What's with the Randomness in Old-School RPGs?

[TheHomelessHero]

So I just recently got into PC gaming and decided to go back and play the many games I missed out on over the last couple decades that were exclusive to "the master race". I noticed a pattern in many of the RPG's I played, namely in Fallout 1/2, TES II: Daggerfall, Planescape: Torment, and Baldur's Gate, and that pattern being randomness. While certainly adding variety and re playability to these already (insanely) long and deep games, the RNG seems to like to screw me over more often than it doesn't. However, this is not a rant about randomness in the games, I just have a couple questions out of my own curiosity.

1. Why did so many old school RPGs incorporate randomness into most of it's mechanics such as combat, stat increases, dialog success chance, crit chance, ext?

2. Why do you feel most modern RPGs such as Mass Effect, TES V: Skyrim, and Dragon Age remove any real randomness (outside of loot drops)?

3. Do you feel that gaming today (in RPGs) has benefited from the removal of randomness in it's mechanics.

 

[Cheesepower5]

There's an over reliance to RNGs and there's an under-reliance too, in RPGs. Generally, I'd say it should be one or the other. RNG for combat, drops, etc or RNG for speech success, events, etc.

Contrast a game like Fire Emblem where all of the combat is done with RNGs but the story is fairly consistent and you get sidequests by meeting specific requirements, to a game like Fallout 3 where you roll for speech checks and randomised events, then combat is all pressing buttons and hit detection.

 

[Rylot]

1. At least from what I understand it's a call back to pen and paper dice games ala D&D.

2. Video games are trying to appeal to a wider audience that probably didn't play those types of games and don't like the random aspects.

3. I kinda prefer the less random systems. It's nice to know that when I hit something with a sword it'll do x amount of damage.

 

[mrhateful]

The games you are describing have their roots directly tied to table top games which uses dice, as such there is a lot of randomness incorporated. Personally I think it adds excitement to a game when things aren't always 100% predictable.

 

[Doom972]

1. Why did so many old school RPGs incorporate randomness into most of it's mechanics such as combat, stat increases, dialog success chance, crit chance, ext?

Those games tried to recreate the feeling of the old Pen and Paper RPGs. Those RPGs were just as luck based. Note that in most such RPGs, as you progress in levels, your character's skill will become more and more reliable, and unlucky throws are less likely to happen due to bonuses.

2. Why do you feel most modern RPGs such as Mass Effect, TES V: Skyrim, and Dragon Age remove any real randomness (outside of loot drops)?

Mass Effect and Skyrim are more based on player skill than character skill. They are not pure RPGs, but action-RPGs. Dragon Age still has random dice throws, but to a lesser degree.

3. Do you feel that gaming today (in RPGs) has benefited from the removal of randomness in it's mechanics.

That depends on the game itself. Sometimes I like that feeling of not knowing what will happen next, and sometimes I like to feel like I'm becoming better at the game and not just my character.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

1. Why did so many old school RPGs incorporate randomness into most of it's mechanics such as combat, stat increases, dialog success chance, crit chance, ext?

Those games tried to recreate the feeling of the old Pen and Paper RPGs. Those RPGs were just as luck based. Note that in most such RPGs, as you progress in levels, your character's skill will become more and more reliable, and unlucky throws are less likely to happen due to bonuses.

2. Why do you feel most modern RPGs such as Mass Effect, TES V: Skyrim, and Dragon Age remove any real randomness (outside of loot drops)?

Mass Effect and Skyrim are more based on player skill than character skill. They are not pure RPGs, but action-RPGs. Dragon Age still has random dice throws, but to a lesser degree.

3. Do you feel that gaming today (in RPGs) has benefited from the removal of randomness in it's mechanics.

That depends on the game itself. Sometimes I like that feeling of not knowing what will happen next, and sometimes I like to feel like I'm becoming better at the game and not just my character.

