PDA

View Full Version : How much Random?



ComatosePhoenix
2013-12-11, 04:08 PM
All right, this is one issue that has been bugging me for some time. Whenever I play a roleplaying game I tend to gamble a bit, go for broke roll the dice and throw caution to the wind. The price of Epic is steep. Of course some people dislike the idea that their BBEG ends up getting shanked by the wizard.

But on to my question, how much random do you like in your games? do you/ your DM plan every encounter from the beginning or does he roll some dice or use cards to figure out what exactly is behind door number 1. Do you roll for stats or do you use the point system. Do you like the idea that the future is a mystery to everyone or do you hate it when people "make it up as they go along"

personally I like random.

Airk
2013-12-11, 04:22 PM
All right, this is one issue that has been bugging me for some time. Whenever I play a roleplaying game I tend to gamble a bit, go for broke roll the dice and throw caution to the wind. The price of Epic is steep. Of course some people dislike the idea that their BBEG ends up getting shanked by the wizard.

But on to my question, how much random do you like in your games? do you/ your DM plan every encounter from the beginning or does he roll some dice or use cards to figure out what exactly is behind door number 1. Do you roll for stats or do you use the point system. Do you like the idea that the future is a mystery to everyone or do you hate it when people "make it up as they go along"

personally I like random.

There's random and then there's Random.

Random results are fine.
Random actions are not.

A good game is non-random actions with randomized chances for success driving a somewhat improvised story forward. (Somewhat improvised, because it's virtually impossible to have a story in a vacuum, so SOME amount of pre-creation needs to happen, even if it's just the setting.)

nedz
2013-12-11, 04:32 PM
How can you tell if your DM is actually doing Random instead of Arbitrary ?
He rolls the dice, consults a secret table, and then tells/shows you the result ?

FabulousFizban
2013-12-11, 05:51 PM
whenever i DM i come up with a general idea of what i want to do and then when fleshing out is necessary during play i just reach up my ass and see what i can pull out.

I know my players are going to derail whatever i design with debauchery anyway, so i play pretty loose and fast with things. The exception are dungeons; if i take the time to map out a dungeon, they are going in that dungeon, although i'll reskin them as the situation necessitates. The undead crypt may now be filled with oozes or warehouse guards depending on where the PCs choose to go.

FabulousFizban
2013-12-11, 05:57 PM
most of my rolls i make secretly so i can fudge them for or against the players as the situation dictates. However, in very critical moments or moments where something could go either way, i roll in front of them and let the dice fall as they will, just to add to the tension and encourage a sense of fate.

In the latter case, I'll have the player call out high or low for their action, then roll openly in front of everyone with my precision die. They wanted to tempt fate, let them live with the consequences.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-12-11, 05:57 PM
Generally, I support randomness as a springboard for furthering the story. It should always be a prompt for something further. A GM shouldn't just roll on a random table and call it good; they should use the random result, explain it, and give it a context within the world. If a random table gives you roaming bugbears, then having a reason for those bugbears to show up is an unpredictable but welcome addition to the world and the players' story.

Randomness needs non-random interpretation and follow-up to be worthwhile.

Averis Vol
2013-12-11, 06:14 PM
All right, this is one issue that has been bugging me for some time. Whenever I play a roleplaying game I tend to gamble a bit, go for broke roll the dice and throw caution to the wind. The price of Epic is steep. Of course some people dislike the idea that their BBEG ends up getting shanked by the wizard.

But on to my question, how much random do you like in your games? do you/ your DM plan every encounter from the beginning or does he roll some dice or use cards to figure out what exactly is behind door number 1. Do you roll for stats or do you use the point system. Do you like the idea that the future is a mystery to everyone or do you hate it when people "make it up as they go along"

personally I like random.

All of it.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-11, 08:53 PM
Enough randomness that one is never 100% sure of how things will turn out. I like diepool mechanics like in Shadowrun and WoD, because they ensure that there's always a chance of an upset, however small. Also, the bell-curve distribution allows fumbles to exist without disrupting my suspension of disbelief.

The world should be consistent and sensible enough to maintain my suspension of disbelief.

Tengu_temp
2013-12-11, 10:23 PM
Random should be the domain of conflict resolution only - and even there, I like systems that ensure some basic level of competence based on your skills. When playing M&M, lately I prefer to roll 2d10 rather than 1d20 (and improve the default crit chance from 20 to 18-20 to compensate for the odds), just because a bell curve offers better distribution.

Other than that? Absolutely no random. Rolling for stats can die in a fire, all it ensures it that some characters are shafted before the game even starts. Random loot breaks suspension of disbelief and tends to shaft the party by giving items nobody wants (and I tend to play games where loot is purely narrative anyway). Random encounters also often make no sense, and I play story-heavy games, so a fight with random monsters that doesn't advance the story in any way is completely pointless.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-12, 12:04 AM
Other than that? Absolutely no random. Rolling for stats can die in a fire, all it ensures it that some characters are shafted before the game even starts. Random loot breaks suspension of disbelief and tends to shaft the party by giving items nobody wants (and I tend to play games where loot is purely narrative anyway). Random encounters also often make no sense, and I play story-heavy games, so a fight with random monsters that doesn't advance the story in any way is completely pointless.

Random encounters might be useful to illustrate a point about an area, like there being a highwayman problem, hostile monsters running amok, the area being prosperous and relatively safe (in comparison to areas which use a more dangerous encounter table), or to notice refugees fleeing an area. Otherwise I agree.

Although it becomes more clear with the use of reaction rolls, encounters don't need to be fights; one might encounter a checkpoint asking for a toll, or a bear which can be circumnavigated or distracted at the cost of time or resources, or the party might run into a group of friendly elves who give assistance or useful advice like directions.

Random loot should be pre-rolled if used at all, to make sure that the goblins weren't sitting on a necklace of fireballs which could have turned the fight around, had they used it. As long as the resulting loot is appropriate for the situation, I don't see a reason why not.

