[Design] Why random rolls?

[David Cake]

At 11:04 AM +1000 11/10/05, Curufea wrote:
>This is very true.  I'm a low-dice GM (which could be regarded as
>odd, as I am GMing a Fantasy Hero campaign) - only because it slows
>down the game.  As it is High Fantasy and the PCs are well above
>average in their specialisations, I employ a HKAT (which I haven't
>read, only played) style on most occasions.
>That is - Unnamed NPCs or NPCs that aren't too important to the plot,
>are fairly easily taken care of by the PCs, with little dicing
>involved.
>Plot significant areas, peoples or occasions do require rolling.
>
>I don't fudge dice for the simple reason that I like randomness and
>hate guiding characters in plots.  If they kill my major NPC I was
>hoping to have as an ongoing nemesis in the campaign (which they did)
>- then I view it as an opportunity for me, as a GM to be creative and
>come up with alternative plots. 
>I'm a "Baron Munchausen"-type GM.

	Baron Munchausen the game, of course, involves very little 
random element... (the only use of randomness

	The alternatives to random dice rolling is not necessarily Gm 
guidance, btw. It can be simply making the players choice of action 
more reliable, or it can be having some other way of determining 
success that also involves more active choice.
	The first works fine for some areas, especially those where 
there is no direct real world equivalent or it otherwise does not 
upset simulationism. In many games spellcasting is intrinsically 
unreliable, in D&D a spell is always successfully cast, though not 
always as effective as its caster hopes, and this works because magic 
is a game world specific conception with no real world equivalent 
anyway. It works in Amber because your characters are supposed to be 
so super-competent that even the worst of them never makes an 
unforced simple mistake (though they can be tricked or pressured into 
making a mistake by an even more skilled oppponent).
	The other scheme is use some other mechanism that isn't so 
random - there are plenty of these sort of mechanics around. Make it 
a resource instead of random chance thing, for example -- make 
actions succeed based on 'resources' committed (say, depending on how 
much attention was made to it), or say some ability will work 
successfully x times a day rather than randomly rolling it (a common 
freeform mechanic).
	For one example of this, in most games 'damage' from a 
successful attack is random, in HeroWars its based mostly on the 
number of action points risked in the attack.

>The closest I've come to guiding PCs in my game was having a prophet
>turn up with knowledge they couldn't have obtained otherwise about
>secrets/backgrounds, and dire predictions for the future.  The PCs
>were still completely free to ignore the prophecies.  Although the
>main reason I introduced this was to stimulate more possibilities for
>character-based plots, and to annoy those that hate prophecies :)
>
>Simple pleasures...

	The best way to stimulate character based plots, however, 
isn't to introduce more randomness. Its to make the characters 
actions and choices more significant. Making those actions more 
reliable can help this.
	For example, a very effective way to KILL character based 
plots is when someone tries to do something, just say OK, but you 
have to make a skill roll at great big minuses. Didn't succeed? Oh, 
well....
	On the other hand, if a players says 'I want to locate 
someone who can provide me with poisons/trained monkeys/radio 
controlled detonators' or something, even if you have no idea what 
they want them for, its often better to simply let them succeed 
rather than make them jump through skill roll based hoops to get 
them, even if the making them justify everything with skill rolls is 
more random.

	I think randomness is great in some situations, particularly 
combat, but I don't think more randomness necessarily means more a 
better or more creative game.
	Cheers
		David