I appreciate this response. I've always thought that traditional turned based RPGs were about strategy, but how can strategy be involved when we're dealing with dice, or the "luck of the draw" as it were?
I'm not sure I want to spend the time developing a character only to have him/her/it die b/c of luck. Yet, I understand the appeal somehow.

 

[doomed89]

The thing is in life there's randomness no matter how hard you train, no matter how hard you try, nothing is certain. Making everything certain in a game just makes it predictable and kills replay value I find, that said if you make things too reliant on luck skill and strategy become meaningless.

It's one of those scales you have to balance, like power versus efficiency or quality vs quantity. Also having something with no luck involved also takes the skill away because it's so predictable, and you could actually do perfect in a game just by following a guide, thinking and your feet and alternate strategies become useless it becomes a rinse and repeat cycle.

 

[Bostur]

Besides the link to pen and paper games, I think they tried to separate the player actions from the actions of the characters.

In old cRPGs the player acts as some kind of guardian angel, but doesn't directly control the characters. So the characters needs some kind of autonomy. They need to be able to succeed and fail on their own accord, and RNG is the simplest way to implement that.

I appreciate this response. I've always thought that traditional turned based RPGs were about strategy, but how can strategy be involved when we're dealing with dice, or the "luck of the draw" as it were?
I'm not sure I want to spend the time developing a character only to have him/her/it die b/c of luck. Yet, I understand the appeal somehow.

A lot of strategic games have random elements. The impact of the randomization can be tuned so that the outcome can mostly be guessed. Randomization can add some variation and the occasional need to change the plan due to unforeseen events. Playing the odds can still be considered strategic even though it's not perfectly deterministic.

In many cases bad dice rolls are not caused by bad luck, but by accepting unfavourable odds.


I sometimes feel that modern games, RPGs in particular have too little randomness. In old RPGs the characters are not me, in modern RPGs they are me. The separation of player and character is a feature most modern RPGs fail to consider.

 

[Doom972]

1. Why did so many old school RPGs incorporate randomness into most of it's mechanics such as combat, stat increases, dialog success chance, crit chance, ext?

Those games tried to recreate the feeling of the old Pen and Paper RPGs. Those RPGs were just as luck based. Note that in most such RPGs, as you progress in levels, your character's skill will become more and more reliable, and unlucky throws are less likely to happen due to bonuses.

2. Why do you feel most modern RPGs such as Mass Effect, TES V: Skyrim, and Dragon Age remove any real randomness (outside of loot drops)?

Mass Effect and Skyrim are more based on player skill than character skill. They are not pure RPGs, but action-RPGs. Dragon Age still has random dice throws, but to a lesser degree.

3. Do you feel that gaming today (in RPGs) has benefited from the removal of randomness in it's mechanics.

That depends on the game itself. Sometimes I like that feeling of not knowing what will happen next, and sometimes I like to feel like I'm becoming better at the game and not just my character.

I appreciate this response. I've always thought that traditional turned based RPGs were about strategy, but how can strategy be involved when we're dealing with dice, or the "luck of the draw" as it were?
I'm not sure I want to spend the time developing a character only to have him/her/it die b/c of luck. Yet, I understand the appeal somehow.

It gets more strategic as you level up and gain different abilities to use in battle. The bonuses you gain from leveling, up, items, and buff spells make your character more reliable, because bonueses are added to the dice rolls.

The traditional RPGs are about roleplaying - being a different person in an imaginary world, not strategy. Those who want strategy usually go for wargames like Warhammer 40K.

 

[madwarper]

1. Why did so many old school RPGs incorporate randomness into most of it's mechanics such as combat, stat increases, dialog success chance, crit chance, ext?

Because it's a holdover from pen and paper, D&D mechanics, where everything was handled via a roll of the die.

2. Why do you feel most modern RPGs such as Mass Effect, TES V: Skyrim, and Dragon Age remove any real randomness (outside of loot drops)?

Because people want games that are action based to be more actiony.