Rhynn
2013-12-12, 12:19 AM
Still trying to get my players to go along with 3d6-in-order (it'd be the best way to get one dude to stop making the same race & class over and over, and another dude spending hours creating a character for a game where it should take 10 minutes!), but other than that, all of it. Stats, random encounters, wandering monsters, morale rolls, reaction rolls, rolls to trigger traps, and so on. The less things are determined randomly, the less interesting the story is for me as a GM.

Obviously, like CarpeGuitarrem says, things have to be given context. The dice suggest: you roll up a group of goblins and they have a friendly reaction... that could mean a whole lot of things. Are they openly friendly, or just open to negotiation? Are they looking for allies against other dungeon denizens? Are they lost and looking for help? Are they open to be hired as mercenaries/henchmen?

Edit: Random tables (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.fi/2013/02/random-thorism-in-this-hex.html) are the best (http://planetalgol.blogspot.fi/2010/02/compiled-100-random-adventure-plots.html). For real (http://planetalgol.blogspot.fi/2010/02/100-npcs-table.html).

Thrudd
2013-12-12, 01:21 AM
Still trying to get my players to go along with 3d6-in-order (it'd be the best way to get one dude to stop making the same race & class over and over, and another dude spending hours creating a character for a game where it should take 10 minutes!), but other than that, all of it. Stats, random encounters, wandering monsters, morale rolls, reaction rolls, rolls to trigger traps, and so on. The less things are determined randomly, the less interesting the story is for me as a GM.

Obviously, like CarpeGuitarrem says, things have to be given context. The dice suggest: you roll up a group of goblins and they have a friendly reaction... that could mean a whole lot of things. Are they openly friendly, or just open to negotiation? Are they looking for allies against other dungeon denizens? Are they lost and looking for help? Are they open to be hired as mercenaries/henchmen?

Edit: Random tables (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.fi/2013/02/random-thorism-in-this-hex.html) are the best (http://planetalgol.blogspot.fi/2010/02/compiled-100-random-adventure-plots.html). For real (http://planetalgol.blogspot.fi/2010/02/100-npcs-table.html).

I'm with you. Random tables are the DM's friend. The fewer results that are subjectively decided by the DM, the better for everyone. The only caveat I would give is that the random tables shouldn't be completely random...meaning different tables with appropriate entries should be selected depending on the situation and environment. I want my game world to be coherent and internally consistent, the random tables and dice rolls represent the world's own life, which is unpredictable. Knowing that they are interacting with a simulation of a fantasy world where each creature and person may react in unpredictable ways and anything may be around the next corner gives the game more a sense of excitement for the players, and for the DM. I set the wheels in motion, code the game world, and interpret the outcome of the dice rather than creating narratives. I prefer the narrative that emerges naturally from the players interaction with the simulation over time.

I always insist on random stat generation. Except for a few pre-planned artifacts or item-recovery quests, treasure is random. This makes sense in the settings I use, as the purpose of adventurers is delving into the ruins of lost civilizations to recover forgotten magic and wealth. Finding a useful magic item or an awesome new spell is a big deal, not something to take for granted. Morale and social reactions are random. Random wandering monsters are an important part of making the wilderness and dungeons dangerous, of course selected from a table appropriate for the environment. Sometimes random lairs and small dungeons when something is needed off the cuff. Weather is random. Of course the outcome of combat, saving throws, ability checks, any non-trivial action of the characters will have a randomized element.

Agrippa
2013-12-12, 02:05 AM
Tengu_temp: What makes you think that "encounter" automatically means battle? Just because the DM rolled a troll on the wilderness encounter table dosen't that troll is going to fight you or even hostile. The PCs might spot him fishing in a lake, and the troll might even invite them over for a while. The encounter rolls might be random but the DM is free to decide their monster's actions.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-12, 02:34 AM
Tengu_temp: What makes you think that "encounter" automatically means battle? Just because the DM rolled a troll on the wilderness encounter table dosen't that troll is going to fight you or even hostile. The PCs might spot him fishing in a lake, and the troll might even invite them over for a while. The encounter rolls might be random but the DM is free to decide their monster's actions.

That is how almost everyone plays it, though.

erikun
2013-12-12, 02:44 AM
Random is fine, assuming that the results make sense and don't get in the way of me playing the game. I am actually a person that things that RPGs are too random most of the time. If I am rolling dice for hitting stuff with swords and dealing damage, the situation already feels a bit silly and so rolling dice for other stuff doesn't seem that strange.

Randomly generated stats get in the way, as unless we're playing a one-shot, I probably don't have an idea for a high-CON, high-CHA, low-DEX character that I'll use for the next eight months. You'll end up meeting Generic McGeneric, silent protagonist as I just spend the game optimizing the best way to deal with encounters.

Random encounters can work, assuming we're talking about things that are encountered in an open setting (that is, not in a dungeon) and that by "encounter" we mean "an encounter with something interesting" rather than "combat".

Rhynn
2013-12-12, 02:46 AM
The only caveat I would give is that the random tables shouldn't be completely random...meaning different tables with appropriate entries should be selected depending on the situation and environment.

Absolutely. A good random encounter table (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.fi/2011/08/cobalt-reach.html) tells you everything about the style and content of a region, for instance. (I found that again by googling "lobotomized troll"... :smallbiggrin: )

I make separate and very specific encounter tables for different regions and different dungeons.


Tengu_temp: What makes you think that "encounter" automatically means battle? Just because the DM rolled a troll on the wilderness encounter table dosen't that troll is going to fight you or even hostile. The PCs might spot him fishing in a lake, and the troll might even invite them over for a while. The encounter rolls might be random but the DM is free to decide their monster's actions.

This is an aspect of old-school play lost on many players of modern players, especially of 3E and 4E D&D. Up to and including AD&D 2E, the DMG included rules for Reaction Rolls, although by the 2E era their use had diminished (and most 2E adventures ignore their existence: you're told whether a given encounter is combat or not).

In late 2E era and onwards, "encounter" came to mean "combat" by default.

