with something on my own, or when I need inspiration for something and I'm coming up blank. Sometimes a random theme or result can be the catalyst for some pretty cool things.

However, I absolutely do not believe that a DM that uses them is abdicating responsibility.

A DM has only one real responsibility: facilitate the game in a manner so as to be fun for all at the table, DM and Players alike.

Within that definition are an infinite number of play styles and DM'ing styles - all equally valid, important, fulfilling, and exhibiting of skill.

If a DM doesn't have the kind of improvisational skills or imagination as someone else, that does not mean they are somehow less than or not fulfilling their responsibility as DM.

I would very much like to see some random tables for basic things in the core of D&D Next. I believe it would be most appropriate in the DMG though. Some basic random table for environment description, world creation, and even action resolution/description would be great for both experienced and beginner DM's.

 

[Dannager]

A DM has only one real responsibility: facilitate the game in a manner so as to be fun for all at the table, DM and Players alike.

I'd go further than this - the DM's responsibility is simply to facilitate an enjoyable play experience for the players. Whether he makes that inherently enjoyable to himself isn't something I would consider a responsibility, and I strongly feel that the more emphasis you place on your role as entertainer (and thus become the sort of person who derives satisfaction from the enjoyment of others), the better a DM you are.

But on the whole, you're absolutely correct. The DM's responsibility is to help make the game fun. That is an umbrella, though. There are a tremendous number of things that the DM must do in order to make that happen.

Within that definition are an infinite number of play styles and DM'ing styles - all equally valid, important, fulfilling, and exhibiting of skill.

If a DM doesn't have the kind of improvisational skills or imagination as someone else, that does not mean they are somehow less than or not fulfilling their responsibility as DM.

But this isn't about improvisation. We've already acknowledged that random tables have a purpose in that they are a useful tool for DMs who find themselves in the position of having to come up with material unexpectedly. The contention is, rather, about those DMs who choose to make random encounter tables the core of their encounter generation when they don't have to. The position that I - and others in this thread - hold is that, on balance, the purposeful creation of encounters by a DM familiar with the game he is running will provide a more enjoyable play experience than the reliance on a random encounter table.

I would very much like to see some random tables for basic things in the core of D&D Next. I believe it would be most appropriate in the DMG though. Some basic random table for environment description, world creation, and even action resolution/description would be great for both experienced and beginner DM's.

What is your opinion on providing these tables as digital tools rather than including them in core rulebooks?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I feel like there's a lot of false dichotomy here. It's not like random encounter tables are a dogma of puritain doctrine that brook no inclusion of customized encounters. It's also not a necessary heirarchy, with curated encounters and random encounters being somehow necessairly superior or inferior to the other. They both have their uses that they are optimized for, and there's no reason at all DMs shouldn't use both, or curate bits of a random encounter, or randomize bits of a curated encounter.

Random encounters are fun. They include the unexpected, they induce surprise, they serve the busy, the lazy, and those with some writer's block. They can spur entire campaigns, reinforce regional differences, or just fill some time while the DM thinks of her next step. You could probably use only random encounters and be fairly happy with life (especially if your tables are curated to naturally grow and respond to each other, though that's potentially a lot of work).

That doesn't mean other things are not also fun. It's just to say that there's certainly a role for random encounters to play, and they're not in any way a lesser form of game enjoyment.

They're also not hard to stick in a book, and not hard to ignore if you're not interested.

This isn't something that one must be strict about, and it isn't something that one must stick in a ranking. Use both. Use whatever suits your fancy.

Like anything, a position of scrict "ONLY CURATED ENCOUNTERS" (a la 4e) or a strictc "ONLY RANDOM ENCOUNTERS" standpoint is going to be untenable. There's no reason the main DMing book shoulnd't provide guidelines and exmaples for doing both.