If you swing a sword at an enemy in range, it should connect.
If you line up an enemy in your sights, you should be able to shoot them.

If these games had more turn based gameplay, then including chances for missing would most likely to be tolerated.

3. Do you feel that gaming today (in RPGs) has benefited from the removal of randomness in it's mechanics.

I don't see how an Action RPG playing up its action bits is a bad thing.

I rage quit Morrowind after being killed my the first mudcrab I came across because I couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.
I played through all of Oblivion because I enjoyed being able to actually hit the enemies I was attacking.

 

[WoW Killer]

People are going to have different opinions on this. Personally I like a bit of randomness in content and rewards, like procedurally generated content and randomised loot systems. I dislike too much randomness in combat. Obviously when you've got a turn based or menu system like in older RPGs you've got to have some amount of RNG or every fight ends up the same (that's the reason there's less RNG in modern RPGs btw; you can be fully deterministic and still have variety if you've got a skill based combat system). When it goes too far is when you're often making all the right choices but losing out of RNG alone. In other words where under the exact same circumstances you'd do the same thing again and you can only hope you'd be a bit luckier. RNG should be about adding variety, putting you in situations where you need to use alternative strategies.

There's a particular sort of RNG I absolutely despise and that's where you've got a random factor in permanent and non-repeatable progression systems. For instance, when your stat gains on level up are randomised. I can think of plenty of JRPGs that do this. That's frankly an incorrect system. It takes away any kind of strategy and planning in building a character, and ruins that sense of completionism in trying to create a character as strong (or as weak) as can be. Say in some older DnD games your base stats are done by dice rolls, and you can literally spam that reroll button for hours till you've got a perfect character right at the start of the game. In more modern takes, you have a points system that lets you make the character how you want and also limits you to a set level of power. That's the superior system no matter what.

 

[TheHomelessHero]

I rage quit Morrowind after being killed my the first mudcrab I came across because I couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.
I played through all of Oblivion because I enjoyed being able to actually hit the enemies I was attacking.

This reminds me of a moment I had in Daggerfall, where I was extremely deep in a dungeon and my dagger broke (daggers being my only weapon proficiency) and I was forced to use a flail that my character barely knew how to use and the game became literally impossible from that point because I couldn't hit anything...

For instance, when your stat gains on level up are randomised. I can think of plenty of JRPGs that do this. That's frankly an incorrect system. It takes away any kind of strategy and planning in building a character, and ruins that sense of completionism in trying to create a character as strong (or as weak) as can be.

I completely agree with this, I don't really dislike randomized combat mechanics, as that still involves some strategy and adds to the addictive nature of improving your character, but seriously, randomized stats are the worst, they just force you to resort to save scumming...

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Fundamentally, it's because an RPG is a series of systems that define character competence. Since you are attempting to simulate actions with a chance for failure and since you cannot necessarily rely on a player's capacity to get better at a complex task (like, say, learning to properly parry a thrust and reposte in time) it is left to systems that simulate this difficulty and progression.

By and large, there is no real issue with randomization being present in games though I think I find that there are certain types of systems that are worse than others. D&D and it's derivative cRPGs operate on a principle of complete success or complete failure and only offers granularity in certain circumstances. An attack roll will succeed or fail completely and the effect of said roll is generally nothing more than a second roll. The problem with such a system is that while a master warrior may almost always connect with his basic steel long sword and do damage, the amount of damage he does is always random. One would expect his proficiency at connecting effective with the blade would increase along with his probability of simply making contact and yet this system of progression is largely the result of finding various magical implements that arbitrarily increase the effectiveness of any such swing.

Better systems, especially for video games, still rely on random elements but instead take into account the idea of marginal success or failure. A poor parry might not halt all damage of an attack but it may help mitigate just as an attack that pierces armor would, logically, be at least somewhat less effective than one that hit bare flesh. Many games have moved steadily in this direction. Oblivion, Skyrim and Fallout for example make it easier to connect with an attack as skills progress but, more importantly, make any attacks more effective as a character gains proficiency.