I've been running ACKS, and reaction rolls and morale rolls make for an entirely different sort of game. Sure, time management is important because wandering monsters create time pressure (if you spend an hour searching a room, you're 71% likely to have at least one random encounter), but wandering monsters don't automatically attack you. It creates all sorts of tactical decisions, too: do we attack first, or hope they're not hostile? Do we take advantage of having achieved surprise, or pass up on it and hope the creatures won't attack? Can we actually beat them in a fight, and if not, should we run or negotiate? And so on...

Rakaydos
2013-12-12, 02:53 AM
The Edge of Empire star wars system is built around adding a second axis of randomness to every dice roll. You have success and failure... and you also have advantage and disadvantage, a mechanical prompt for the Law of Unintended Consequences. (Prompt, because it's generated on the fly by DMs and players, not simply a mechanic that's coded and defined.)

For instance, Luke and the Princess are being chased by stormtroopers. Luke tries to close a door and lock it. He rolls a minor success and a LOT of disadavantage. So the door is shut and cant be opened, since he blasted the controls... including the Bridge controls. Which is a new problem that has to be solved by an athletics check.

Rhynn
2013-12-12, 02:58 AM
Great idea for random encounter tables from Playing D&D With Porn Stars: add "because ____" to the end of every random encounter/wandering monster result, and fill that out when you roll it.

Knaight
2013-12-12, 03:27 AM
All right, this is one issue that has been bugging me for some time. Whenever I play a roleplaying game I tend to gamble a bit, go for broke roll the dice and throw caution to the wind. The price of Epic is steep. Of course some people dislike the idea that their BBEG ends up getting shanked by the wizard.

But on to my question, how much random do you like in your games? do you/ your DM plan every encounter from the beginning or does he roll some dice or use cards to figure out what exactly is behind door number 1. Do you roll for stats or do you use the point system. Do you like the idea that the future is a mystery to everyone or do you hate it when people "make it up as they go along"

As regards conflict resolution, I generally favor a small amount of randomness that ensures that things that should be able to happen can happen, but at the same time ensures that things that should normally happen do normally happen. The d20 resolution system, for example, is usually too swingy for me. I favor entirely deterministic character creation.

That said, your definition of randomness appears to include improvisation, and that I do favor. A first session plan might involve a quick relationship map I wrote up in fifteen minutes, along with an event to kick things into motion. From there, it's all improvisation and largely player guided play. Subsequent planning pretty much involves noting characters/factions I add, noting changes to characters/factions, noting changes to relationships between characters/factions, and the occasional addition of a new character or faction that I suspect will come up soon. I have no idea what every encounter will be from the beginning, and am entirely down with everyone making things up as they go along. For that matter, I'm entirely willing to do a first session with partially made characters that are filled in as the game goes.

Tengu_temp
2013-12-12, 04:14 AM
Tengu_temp: What makes you think that "encounter" automatically means battle? Just because the DM rolled a troll on the wilderness encounter table dosen't that troll is going to fight you or even hostile. The PCs might spot him fishing in a lake, and the troll might even invite them over for a while. The encounter rolls might be random but the DM is free to decide their monster's actions.

It's almost always a fight, though. And even when it's not, what will a random meeting with a friendly troll add to the game? If the DM doesn't have a good idea for an encounter with a troll, then the random encounter will be boring, and if he does, he can just put the creature there anyway. And then it's up to the players to react to it however they want.


Random tables are the DM's friend. The fewer results that are subjectively decided by the DM, the better for everyone.

This is true only if your play the game as either a randomly-generated roguelike dungeon crawl, or an extremely simulationist open world. And a good DM can simulate the latter without randomness anyway, the players won't be able to spot the difference.

I played, and ran, a few awesome sessions when the dice weren't rolled even a single time. Everything was subjectively decided by either the DM or the players, and everyone had great fun.

hymer
2013-12-12, 05:06 AM
In character creation, I prefer zero randomness. For those who get their creative juices flowing by random rolls, they're free to do so - roll those dice and be inspired in how to apply those points. Just don't force me to build my character around randomness.

In conflict resolution, i favour some randomness, but not randomness for its own sake. It should preferably help verisimilitude, and not work against it.

In PC behaviour, I prefer little actual randomness. The impossible is preferable to the improbable in story-telling. But I don't mind some apparently inexplicable behaviour, which turns out to make sense.

In DM behaviour, I have little tolerance for randomness. Closely controlled random encounter tables are fine, and discriminating use of random treasure tables too. But a pre-planned encounter (which can then be rewritten improv style) yields better results than a completely improvised one, in my opinion.

Thrudd
2013-12-12, 06:30 AM
It's almost always a fight, though. And even when it's not, what will a random meeting with a friendly troll add to the game? If the DM doesn't have a good idea for an encounter with a troll, then the random encounter will be boring, and if he does, he can just put the creature there anyway. And then it's up to the players to react to it however they want.



This is true only if your play the game as either a randomly-generated roguelike dungeon crawl, or an extremely simulationist open world. And a good DM can simulate the latter without randomness anyway, the players won't be able to spot the difference.

I played, and ran, a few awesome sessions when the dice weren't rolled even a single time. Everything was subjectively decided by either the DM or the players, and everyone had great fun.

The players may not spot the difference, but I will. It won't be as fun for me. A simulationist open world is exactly what I'm talking about, that's my goal. An actual simulation, not just a dramatic story that takes place in a fantasy setting. I know not many people play this way anymore, but D&D is made for it. What else do you think all those tables were for in 1e AD&D? I agree, it can be lots of fun to play fantasy improv theater with a carefully crafted adventure story and detailed characters. However, if no dice are rolled, I feel like this can barely be called D&D. Yes, I have played this way before and at one time was into this, in the 90's when White Wolf storyteller games came onto the scene. Now I am feeling like a simulation sandbox is more fun, creating a higher expression of the type of game I started out with, basic and 1e AD&D. This means lots of randomness. What does an encounter with a friendly fishing troll add to the game? It adds a sense that the world is alive, it has a life outside of the players and they are discovering it. Not every event needs to have a narrative purpose. Sometimes it rains, not because it's dramatic but just because weather happens. There is a troll there because trolls live in this country and there's a chance to run into them. Maybe it will be a memorable encounter, maybe it will turn into nothing and be forgotten, that's up to the players. As the referee, I adjudicate how the world and its denizens interact with the players' characters by interpreting the dice results. I don't decide whether a certain path or encounter will be good or bad for them or plan everything to revolve around a story. When a random troll appears and turns out to be friendly, it is surprising and fun for me, the DM, as well as the players. Trying to guide players to make the right choices in order to follow a prepared adventure path is not fun for me.

