Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, with the two most editions of GW's core games containing what is perceived to be a high degree of random determination, a lot of people have been decrying randomness as a game breaking mechanic. Leaving aside discussion of whether this or that rule in WFB or 40K is game breaking, what are people's thoughts on the place of the random in a good game system?

The first thought would be why have random elements at all? Is there any need for randomisation? Arguably, a game could be perfectly playable with predetermined results for any action. Why would this be a good thing? Or a bad thing?

Secondly, there is the question of how much randomness a game system should have. Should every action have a chance mechanic, or should the bare minimum? What kind of things do you think should be randomised in order to make a game fun? What should not, and why?

And finally, I was thinking about extraneous random effects. Things that can change the way a unit performs, whether slightly or drastically. Should a game system have these? If so, how should they be implemented?

It's just something I've been thinking about recently. I'd be interested to see people's opinions on these thoughts, beyond the standard 'random kills tactics!' vs. 'random makes it more tactical' arguement that's been cropping up. I know there are a fair few armchair game designers on Dakka (aren't we all?), and even a few genuine game designers, so I thought it'd be fun to canvas your opinions.

Depends on the game, and the rules set of the system.

It depends on how much skill you want to abstract out of the game. Reducing randomization means you're increasing skill required. Increasing randomization means you are making skill less important. Chess requires lots of skill and logical thinking skills to play well. Yahtzee requires the ability to roll five dice, do basic math, and have basic reasoning skills.

I think of it like cholesterol: There's "Good Random" and "Bad Random."

Determining which is which can be subjective, though. Look at Dreadfleet for Bad Random, at least according to a lot of reviews. If the randomness makes you feel as if you decisions are invalid, that's bad random.

On the other side, if you're left saying "I failed because I didn't get the rolls I need, but I still made the right choices" that's good random.

A 'random' mechanic that I enjoy in some games is the idea of rolling for command.

You see it in games like Epic: Armageddon, Warmaster, Blitzkrieg/Cold War Commander, Hail Caesar and Black Powder.

Usually rolling 2d6, you match what you got to a stat on either a unit or commander (usually something like 7-8 for regulars, 9-10 for veterans/elites, and 6 if they're essentially a mob). If you match it, or score below, then whatever command you issued occurs. Score above, and usually your troops have other options (either being able to act on their own to a limited degree), but can't do anything else. And if you score really poorly (boxcars!) then you'll 'blunder' or have something of the same degree happen, where the unit/formation you issued an order to will do something bad, along the line of moving in a random direction, firing on your own troops, or just plain running away.

Random fails when:
A) the positive gains don't justify the potenial negatives.
B) the randomness is imposed only on one player in place of what would otherwise be a player made decision.

Example of bad random... Chaos Dreadnought: only about 1/18th of the time will you get a roll on its chart that is fully utilized in a positive way in a given turn, while 3/18ths of the time its either wasted or acts as a negative by taking it out of your control. That's a failure to realize that both the negative and positive are only likely to be helpful in the second half of the game.

My belief is that unless a randomized rule applies equally to both players, ie vehicle damage table, its should generally be "benefit plus" or "negative minus"... where the rule is always beneficial/negative but the randomized roll merely determines the degree of that outcome. When you try to have "benefit vs. negative" the two have to be balanced or else you should be using "benefit plus" or "negative minus" but limited to lesser degree or fewer distinguishing increments.

12thRonin wrote:It depends on how much skill you want to abstract out of the game. Reducing randomization means you're increasing skill required. Increasing randomization means you are making skill less important. Chess requires lots of skill and logical thinking skills to play well. Yahtzee requires the ability to roll five dice, do basic math, and have basic reasoning skills.

Actually the opposite is true.

The Chess/Yahtzee canard is a nice soundbite but it is completely irrelevant. Since for the most part the games we are talking about, at varying levels, are attempting to simulate warfare and combat, both of which have large elements of uncertainty and friction involved.

As others have mentioned there is good and bad randomness. Imo 'good randomness' are elements that allow the action of the game to develop beyond the planned for possibilities; making the game more about the actions within the game than the choices made prior to playing. It should also remain truthful to the suspension of disbelief with regard to the setting - a Sherman tank shouldn't turn into a frog. And ideally the the effect should not be permanent - a unit gains +1 whatever for that turn, or a unit entangled in a hedge should have a chance to escape in subsequent turns.

It is interesting to see the way this debate about 'randomness' follows the psychology of risk. People appear perfectly happy with randomness is there is a 30% of something positive occurring, and will write blogs and forum posts to inform others about the best way to achieve this beneficial effect. Yet the same people will rant and rave about how a game lacks skill and is overly random if they is a 10% chance of a negative event. Obviously it would be overly critical to complain about people adhering to basic human psychology, but it would be nice if people were to get some perspective.

I think the cries of DOOM about this subject are largely overblown.

The degree of randomness that a player enjoys is going to be largely dependent on the type of gameplay that they desire.

Many players want as much as possible to be controlled by the players themselves. They wish to win or loose because of their and their opponents decisions, not because of the whims of the dice. It's a chess-like mindset where it's player vs player. For these players, random effects are not desirable at all and they tend to want to have full control in commanding/moving/shooting of each of their units.

On the other hand many players want a game that simulates to some degree (very few wargames are accurate simulations, but still...) the random and chancy nature of war. For these players, it only makes sense that the tide of battle can change over a random series of events, or a misdirected order. Players like this might like the kind of games that Infinte Array listed above

Even further beyond that, some of these players even want to simulate the role of a commander, where you can give orders, but sometimes the troops won't follow them and sometimes the troops will do unexpected things. These players want to have fun seeing the battle play out and have some input, but they don't need to feel that they are in control over every unit. Players like this might enjoy the THW series of games including Chain Reaction (free download worth checking out) 5150 Star Army, All Things Zombie, etc. These kinds of games have so many "reaction" tests and mechanics that many folks enjoy playing them solo!

All three of these points of view are equally valid, it's just a matter of what kinds of games the player might want