In general, the more a game relies on a player's personal capacity to execute an action, the less it should rely on elements of random chance to determine success or failure. Games where you have virtually no control over the execution of an action (an MMO, Baldur's Gate, etc) by contrast need random elements if they are going to represent a characters progession in ability.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well the old games were made as direct table top adoptions, and table top games used dice so shit didn't get boring.
This does also translate into the indirect combat games because there will be a time where you have nothing to do but watch your moves play out and during that time the random adds a certain moment of anticipation (without it you would simply be waiting for the HP to tick down as a sad clock).

However is does not work in direct combat games, there you do have plenty to do and the last thing you want to see is "MISS!" when you put all the effort into lining up that perfect strike.

 

[Zeke63]

chance is a good thing, it reflects reality better and makes games more exciting since numbers arent all determining

 

[Something Amyss]

I appreciate this response. I've always thought that traditional turned based RPGs were about strategy, but how can strategy be involved when we're dealing with dice, or the "luck of the draw" as it were?

Strategy is practiced in the real world where we rarely have assets such as a person's core attributes and exact skill levels written down. While you can take stock of all your assets, there's still a huge element of unpredictability behind strategy in the real world. Dice are used on tabletop games to reflect this and RNGs in computer games.

 

[EvilRoy]

I appreciate this response. I've always thought that traditional turned based RPGs were about strategy, but how can strategy be involved when we're dealing with dice, or the "luck of the draw" as it were?
I'm not sure I want to spend the time developing a character only to have him/her/it die b/c of luck. Yet, I understand the appeal somehow.

My understanding is that a lot of the original tabletop/early RPG games used randomness out of necessity more than anything else.

Setting up difficulty progression is balls hard, and requires that players move in a predictable manner. Since players are bastards and travel like a drunk on a boat, and DMs/early AI can only do so much on the fly, random elements are depended on to make up the difference. It also gave people something to blame, rather than the DM or the game designer, and it gave people reason to believe they could escape from or defeat an enemy far beyond their reasonable capacity, rather than just comparing a couple numbers and saying "nope, we're boned".

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, Fallout realized that with all that its buggy software and doom-and-gloomy plot it had to offer, it was probably better off being tongue-in-cheek and randomly weird instead of ultra-serious, and it worked so well.

 

[lacktheknack]

Risk management is a very fun way of playing if you're patient and take great delight in extreme failure. It's why XCOM: EU sold so well.

If you enjoy risk management like I do, then old-school RPGs are very satisfying to play.

Also, as everyone else has said, they're random because they're based off of tabletop RPGs, which eat, breathe and sleep randomness.

 

[zerragonoss]

There's a particular sort of RNG I absolutely despise and that's where you've got a random factor in permanent and non-repeatable progression systems.

I agree with everything you said with an exception on randomize stats on game that encourage you to go through characters with permanent death, i.e. xcom or a rouge like. which to be honest was somewhat that early dnd, the game most of them are harking back too, was going for judging form their game design at least.

Over all randomness done to a good degree tends to increase excitement, variety, and even the skill cap in a game. Now to clarify that point even though randomness decrees the total impact of skill it also is much harder to find the best course of action without perfect information or having everything in you control. It also has the side benifet of easily allowing for hidden complexity, a new player might see the randomness and think that the game is 70% luck 30% skill so they focus on the things they can control while having a more visceral less thought intensive experience which is good to get some one involved. They might than learn more about the game and think its closer to 50/50. Now they feel more in control, they feel like they are learning. Their looking at all the game mechanics trying to get an edge to make it to the "next level" but the game is still random enough that their ego can take the fact that they are losing often. finally they master the game and at the top it feels like roughly 70% of what happens is under their control so the majority of their losses are their fault making them stay on their toes looking for things they could have done differently, while the randomness keeps the game from getting to repetitive and predictable, otherwise know as boring.