Rhynn
2013-12-12, 07:39 AM
The players may not spot the difference, but I will. It won't be as fun for me. A simulationist open world is exactly what I'm talking about, that's my goal. An actual simulation, not just a dramatic story that takes place in a fantasy setting.

Same here. I have more fun and do less work if I just create a setting and rely on randomness to help create the in-play content.


What does an encounter with a friendly fishing troll add to the game?

Most of all, for me, it - and every other encounter or situation - adds whatever the players do with it. I can't know, but the more different and odd situations I throw at the players, the more novel and fun scenes and stories we get!

In the 3E / 4E model, every encounter is meaningless in itself; there's no permanent results, nothing. In an old-school model, every encounter is risky, resources are not easily recovered (at least until the party returns to their base, which means the dungeon is going to change on them and the information they've gathered won't be as useful). My players are already choosing options other than combat, constantly thinking tactics, making decision, plans, and choices... which are, to me, the entire point of a role-playing game. (None of us are into improv tabletop acting or raconteuring.)


Maybe it will be a memorable encounter, maybe it will turn into nothing and be forgotten, that's up to the players.

Yes yes yes! As GM, I just adjudicate rules and throw things at the players. I try to give interesting consequences for anything they do. But it's ultimately up to the players to make it all into something interesting and memorable; I can't do that on my own.


Obviously, to run a game with heavy use of random tables, you have to be creative and able to think on your feet: you need to be able to figure out why this troll is friendly and what it's doing here; you need to be able to give answers to questions you never anticipated; and you need to spin whatever the players decide to do into something interesting. I suppose it requires more ability than more linear or pre-planned play, but I find it requires far less work: I don't think I could go back to writing things as "encounters" or "plots" with "scenes"... I'm content to create locations, characters, and a general idea of what goes on until or unless the PCs get involved.

Zombimode
2013-12-12, 07:51 AM
It's almost always a fight, though. And even when it's not, what will a random meeting with a friendly troll add to the game? If the DM doesn't have a good idea for an encounter with a troll, then the random encounter will be boring, and if he does, he can just put the creature there anyway. And then it's up to the players to react to it however they want.

A random meeting with some creature can add texture to a setting and/or a plot. It can create the sense for the world at large. If you only construct everything in light of the plot, the world can start to feel to move solely around this plot. Random encounters can help to create the feeling that there are things in the world not connected to you or what you're currently doing. In short it is a tool to create a believable world.

Do note, however, that the type of encounter we talk about here don't actually have to be randomly determined.

valadil
2013-12-12, 08:59 AM
/roll 1d20
*Natural 1*
I like NO random.

Joe the Rat
2013-12-12, 09:41 AM
In character creation, I prefer zero randomness. For those who get their creative juices flowing by random rolls, they're free to do so - roll those dice and be inspired in how to apply those points. Just don't force me to build my character around randomness.

See, I absolutely love rolling 'em up. You can get some wacky and interesting (if not necessarily optimal) characters. Sometimes taking a pile of stats and figuring out what that person would be or do is a delightful exercise. Random powers tables in supers games and Gamma World / mutant games ups the ante by quite a bit.

That said, this is something I enjoy - I'm not going to force someone into playing a completely arbitrary character. The idea of rolling random to assign build is an inspired thought - something I may try out in the future.

Airk
2013-12-12, 12:49 PM
See, I absolutely love rolling 'em up. You can get some wacky and interesting (if not necessarily optimal) characters. Sometimes taking a pile of stats and figuring out what that person would be or do is a delightful exercise.

The downside of this is that inevitably you get characters that basically aren't suited for anything except an early death. At some point, you have to throw in the towel of "No no, 100% randomness! all the time!"

Humorously, I am exactly the OPPOSITE of the prevailing sentiment in this thread that games are "better" when the GM is just a random table reader. I think that the more directed input EVERYONE has into the game, the better it is. Rather than this recent trend that says "If the GM so much as DARES to suggest that a player can't do what he wants, the GM is railroading and a terrible person!" (Which is basically what people who are afraid of the GM actually making decisions seem to be saying, to me) I find that in fact, everyone around the table should strive to add as much as possible to the fiction. And that includes the GM. He's a player too.

Of course, this is not a simulationist mindset. I long ago got bored of striving for anything that approaches a realistic simulation because at the end of the day, they never got within touching distance of one.

Rhynn
2013-12-12, 12:51 PM
Humorously, I am exactly the OPPOSITE of the prevailing sentiment in this thread that games are "better" when the GM is just a random table reader.

How is that the prevailing sentiment? No one's expressed that sentiment at all? Or did I miss someone expressing it?

Oh, wait, was that a straw man? Daaaaaaaaang.

Airk
2013-12-12, 01:08 PM
How is that the prevailing sentiment? No one's expressed that sentiment at all? Or did I miss someone expressing it?

Oh, wait, was that a straw man? Daaaaaaaaang.

Or maybe it's what Thrudd said and people agreed with:


The fewer results that are subjectively decided by the DM, the better for everyone.

Rhynn
2013-12-12, 01:16 PM
Or maybe it's what Thrudd said and people agreed with:

Let's look at that again!


I'm with you. Random tables are the DM's friend. The fewer results that are subjectively decided by the DM, the better for everyone. The only caveat I would give is that the random tables shouldn't be completely random...meaning different tables with appropriate entries should be selected depending on the situation and environment. I want my game world to be coherent and internally consistent, the random tables and dice rolls represent the world's own life, which is unpredictable. Knowing that they are interacting with a simulation of a fantasy world where each creature and person may react in unpredictable ways and anything may be around the next corner gives the game more a sense of excitement for the players, and for the DM. I set the wheels in motion, code the game world, and interpret the outcome of the dice rather than creating narratives. I prefer the narrative that emerges naturally from the players interaction with the simulation over time.

