Randomness in RPGs

One thing that's come up from time to time, when discussing our hobby with fellow aficionados, is the use of dice, or other random generators, in determining what happens.

Dice, specifically funny shaped ones, are a symbol of our hobby.  You see a picture of a twenty-sided die somewhere, and you know, immediately, what the topic is going to be, and the use of them were and are central to the way that a lot of people game.


I see a number of reasons why this should be, putting aside received tradition and history for a moment.  The use of dice can be simulationist, for example.  If you roll 3d6, you get a range of 3-18, and the distribution will be on a bell curve, which works out nicely if you want to simulate distribution of something like an attribute across a population, where the majority of people will be of middling strength, say, with a relative few being either very weak or very strong. 

That's how it was in classic RPGs - stats used randomization to simulate distribution of something across a population.  Actions, though, were usually rolled with a single die, say a d20, generating a level sort of distribution of numbers, that when compared with a target number, would indicate success or failure. 

I get the simulationist approach to stats, but dislike the implications of it.  It makes character creation a different sort of proposition - it puts the random generation of some basics about your character first, and then your job, as the player, is to create a story around those stats to flesh things out.  I personally find this annoying, but some people really like that challenge. 

It seems like many other people, perhaps for different reasons, also disliked this sort of character creation, and so first we started modifying stat rolls.  We would discard any 1's that came up.  Or we would roll 5d6, and discard the two lowest results.  Or we would say that the player could control which of the stats they applied the results to, so that if they really had their heart set on a strong character, they could assign their highest roll to the strength stat.

After that, point based generation systems became popular, putting all the control in the hands of the player, but still limiting the overall level of power of the character to a fixed level, relative to the other players, and the overall power level of the campaign.


There are a couple of things worth teasing out here.  Completely random generation of character stats, still favored by some folks I know in the old-school gaming community, forces the player to work with what they get - it's fair, in the sense that everyone has the same statistical chance to roll a really powerful character, and likewise the same chance to find themselves with someone a lot less capable.  But, from a different perspective, it's not fair, because you might find yourself being the only average person in an otherwise lucky and powerful group.  This dovetails nicely with the old-school adage about forgetting about game balance, and also with the overall story of old-school gaming, which is taking a character of relatively low power and developing them through play into something heroic.

Points based character generation is fair in a much broader sense - everyone starts with the same level of generic power, and then decides how this will be expressed in their particular character.  Some folks might choose to be very good at just one or two things - others will put together something more balanced but less specialized.

Even as rolled character generation was modified or even abandoned for points based systems, we still were using random generators in conflict resolution systems.  One could argue, I suppose, that this was more simulationist stuff.  Even the best fighter in the world occasionally will be caught with their pants down, and be dispatched by a much less skilled opponent.  The amount of effect this had on how things played out varied by games, but since most systems had rules for critical success or failure, it was still possible for someone with a much lower chance of success to win a contest, or for a very skilled character to have something terrible happen. 

Some people really like this too.  There is, I admit, an emotional response to it all coming down to a single, random die roll.  We've all probably got stories like this.  We remember that time when we got in the lucky shot that saved the day, or completely failed and fell flat on our faces at a critical moment. 

Again, that issue of fairness comes up, and in much the same way.  The fairness of having a chance for someone really capable failing keeps the tension up.  On the other hand, even a capable character whose player has a series of really bad or even just mediocre rolls grates on the idea of game balance, and isn't very much fun to play.  Then again, everyone having the same element of randomness is fair, in the other sense.

My main criticism with using dice, either in character generation or in conflict resolution, is that it places the emphasis on the rules, and on the randomness itself, rather than on the story or the character. 

Now, there's a mindset that seems to think that taking the final decision about what happens out of the hands of the player or the GM is a good and needed thing.   The dice become the completely fair arbiter of fate.  But that implies, I think, that there isn't any trust between the GM and the players.  That the players will always be looking for the advantage and won't follow storylines likely to bring their characters harm.  That the GM will be arbitrary in the worst sense, screwing with the players in order to "win". 

I find that unsatisfying.  I'd rather have a game where the GM and players were cooperating with each other to tell a good story, respecting the needs of each and helping each other get to where they're going.  This means that my GM will trust me to act in character, including making mistakes, and not be angry when the story goes against my characters best interests.  That also means that I trust the GM to be sensitive to what I want out of the story, and allow me moments to shine, give me moments when things go my way.

There's also the larger matter of finding that rules, and rolling dice, interrupt my ability to focus on the character and story.  But that might be good for another post. 

How do you feel about dice?  Do you need really random resolution in your games, or can you be satisfied with the results of just letting the GM determine what happens?