For this month's Blogwagon, hosted by Prismatic Wasteland, on randomness[0], I think it's worthy to discuss randomness from a player perspective, more specifically an optimizer's perspective. I'm going to divorce any discussion of "fun" from this post (randomness is fun, it keeps both players and GM engaged at the table). This'll lean more into game theory and trying to "win" (there's no "winning" at make-believe, but you can definitely lose a fight and TPK). In essence, randomness is antithetical to optimization, and skilled, goal-focused players should try to limit randomness.[1] Id est, when you only roll dice when there is a risk of failure, then removing dice rolls removes failure.
Before talking about TTRPGs, let's look at other games. Chess is a game with no randomness, and thus the better player should always win. No matter how many games I play, I will never beat Magnus Carlsen. Conversely, in rock-paper-scissor, I've got a 50% chance of beating the world champ RPS player, statistically. Variance levels out the playing field, shrinking the gap between novice and expert.
I've played too much Magic: the Gathering for my health. But one thing I've learned is when you're winning, you want to take safe, conservative lines. If you're 80% to win a game, why do something risky and give your opponent a chance to get back into the game? Alternatively, if you're losing, you need to shake things up and make risky plays. Maybe you'll get lucky.[2]
How does this relate to DnD?
Let's divide combat into two categories: Orcs & Dragons. Orcs always do 4 damage. Dragons always 6 damage. Your adventurer has 5 hit points. You can always beat an orc, but never beat a dragon.
Let's say the Orc actually does 1d6 damage. Suddenly, despite the average damage (3.5) being lower, this is a much more lethal encounter. The Orc has a 33% chance of felling the adventurer.
If the dragon does 2d6 damage, the average is a 7 (higher than previously) but the adventurer only dies 72% of the time, instead of 100% before.
So against weaker foes, players want less variance (how many groups have TPK'd to a random group of goblins due to unlucky dice rolls?). But against a stronger foe, players want more chaos. (The times players use their unidentified potions or scrolls is almost always when they're under pressure).
Except this is all white-box hypotheticals where both sides mechanically attack each other. The joy of TTRPG is agency and as a free agents, players can (often) chose to subvert stronger foes.
Going back to the dragon example, if the players know they need to fight it, they can stock up on fire-resistance potions prior to facing it. Suddenly the 2d6 dragon is much more deadlier, as it can high-roll past the resistance of the potions. If a party can plan and strategize optimally, randomness is only detrimental. Thus, it behooves the players to minimize variance so they can apply their skills and not leave things to chance.[3]
Six HP Dungeon exemplifies this. When you first encounter monsters, their weakness & strengths are random, making them potentially deadly. But once you figure these out, the fights become trivial.
Random Encounters
This is almost clearest in random encounters, which are a cornerstone of OSR play, dating back to the beginning of the hobby. They keep things tense due to uncertainty. Consider the opposite of a random encounter: every 6 turns, 6 goblins show up. If the party can figure this out, they can plan appropriately. On turn 5, they spike the door, put a bear trap down, leave an enticing sack of gold in the opposite direction, etc.
Even outside of the "optimal play" argument, plays want to minimize encounters as they are typically a drain or a tax on resources. Players quickly realize they cannot dawdle and waste time, as more and more encounters are rolled.
Rolling the Dice
It's been said that combat in OSR games is a fail state. (It has also been called "My Balls"). Regardless of if combat is sport, war, a fail state, it is where players lose control of the game to the roll of the dice. Since OSR games are deadly, players are incentivized to create plans outside of combat, where they retain control.
This extends to most dice rolls. If you're rolling dice, you're taking on risk as you can fail. Sometimes there is no other way around this, but optimal (read: skillful) play finds ways around. For OSR games this comes from diegetic scheming, whereas in more trad games this might be stacking bonuses and advantages to minimize the chance of failure. Regardless, the outcome is the same: optimal play reduces chances.[4]
Meta Narrative
If I've convinced you that players should strive against randomness, there's a meta-narrative that might arise between players and their characters. "Law vs Chaos" is a common theme, especially in older modules, like B2 with the Caves of Chaos. Just as the characters try to enforce order and fight the minions of chaos, the players strive likewise. The GM, then, is the ultimate force of chaos, not the Orcs you face in game. There is a mirror between the characters and the players, and the GM and the world. While the players can plan as much as they'd like, the GM should recall, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."
For GMs: Your need to roll dice and make the players roll dice. Randomness is your lifeblood.
 |
| God Creating Order from Chaos, Wolfgang the Elder 1665 |
For Players: It falls to you, the player to rout this chaos, chase it from the land! The GM is a tyrant, and the collective of your play group must burn the torches of rebellion! Once the GM is deposed and you rule instead, get rid of dice rolls entirely! Everything that happens is expected to happen! Sure, you won't have much of a game to play, but you'll have order and isn't that much better?
[0] [4] June 4, [9] any length, [4 of spades].
[1] Goal focused is an important caveat - we assume the players want to earn gold, level up, vanquish a foe, etc. If the players are interested in "telling a good story" or being surprised at the table, randomness is good! But in these cases, they are not optimizing.
[2] There's a good discussion of this here (12:30). An analogy LSV draws is football teams down 20 points are much more likely to run the ball on 4th down.
[3] This does assume some competency from the players (both diegetically and non-diegetically), as well as lots of information, and a fighting chance. Inflate the monster's numbers enough and no amount of planning can surmount it.
[4] Again, this is not the same as "fun" play. Rolling dice is fun! Optimizing dice out of your game is not. Personally, I find that executing a flawless plan is intellectually satisfying, it is not exciting.