Does that match up to this?


Humorously, I am exactly the OPPOSITE of the prevailing sentiment in this thread that games are "better" when the GM is just a random table reader.

Addressing someone's actual argument usually produces better discussion than misrepresenting it or simplifying it to turn it into a strawman, or addressing one out-of-context sentence, ignoring all the words that explain or elaborate on that sentence.

Edit: Also, I guess my agreeing with Thrudd was the "prevailing sentiment" ? When I wrote, e.g.


Great idea for random encounter tables from Playing D&D With Porn Stars: add "because ____" to the end of every random encounter/wandering monster result, and fill that out when you roll it.

Tengu_temp
2013-12-12, 05:05 PM
I agree, it can be lots of fun to play fantasy improv theater with a carefully crafted adventure story and detailed characters. However, if no dice are rolled, I feel like this can barely be called D&D. Yes, I have played this way before and at one time was into this, in the 90's when White Wolf storyteller games came onto the scene. Now I am feeling like a simulation sandbox is more fun, creating a higher expression of the type of game I started out with, basic and 1e AD&D.

Funny, I am exactly the opposite - started with more random, more simulationist games, got bored of them, moved to stronger focus on the story, have way more fun this way. And I don't play DND, or World of Darkness. Both games are pretty bad if you ask me.

Rhynn
2013-12-12, 05:38 PM
Funny, I am exactly the opposite - started with more random, more simulationist games, got bored of them, moved to stronger focus on the story, have way more fun this way. And I don't play DND, or World of Darkness. Both games are pretty bad if you ask me.

:smallcool: You'll come back. Or not!

Over and over in the OSR community, I read about people starting e.g. with old-school D&D, "growing out of it" (frequently in the 90s, and often into White Wolf), and then finding it again (usually in the 2000s). That's pretty much what happened to me, if somewhat more quickly (I didn't get to play in the 80s, but I did start with red-box D&D and then AD&D 2E). Natch, many people played totally different systems, or only changed play focus/style, not systems.

Of course, a lot of people just straight up get into an entirely different class of game than either of these.

Thrudd
2013-12-12, 07:32 PM
The downside of this is that inevitably you get characters that basically aren't suited for anything except an early death. At some point, you have to throw in the towel of "No no, 100% randomness! all the time!"

Humorously, I am exactly the OPPOSITE of the prevailing sentiment in this thread that games are "better" when the GM is just a random table reader. I think that the more directed input EVERYONE has into the game, the better it is. Rather than this recent trend that says "If the GM so much as DARES to suggest that a player can't do what he wants, the GM is railroading and a terrible person!" (Which is basically what people who are afraid of the GM actually making decisions seem to be saying, to me) I find that in fact, everyone around the table should strive to add as much as possible to the fiction. And that includes the GM. He's a player too.

Of course, this is not a simulationist mindset. I long ago got bored of striving for anything that approaches a realistic simulation because at the end of the day, they never got within touching distance of one.

Actually, I think the sentiment on the thread is split about 50/50. And that's fine. I felt like bringing up my philosophy because I think there are a lot of people nowadays who have never been exposed to this sort gaming, don't know what a good 1ed or old D&D game would be like.
It is true, rolling your abilities sometimes ends up with a character that is hard to play. Usually a DM will let you roll another set of stats, if they are that bad. There have always been multiple methods of character generation with varying degrees of leniency, the DM would select depending on the campaign. However, for me and people who like this kind of game, occasionally getting a character with low scores is a fun challenge. Since ability scores don't impact everything as directly as they do in 3e and later, it isn't so terrible, it just restricts your class choices. Also, the idea that you are building a character that you will be using for the next year all the way to level 20 is not a healthy expectation for old stlye D&D. You hope the character will live to a ripe old level and do your best to get them there, but there's no reason to expect it, no matter what your ability scores are. The fun, both for players and the DM, is in the journey. It's more fun as a game, IMO, when you don't know whether you will succeed or not.

PS - Also, in a game like this, the DM has to be much more than a random table reader. A good game will have a detailed and carefully crafted setting that the DM has spent much effort in creating, crafting the geography and climate, cultures and religions, populating towns and lairs and having multiple dungeons full of tricks and traps ready for players to explore. The DM needs to select at any given time what possibilities are in store, set in motion the motives and behavior of rulers, armies, monsters, and NPCs who might be rivals or villains.

InQbait
2013-12-12, 08:35 PM
It's about finding the happy medium, I think.
Too much randomness is bad, too little randomness feels straitjacketed and the GM has too much control. Stressful for the GM to have no randomness, and boring for the players.
Randomness can help a GM make some tough decisions, I've found.
LET THE DICE DECIDE! HUZZAH!

Frenth Alunril
2013-12-12, 10:31 PM
I'm fully in random camp! Fully, randomly, beautifully!

I would like a crazy random dungeon that makes 0 sense, but, it's illogical, and hard to comprehend.

I would really like to flesh out some hack master tables and really just run a nutty game of broken adventures.

Tengu_temp
2013-12-12, 11:45 PM
:smallcool: You'll come back. Or not!


I'm pretty sure I won't. I am happy in my niche and have a lot of fun in it, while both oldschool super-random dungeon crawling and pretentious artsy angst about vampires would drive me to tears from boredom. The difference between modern story-driven RPGs (my preferred way of playing) and narrativism the way White Wolf understands it is almost as big as between any of those and story-less dungeon crawling. Also, the DND in the eighties -> WoD in the nineties -> DND again in the 2000s progression you described is almost entirely an American thing, in Europe DND wasn't anywhere near as popular until very recently, and the RPG market tends to be much more varied, instead of 70% DND, 25% WoD, and 5% other.

Rhynn
2013-12-13, 01:23 AM
Also, the DND in the eighties -> WoD in the nineties -> DND again in the 2000s progression

Sure, like I said, some people never changed games. I didn't actually change games from D&D (and RuneQuest), I just changed how I played/ran games.

