You are here: Home / PinsofWar.net / Blogging / Good Random and Bad Random in Miniature Games

Good Random and Bad Random in Miniature Games

9 Comments

Totally Random

If you spend time reading miniature wargaming blogs or forums in the past year or two, you may have come across arguments that look like this one:

“Game X has too much randomness. There is no point playing – no “player-skill” involved in playing – when arbitrary dice rolls decide the whole game.“
“Game X has always used dice-rolls for a lot of things. Skill is all about managing the probabilities and randomness is part of any game.”

#1 – This Game Is Too Random!

I remember when the world’s most popular wargame – Warhammer 40K – hit just this controversy with the recent Chaos Daemons Codex, and especially with the widely loathed Warp Storm Table that many accuse of making the game (or at least 40K Chaos Daemons) far too random.

Likewise, “surprise” terrain in both Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40K is mostly ignored by gamers for similar reasons. Most recently – and the reason I write this – Mantic’s DreadBall roused the ire of fans with a (much needed) revisions to the rules for launching the ball.

A Brief Summary of the DreadBall Snag

The shortest summary of the DreadBall “launch-issue”: DreadBall is a fast-paced game, not least because (unlike Blood Bowl) the ball – after a score – simply launches back into to the ongoing game. The teams and player do not “reset”. The game doesn’t stop!

The rules for launching the ball, however, created the possibility of “loops” where players could continue to loose turns (negative loop) or continue to catch-and-score (positive loop) until a game ends, almost sidestepping “the real game” entirely.

The new rules for launching the ball, as previewed by Jake Thornton, put an end to these loops, but they also added a (to many people’s surprise) a ball-scatter on every launch.

The latter makes game-play far less predictable and … well … more random.

#2 – Good Randomness and Bad Randomness?

As with the Warhammer examples above, many dislike this “added randomness” in DreadBall.

Unlike Warhammer (of either variety) – where basically no first-hand thoughts from the game designers about their rules ever reach the public – Jake Thornton showed some puzzlement over the widespread dislike of (certain kinds of) “randomness” on his blog.

I’d also say that there is a strange double-think among many gamers that goes on about chance. Some kinds of random are seen as acceptable, and others are an issue. If I fail a dice roll on a 1 in 9 chance then that’s acceptable. I’m not happy, but hey, them’s dice. If the ball scatters onto me from a launch (another dice-driven process) then it’s somehow worse.

All said and done, this particular DreadBall debate reminded me a lot of some similar discussions surrounding (too much?) randomness in Warhammer 40K and other game.

For a lot of people, it seems there truly are “two types” of randomness in games. For the purposes of this blog post, let’s call them “chance” (the good kind of “random”) and “randomness” (the bad kind of “random”), though this clearly isn’t the definition you’d find for those terms in a dictionary.

Chance – The Good Kind of Random?

The randomness wargamers embrace appears to be the kind following from player actions (either yourself or your opponent in a 2-player game). Most games use dice for this.

If I fire a weapon in Warhammer or throw a pass/strike in DreadBall the outcome is uncertain. Subject to a roll of the dice, you get your way or you don’t. In certain situations, a whole game can ride on as little as a single roll of dice. If you get shot at in Warhammer, or slammed in DreadBall, the outcome is likewise uncertain (if triggered by the opponent).

This is the good kind of random, both because players accept this as part of the game and try to maximize their chances. Also, they are the good kind of random because the most memorable moments for every gamer are those when you “beat the odds”.

The lone Imperial Guardsman that holds an objective against a flood of Genestealers. The battered Jack that caught the long pass to score a final-rush strike. These things are the stuff of gaming-club legend. They wouldn’t be possible without randomness.

Randomness – The Bad Kind of Random?

The “bad kind” of random then are the uncertainties that come straight from the rules, without a conscious “trigger” or “opt-in” from a player in the game.

In Warhammer these are the things like “surprise terrain” that either explodes in your face or turn your troops invulnerable, pre-game tables that can cripple or enhance your army on the whim of some die-roll (e.g. Warlord Traits, Warpstorm Table).

