[Design] Why random rolls?

[David Cake]

At 7:57 PM +1000 12/10/05, Curufea wrote:
>--- David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>
>>  At 11:04 AM +1000 11/10/05, Curufea wrote:
>
>>  >I'm a "Baron Munchausen"-type GM.
>>
>>	Baron Munchausen the game, of course, involves very little
>>  random element... (the only use of randomness
>
>In this case, I'm referring to the storytelling elements of the
>Munchausen game, where you incorporate sometimes drastic plot changes
>into your story based on other player's input. (I'm not a good
>storyteller, but am a good improvisor - and generally get many wagers
>in a given game.  Especially if I start bogging down in the story).

	I know... but I was making the point that having a plot that 
can change drastically based on your players does not have anything 
to do with randomness. Your post read a bit as if you believed that 
if you removed randomness, that meant tighter GM control, and I was 
making the point that removing randomness can also mean more player 
control rather than more GM control.

>Applied to roleplaying games - it changes the participation level of
>players from "simulating a single entity in the GM's environment" up
>to "modifying the environment in collaboration with the GM" and makes
>it more of an interactive storytelling game, than a simulation.

	Absolutely. Or, in Forge parlance, moving from Actor or 
Author stance to Director. And random roll mechanics are often used 
to interfere in that, so they aren't always on your side.

	I appreciate what you are trying to say -- thats its good for 
the creativity of a game to have it go in directions that no one, 
including the GM, expects, so random rolls can be better than GM 
control. What I was saying is that yes, that is true, but the use of 
randomness is only one way and not always the best one.
	Cheers
		David