D&D was one of like 3 fantasy RPGs that were ever localized for Finland, though: BECM, MERP/Rolemaster, and RuneQuest. (There were also 2300 AD, Cyberpunk 2020, Twilight 2000, and I think Shadowrun 1st edition.) Finnish attempts never made it much anywhere: Elhendi is the only one I can even think of from back in the day; Praedor and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. are much more recent (2000s). It's amazing that an indie effort like Elhendi could be so overprinted that 20 years later by FLGS still has multiple copies of its only printing for sale...

Lorsa
2013-12-13, 07:07 AM
I like a random amount of random...

Jokes aside, I have some trouble with too much randomness in character creation. It helps if I go into it knowing that I can't actually have an idea of what I want to play until it's finished, but that causes some issues with ending up with characters I don't really know what to do with. Sometimes it can be really fun but other times it gets more annoying. Perhaps the issue is that some of the random character generation games I've tried just aren't written very well overall.

As a GM, I don't usually roll on random encounter tables anymore. Sometimes I do, but most of the time I come up with a few ideas (either by myself or consulting tables) of things that the players could encounter "randomly" and then choose one depending on the mood of the players. If they look as if they just want a nice simple fight there'll be some hostile encounter, if they seem to prefer to wind down with some social interaction, there'll be that and if they want something that could turn out either way / be mysterious... well you get the picture. Choosing encounters based on what will enhance my players fun and give them a better experience seems a decent choice for me.

I do use randomness to determine outcome of some story events that the players are not directly involved in. I am currently running a World of Darkness game where the players are college girls (the college part was my choice and the girl part theirs) that got introduced to the supernatural dangers of the world and decided to do something about it. They did ally themselves a bit with a couple of Werewolves and used them to drive out the college Vampires while the players were hiding safely in a cabin in the woods. So I tried to figure out approximately how strong the various sides where and decided on percentages of either side winning and rolled a die to determine the results. It felt much better to resolve it that way than simply deciding.

Overall, if my players would prefer more random / truly random encounters, I would go with that. I'm the type of GM that tries as much as possible to adapt depending on which kind of players I have. Doing things in a new way is just another challenge for me.

InQbait
2013-12-13, 07:31 AM
Randomness in Character Creation is annoying, I agree. Sure, it's okay every once in a while. If you're GMing and having your players roll their stats instead of spending points or whatever, there tends to be a lot of butt-hurt if one player has better stats than another, and that's a problem. That problem casts a negative shadow on the rest of the campaign.
Sometimes, when GMing, it is better to just decide things instead of rolling. But, that is not always the case. If you're the GM, at least try to decide a story event/decision, but if you really can't, stop wasting time and just ROLL IT! :smallbiggrin:

Rhynn
2013-12-13, 08:44 AM
Randomness in Character Creation is annoying, I agree. Sure, it's okay every once in a while. If you're GMing and having your players roll their stats instead of spending points or whatever, there tends to be a lot of butt-hurt if one player has better stats than another, and that's a problem.

I never quite understand this. It's a game - do these people get mad if they're dealt a poor hand in poker, too?

Lorsa
2013-12-13, 09:00 AM
I never quite understand this. It's a game - do these people get mad if they're dealt a poor hand in poker, too?

In poker, you compete with the other players. In a roleplaying game, many people do not want to compete with the other players even if they are to some degree competing with the Game Master. They want to cooperate.

hymer
2013-12-13, 09:17 AM
I never quite understand this. It's a game - do these people get mad if they're dealt a poor hand in poker, too?

You play that hand for a few minutes, you can just fold and go get some coffee or something. You could be playing your character for years.

Tengu_temp
2013-12-13, 09:53 AM
I never quite understand this. It's a game - do these people get mad if they're dealt a poor hand in poker, too?

In addition to what Lorsa and hymer said:

1. A poor hand in poker is more of an equivalent of a bad roll during the actual game. Rolling during character generation is more like randomly deciding your poker hand size before the game starts. And then you play a game where one player can hold 6 cards and another one only 2.
2. Random character generation takes control away from the players' hands. I want to play the character I imagined, not the character the dice rolled for me.
3. Most systems these days have character creation mechanics where it's impossible to roll anyway. How would you create a randomly rolled character in Mutants and Masterminds? Fate? Exalted?

Mr.Sandman
2013-12-13, 09:58 AM
I like some structure in my games, but randomness can be fun. My group has a rule that whenever a result comes up 42, something really random happens including a moon walking chicken in a sombrero, or coconuts falling from the sky.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-12-13, 09:58 AM
You play that hand for a few minutes, you can just fold and go get some coffee or something. You could be playing your character for years.
One reason I suspect that random chargen originated in high-lethality dungeon crawls.

Rhynn
2013-12-13, 04:48 PM
You play that hand for a few minutes, you can just fold and go get some coffee or something. You could be playing your character for years.

If the character really is unplayable, surely they're going to die pretty soon?

All that said, I don't see any reason I couldn't play a OD&D or B/X character with no stats over 9. In fact, I did play such a character, a fighter, in BECM, for probably my first year.

AD&D and D&D 3.X got way too focused on ability scores, encouraging different creation methods and plain cheating. In a B/X type game, your ability scores don't matter nearly as much as how you play. A fighter with Strength 9 who makes it to level 8 through grit and luck is one heck of a hero, and is going to mop the floor with any 1st-level upstart.


3. Most systems these days have character creation mechanics where it's impossible to roll anyway. How would you create a randomly rolled character in Mutants and Masterminds? Fate? Exalted?

Why would I? What kind of argument is this? Has someone suggested people should be randomly generating characters in point-buy/assignment games? :smallconfused:

Slipperychicken
2013-12-13, 05:07 PM
In terms of playing the character I want to play, I prefer point-buy. Randomly generated stats don't always let people play the characters they want (except in extremely generous methods), but present an additional challenge, and can start people on character types they wouldn't have tried otherwise.