In DreadBall – as possible new addition – this may be random ball-launch scatters that could serve you a strike (and, on rare occasions, a victory) on a silver platter or cost you a turn (and, on rare occasions, the game) if things go awry.

Most “randomness” of this kind in games is designed to be “symmetrical”, like the Chaos Daemons Warp Storm Table. That is, they should help you and hinder you in equal amounts in the long run. It’s swings and roundabouts over .. dunno .. a hundred games (possibly less).

These rules mainly serve to shake things up and keep things fresh and exciting, though that may be no comfort, understandably, when these type of rules cost you a game.

#3 – What Kind Of Randomness Do We Need?

Now, despite having made this distinction into two types of randomness, I don’t think the “second kind” is truly all that bad. As long as it evens out in the long term, of course.

The previous DreadBall rules for launching the ball (in my opinion) needed a fix, because they benefited some teams far more than others. The new rules may too (I haven’t play-tested them to be honest), but I suspect the new rules – while making the game more random – will boost and thwart all players and all teams in equal measure. There is simply more “chaos” in a given game.

The same can easily be said for the Warp Storm Table in Warhammer 40K.

With my personal bias out of the way however, what do you think?

Is there such a thing as “good” and “bad” randomness in games? Or is the distinction stupid?

Does too much randomness, or do certain types of randomness devalue player skill? Or does it instead take skill to think on your feet and overcome whatever Lady Fate may throw at you?

I realize this article is somewhat all over the place – Chaos Daemons and DreadBall and all. Nevertheless, if you’re still with me at this point, you surely must have an opinion on the matter!

So leave a comment and share your thought!

Z.

Image: Totally Random by memsphere.
Zweischneid

Zweischneid

I am Zweischneid. Wargame Addict. Hopeless painter and founder of Pins of War. I hope you enjoyed this article. Don't forget to share your favourite miniature pictures and wargaming videos at www.pinsofwar.net.
Zweischneid

@pinsofwar

DreamForge Games Keilerkopf Eisenkern APC Arrives! http://t.co/kr43quCZUP #wargaming - 1 hour ago
Follow @pinsofwar
Zweischneid

+Zweischneid

  • Tim.

    I think one of the things about the DB case that got people agitated was that it came out of the blue. A lot of people were very keen to see the launch rule changed and this was managed by a portion of the new rule; however, the rule then went further to say that the ball would always scatter on launch.

    I’m not sure how much of the issue for people is about the randomness itself, so much as the fact that the newly introduced randomness will have a large effect on a fundamental piece of the game – that is, the initial set up. As the randomness itself doesn’t seem to be really needed to fix the original problem, I can see why people are scratching their heads about it :).

    • http://pinsofwar.net/ Zweischneid

      Yes.

      And there are a few more issues hidden in the DreadBall launch-issue. For example the observation that one “ideal” set-up for some teams now could be players facing away from the middle line to avoid a scatter + failed catch (but which would be somewhat idiotic… what sport would encourage players to set up looking backwards?).

      It wasn’t my intent to give a thorough recap of the DreadBall rules-changes (as the discussion for this is probably better had on Quirkworthy). But it is a line of thought that I got out of it – especially from Jake’s comment about why some “types” of randomness seem ok and some not – (and, in turn, this discussion probably would be misplaced in the Quirkworthy comments).

  • Laz

    I think there’s actually a two dimensional grid here, when distinguishing random chance and its psychological effect on players. You’ve basically got “control / no control” and “small effect / large effect”. The “effect” I’m thinking about is the “this terrain causes d6 un-savable wounds on a unit” vs “while in this terrain, all models gain a Feel No Pain 2+” (as examples taken from thin air about what I’m talking about) on the extreme end, and “hit / no hit” on the light end.

    People appear to allow for less extreme results from randomness despite the trigger, but still get a little offended by un-controllable randomness – that is, nothing they do will affect the outcome. When you shoot with your unit, you’re in control of it, but when your unit is the subject of a vortex grenade? much less so.