One reason I suspect that random chargen originated in high-lethality dungeon crawls.

Wasn't that what the original D&D was all about? Weren't people just playing to screw around in dungeons and solve puzzles, rather than roleplay or create a coherent narrative?

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-12-13, 05:10 PM
I like some structure in my games, but randomness can be fun. My group has a rule that whenever a result comes up 42, something really random happens including a moon walking chicken in a sombrero, or coconuts falling from the sky.
The Infinite Improbability rule?

Lorsa
2013-12-13, 06:11 PM
If the character really is unplayable, surely they're going to die pretty soon?

All that said, I don't see any reason I couldn't play a OD&D or B/X character with no stats over 9. In fact, I did play such a character, a fighter, in BECM, for probably my first year.

AD&D and D&D 3.X got way too focused on ability scores, encouraging different creation methods and plain cheating. In a B/X type game, your ability scores don't matter nearly as much as how you play. A fighter with Strength 9 who makes it to level 8 through grit and luck is one heck of a hero, and is going to mop the floor with any 1st-level upstart.

It seems to me that perhaps I should try to see what OD&D is all about, or perhaps some retroclones. I just need time/people...

Or perhaps in the spirit of the thread I should construct a list of all games I haven't played and roll randomly to determine which one I try?

Slipperychicken
2013-12-13, 06:21 PM
Or perhaps in the spirit of the thread I should construct a list of all worthwhile games I haven't played and roll randomly to determine which one I try?

Fixed. Because I have the feeling you don't want to roll up FATAL.

Rhynn
2013-12-13, 08:33 PM
It seems to me that perhaps I should try to see what OD&D is all about, or perhaps some retroclones. I just need time/people...

Or perhaps in the spirit of the thread I should construct a list of all games I haven't played and roll randomly to determine which one I try?

Check out my signature - links to plenty of free retroclones! :smallbiggrin: And that's just the start.


Wasn't that what the original D&D was all about? Weren't people just playing to screw around in dungeons and solve puzzles, rather than roleplay or create a coherent narrative?

If by "coherent" you mean "preconceived," then yeah, but they certainly got narratives and stories out of it. And the notion that it was all dungeons is an odd misconception: hexcrawls were at least as important as dungeon crawls, as awesome old settings like the Wilderlands show. Indeed, the third volume of the OD&D rules is The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. For me, the hexmap and "overworld" setting is easily more important than any dungeon. Check out the best OSR thing ever (http://refereesresources.blogspot.fi/2009/10/hexes-of-iridium-plateau-completed.html), for instance. A hexmap key can tell you so much about the setting...

And, naturally, making your mark on the world was a big part of it. OD&D interfaced with Chainmail, and AD&D 1E and BECM both had rules for warfare (Battlesystem and Warmachine), and BECM had rules for domain rulership (which was assumed to be what you do when you reach 9th level). D&D 3E falls far short of the sort of varied play old editions supported.

ACKS, for instance, shines by delivering the ultimate OSR D&D high-level experience, with awesome rules for founding, conquering, and ruling domains, building cities, creating guilds and syndicates, leading religions, constructing your own dungeons, and (as soon as Domains at War is out) warfare.

Thrudd
2013-12-14, 12:43 AM
What you need for OD&D is a coherent and believable setting. Any narrative will develop out of the exploits of the characters on their journey from being nobodies to famous/infamous adventurers to rulers. How they do that will depend on their own choices, and they'll never get there without learning the game system and the game setting and making good choices. Like in any game, sometimes it takes practice before you succeed. That is why it is ok to have high lethality at the lower character levels; by the time you are able to successfully get a character out of the low levels it is because you are better at the game.
Having a well designed world that operates as a simulation with randomly decided elements like random encounters and weather and social/behavioral reactions provides a framework for situations where players can make meaningful choices that have actual (in-game) consequences.

Do you stick to the road, or try to pass through the marsh as a shortcut? It will make a difference, because the DM has not predetermined that there will be a specific encounter at this point in the day regardless of what choices you make. On the road, you may have a safe trip but it will take longer....do you have enough food to make it to the next town? If you go into the marsh, you could get lost, and there will almost certainly be monsters. Do you have a ranger or druid with you to keep from getting lost? Is a shortcut worth the danger? Did you take into account the slower rate of movement going through a trackless marsh? That might be the last mistake the party ever makes...or it might end up earning you more XP from monsters you wouldn't have met otherwise. Do you take a chance leaving your spoils at base camp guarded only be a porter and delve back into the dungeon for more? With random encounters, your camp could be raided while you are away and everything stolen before you get back. Or it could pay off, and you bring twice the treasure back to town for twice the XP.

Whatever the result, it was not predetermined by the DM, the players' choices actually matter. It isn't a matter of guessing what the DM has planned and trying to make the "right" or best choice according to the preplanned story, like catching hints that a monster is waiting in the swamp so you can avoid it or choose to fight it, or that the porter is really a thief. There really is a chance that just about any gamble you want to take could pay off.

This isn't to say that an OD&D world doesn't have any preplanned encounters, but they are normally tied to locations rather than a contrived plot. There might be a black dragon that lives in the swamp, the DM has it's cave location mapped out. If the players had talked to some folks from the local area, they might have heard rumors about it. But unless they purposefully decide to find and kill the dragon in the swamp, there is no reason they ever have to encounter it. They could possibly even pass through the swamp without alerting it, if they are careful or lucky.

Compare this to a story driven game. The DM has decided they will encounter the black dragon today. The DM either needs to contrive a reason for the players to go into the swamp and hopes they go along with it, or the dragon will have to come find them. Regardless of what the players do, they are fighting that dragon, because this is what the story demands, or because this is the only encounter the DM has planned and the players need their XP for leveling up. In a random OD&D game, you level up when you have earned it, not because the DM needs you to be a certain level for the next part of the story.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-14, 12:51 AM
What you need for OD&D is a coherent and believable setting. Any narrative will develop out of the exploits of the characters on their journey from being nobodies to famous/infamous adventurers to rulers. How they do that will depend on their own choices, and they'll never get there without learning the game system and the game setting and making good choices. Like in any game, sometimes it takes practice before you succeed. That is why it is ok to have high lethality at the lower character levels; by the time you are able to successfully get a character out of the low levels it is because you are better at the game.
Having a well designed world that operates as a simulation with randomly decided elements like random encounters and weather and social/behavioral reactions provides a framework for situations where players can make meaningful choices that have actual (in-game) consequences. Do you stick to the road, or try to pass through the marsh as a shortcut? It will make a difference, because the DM has not predetermined that there will be a specific encounter at this point in the day regardless of what choices you make. On the road, you may have a safe trip but it will take longer....do you have enough food to make it to the next town? If you go into the marsh, you could get lost, and there will almost certainly be monsters. Do you have a ranger or druid with you to keep from getting lost? Is a shortcut worth the danger? Did you take into account the slower rate of movement going through a trackless marsh? That might be the last mistake the party ever makes...or it might end up earning you more XP from monsters you wouldn't have met otherwise. Do you take a chance leaving your spoils at base camp guarded only be a porter and delve back into the dungeon for more? With random encounters, your camp could be raided while you are away and everything stolen before you get back. Or it could pay off, and you bring twice the treasure back to town for twice the XP. Whatever the result, it was not predetermined by the DM, the players' choices actually matter. It isn't a matter of guessing what the DM has planned and trying to make the "right" or best choice according to the preplanned story, like catching hints that a monster is waiting in the swamp so you can avoid it or choose to fight it, or that the porter is really a thief. There really is a chance that just about any gamble you want to take could pay off. This isn't to say that an OD&D world doesn't have any preplanned encounters, but they are normally tied to locations rather than a contrived plot. There might be a black dragon that lives in the swamp, the DM has it's cave location mapped out. If the players had talked to some folks from the local area, they might have heard rumors about it. But unless they purposefully decide to find and kill the dragon in the swamp, there is no reason they ever have to encounter it. They could possibly even pass through the swamp without alerting it, if they are careful or lucky. Compare this to a story driven game. The DM has decided they will encounter the black dragon today. The DM either needs to contrive a reason for the players to go into the swamp and hopes they go along with it, or the dragon will have to come find them. Regardless of what the players do, they are fighting that dragon, because this is what the story demands, or because this is the only encounter the DM has planned and the players need their XP for leveling up. In a random OD&D game, you level up when you have earned it, not because the DM needs you to be a certain level for the next part of the story.

I recommend using line breaks. A text-wall like that can make a post seem really threatening and discourage potential readers.

Rhynn
2013-12-14, 02:38 AM
That is why it is ok to have high lethality at the lower character levels; by the time you are able to successfully get a character out of the low levels it is because you are better at the game.

Yeah, the high lethality is a temporary sort of phenomenon. I started my ACKS campaign with B4 The Lost City, and the first session saw 2 out of 3 PCs and 2 out of 5 henchmen dead. The next session saw 1-2 henchmen dead. The next session saw no one dead, and the PCs making it to 3rd level. The characters and the players are getting better, and once they get over that initial hump to levels 3-5, they're not going to be as fragile (and raising the dead will become an option, although not one without consequences in ACKS).

Also, all of the rest. The setting is a vessel for the players' decisions to play out, with consequences meted out by the GM. That's what keeps it fresh, surprising, and interesting for the GM. I'm not controlling or guiding a story, I'm discovering it.

hymer
2013-12-14, 05:35 AM
If the character really is unplayable, surely they're going to die pretty soon?

That would still mean spending some amount of time, possibly several sessions, waiting for your unwanted character to die; time that could have been spent developing a worthwhile character and his/her narrative. Not fun in my book, not even for one session.


All that said, I don't see any reason I couldn't play a OD&D or B/X character with no stats over 9. In fact, I did play such a character, a fighter, in BECM, for probably my first year.

Good for you. I don't have fun playing like that, however. There is one guy in my group who is fine with playing just about anywhere on the scale powerwise, but even he wants something mechanically to contribute to the group. Different strokes and all that.

1337 b4k4
2013-12-15, 02:39 PM
In poker, you compete with the other players. In a roleplaying game, many people do not want to compete with the other players even if they are to some degree competing with the Game Master. They want to cooperate.

And yet the first thing these players do after rolling up their character is start comparing and competing on stats...

Slipperychicken
2013-12-15, 02:50 PM
And yet the first thing these players do after rolling up their character is start comparing and competing on stats...

And the second thing they do is find ways to cheat everyone else out of treasure.

hymer
2013-12-15, 02:57 PM
@ 1337 b4k4: Are you quite aware of the implication of what you were writing there?


many people do not want to compete with the other players even if they are to some degree competing with the Game Master. They want to cooperate.

And then you say

And yet the first thing these players do after rolling up their character is start comparing and competing on stats...

Those two quotes would be talking about, among others, me. And I'm here to tell you it just ain't true.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-15, 03:27 PM
Those two quotes would be talking about, among others, me.

Only if you fall into those "many players".

hymer
2013-12-15, 04:12 PM
Only if you fall into those "many players".

I am one of the 'many people' who does not come to the gaming table to compete with the other players, yes. That is my claim.

Lorsa
2013-12-15, 05:29 PM
Only if you fall into those "many players".

The point, I think, was that 1337 b4k4 made a comment about that the players who come to the table with the intention to cooperate are the first ones to start comparing stats. It is basically a statement that speaks negatively about the type of players that fall into the category I posted and is a statement that do not have to be objectively true.

ComatosePhoenix
2013-12-15, 05:54 PM
Wow, this topic took off.

Part of what decides character stats should be the scenario, If the characters are set up to be heroes for the new age it is unfitting for them to roll a 3 in any stat.

on the other hand if they are just some average Joes ready to set out on adventure.

Locked stat rolls, where you have to roll for each stat individually should be reserved for masochists and games where individual characters have shorter lifespans. I prefer the more flexible option of rolling 6 stats and then picking what goes where, it lets me keep the general design of my character, and keeps my barbarians from having more intelligence then the wizard.