  • belverker

    i personally love what you have labelled ‘bad’ random, i use the mysterious objectives and terrain in 40k i absolutely love the Daemons codex and Army book and believe 6th ed 40k and 8th ed fantasy are the best versions of both games, the ‘bad’ random makes the games feel much more fun and ‘fluffy’

    • http://pinsofwar.net/ Zweischneid

      I agree.

      I would even argue that this kind of “bad random” is quite essential to keep games fresh (“replay value”), different and interesting over a long time.

      If I labeled it “bad random”, than I did so mainly because I think that is the sentiment among a lot of people.

  • Puck

    I think ‘bad random’ is fine so long as both sides of the table are aware of it and happy to risk the outcomes. It’s part of that RPG tabletop tradition of rolling dice, where good dice can be as cinematic and story evoking as a series of bad rolls. I think it runs into trouble when players see themselves as playing against the rules themselves, having to endure the random ruleset just to get into the game, and at that point the ‘bad rolls’ turn a bad expectation into a bad experience. And hey, let’s not forget that for Warhammer at least, they have had an army that’s revolved around the, oh dear lord the dice rolls, in Goblins/Orcs for quite a few years, with a steady fan-base that rejoices in that randomness.

  • schnuersi

    You pointed out the difference between “good” and “bad” randomness quite well.
    The kind of gamers who complain about bad randomness don’t see what you describe as good randomness as somthing behond their controll. Usually they go to great length to take as much chance and ramdomness out of the game. Statistical optimised army lists. Carefull disected rules to find holes or inaccuracies wich allows reinterpretation etc etc.
    The indiscriminating random events or roll that have to be made and can’t be manipulated in you favor in advance of course render some or all of the previous optimisation ineffective. Even worse highly optmised lists are like racehorses or top athletes: very effective in one certain situation but very susceptible to changes. So global random effects are like poison to them. They don’t become more diffcult do play but very often go from “auto win” to “auto loss”.

    In my experience the gamers that think in “good” and “bad” random categories are usually the ones who are more intrested in winning that playing. Wich often coincides with taking a game to serious.

    Since I am against taking gaming to serious and turning any game into a competition IMHO far more global or as you call it “bad” randomness should be implemented in the core rules of most games. More than 20 years ago when I started with TT-wargaming this was normal and not the exeption. Rulsewise there was lots of change but little improvement overall since then.

  • NagaBaboon

    I suppose it’s when the ‘bad’ kind of random has drastic impacts that people get irritated. We all accept that our expensive psyker could get killed by your opponent in the first turn before he has a chance to do anything but if he is rendered worthless by the game because of bad rolls on the power table then you’re bound to be annoyed. The ‘bad’ sort of random can sometimes make it feel like your playing against the game as well as your opponent.

    At the end of the day they are all just dice rolls though, the ‘good’ kind of random probably just boils down to what we accept because it’s the stuff that has always been present in all wargames, the ‘bad’ is often the mechanics added by a specific edition of a specific game because we’re not so used to it.

  • SRSFACE

    It has to do with the degree to which they are random. I’ve been playing XCOM: Enemy Unknown again getting prepped for the release of the sequel/expansion. I accept the randomness of hit chances in that because 1) I’m told up front, and 2) there’s enough going on that you really do get the benefit of larger sample sizes.

    Bad randomness is when that bad thing happens, the player’s obstacles become insurmountable immediately rather than simply putting them in dire straights.

    This is why D20 games tend to be more forgiving than D6 wargames. If my paladin suffers a critical hit and loses half his HP in a single blow, it’s really painful and greatly influences my next action, but it doesn’t make my guy worthless. It means there’s a huge risk/reward of continuing to attack or dropping back to drink a healing potion. If you suffer a wound on a terminator, your critical failure saving throw of a 1 means it’s just dead. All of those points brought to the table, all of that time painting him, for nothing.

    I’ve maintained for about a year that Warhammer in both forms is a glorified form of Yahtzee. I actually feel less tensions in that game than I do in many others because it’s only pure success and pure failure, rather than being an ebb and flow of luck and bad luck.